# Question
Title: Emotionally getting over silly, stupid, mistakes
At one point, I reached a Rook and pawn endgame in the Chicago Open. Winning this game would have landed me in the money. I ended up with a rook and connected a- and b- pawns, while my opponent had a rook and a c-pawn. I was able to push my opponent's king back to the eighth rank, but due to time trouble I actually lost both pawns (*lol what*). Now my opponent had a c-pawn on the 3rd rank, so he needed five more pawn moves to promote.

I lost this endgame. But I'm reading the *Secrets of Rook Endings* by John Nunn where he discusses this ending in deliberate detail, so I could have definitely drawn. I haven't gone over a single game from the tournament, because the ones that I lost were all due to silly mistakes; all of my games were won (with opponents LITERALLY begging for draws) and somehow I lost over half of them - mainly due to time trouble, but they shouldn't have been lost regardless.

I can review that rook and pawn ending game if I wanted to and see which moves I made a mistake, but I'm simply too embarrassed. How can I get over losing won games?

# Answer
> 1 votes
It looks like you took a good gamble trying to win. And there's no shame in that. Your gamble did not work out.

Also, in this instance, the game might not have been as theoretically won as you thought it was, with all the pawns on the same side of the board, so don't beat yourself up over it too much.

I would just go through the game with the computer and see if there was any specific move that caused its evaluation to jump in your favor. See what you missed, and why. Probably one or two neat moves/combinations will jump out at you, and you will recognize and pounce on them in future similar situations. Computer analysis also gives you confidence that your opponents aren't perfect, either.

I know I was at my best when I focused on a mistake I made in a game and said, okay, I'm not going to make that mistake, or that sort of mistake, again. I'll know to check for that. For instance, I remember a particularly tough loss back in high school, to a future IM who was two years younger and 500 points higher than me. I won the exchange early, but he slowly snuck his way back into the game. It was tough to revisit the game, but when I did, I found a lot of clever tricks he used that I was able to pass on to future opponents. The big one I remember was: my rook was on e1, his pawn was on a2, his knight was on c3, and he played Nb1. Ouch.

In your case I would read about how to draw when a pawn down, maybe with R&P vs R, and once you've nailed that (along with the "Bridge" position to win R&P vs R), you'll have learned a lot. Maybe you'll even be able to hold your own position down a pawn, until an opponent loses a pawn and suddenly worries more about what they lost than focusing on the current position.

The bright side is that if you get a pawn down, your opponent may not be 100% sure of their winning position. They may be thinking "What if I blow this?" And that may allow you a way to get back in the game and get a half-point or even full point you don't really deserve. Gaining points you don't deserve, and losing points you do, tend to balance out in the long run.

So maybe you can't control heat-of-the-moment blunders beyond checking every move for crude attacks/undefended pieces, but you can control if you learn or nail down or internalize something that will be important later.

I would frame a bad move as "this loss motivated me to learn more about (endgame X). The loss hurt, but it will pay off in the long run." And if you are worried about blundering a winning position, have faith in yourself that you can and will study what went wrong.

# Answer
> 4 votes
No serious chess player has managed to avoid losing in a way similar to that which you described. Failing to play at ones usual ability is certainly disturbing when it happens, but it is part of being human; after all, humans can get tired, distracted, or fall into a panic due to time pressure, affecting their ability to play.

Always remember this while you play: since you're human, you can make silly mistakes! If, during a game, you realize that you've made a silly mistake, you need to get your emotions in check no matter what. Just admit to yourself "ok, I made a mistake" and afterwards go on and try to salvage your position with a cool demeanor. DON'T BEAT YOURSELF UP DURING A GAME FOR THE MISTAKES YOU'VE ALREADY MADE! Letting your emotions take over while you're still playing will just end in a disaster.

After the game however, feel free to be as disgusted with yourself as you please, but if you still have games to play, it's better to take a deep breath, tell yourself that you played bad but will bring down the hammer of judgement on yourself after you're finished playing, and go on to play your games as if nothing happened.

When you finally get some time to reflect over what happened in the game(s), you should once again try to be objective, and try to figure out the reasons why you made your mistake(s). Were you distracted? Were you careless, and if so why? Was it because you didn't know what to do in the position? What can you do to prevent the mistake(s) from happening in the future?

In the specific case you brought up, I think you may be able to prevent yourself from losing in a similar manner in the future. Let me ask you this: Would you have lost the position due to time pressure if you had K+Q vs. K instead of K+R+2p vs. K+R+p? Probably not! Why? Because I assume that you know how to win K+Q vs. K like the back of your hand! Here I boldly assume that you weren't down to 5 seconds without increments (severe time scrambles without increments isn't really chess, it's more of a lottery imo), but rather that you had the time on the clock to actually perform your moves without dropping the pieces. If you lose a theoretical ending it's almost always possible to practice it afterwards until you know it as well as K+Q vs. K. That way you can play such endings perfectly, even under rather severe time pressure.

To summarize: everybody makes stupid mistakes in chess, don't beat yourself up about it during actual games, and try to see whether there is an easy way for you to avoid making the same mistakes in the future by being objective in your criticism of yourself.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I do dispute your assertion that "Winning this game would have landed \[you\] in the money." \[maybe you did not realize the results are available on the web?\] You lost your last 3 games, ended up at 3 points (45th of 94), and the lowest paying score in your section was at 5 points, according to the results published (link below). Unless some creative math was involved, not sure how you figured that one out. 4 points would get nothing.

You have to come to grips with the reality that at the level you are at, you will make many, many mistakes. I make nearly as many, probably not just as crucial or game-changing, but they are there nonetheless.

You'd learn much by offering your games up for analysis to a titled player, and you probably study too much and play too little.

Chicago Open 2017 U1500 Section Results

# Answer
> 0 votes
Well, I'd say the obvious solution would be to try to avoid "silly, stupid mistakes". But that's easier said than done. Playing a lot should help with the visual aspects. After that would come understanding what you are doing. Looking for tactics comes to mind first, both yours and your opponent's. If none are available, then you try to improve your position first. If you're playing quick chess, then you may have to deal with time pressure too. That's obviously going to impact the other things I've mentioned. If you ultimately lose regardless of your best efforts, you just have to accept that and move on. Chess isn't a quick study. Capablanca said you have to lose 1000 games to improve. Maybe that's a generalization, but the point is that you're going to make mistakes no matter how good you are. If you lose this game, you'll win another. You can't let a single loss color your whole outlook toward the game. Just keep playing and learning, and things should naturally improve over time. I try to keep in mind that chess is just a game and isn't really that important in the great scheme of things. Just enjoy it and let what will be be.

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: Do I have to follow the openings moves when the response is different?
This question concerns the opening. For example, in the Danish gambit:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2

```

white reaches the desired position. But what happens if the opponent deviates from this move order? Would it still be the Danish gambit? Can I still follow the moves in the Danish gambit or do I have to use other moves? Does an opening variation involve any alternative moves?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Other answers have made good points about how to react when opponents make unexpected moves in the opening, but I wanted to specifically address one part of your question because it is a common issue, but has been internalized so much by experienced players that they forget that it isn't obvious.

**Chess openings are defined by *both* players' moves, not just your own.** The Danish Gambit, as you say, is defined by the moves 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3, *not* just by the moves 1.e4, 2.d4, and 3.c3. If Black plays 1...e6, for example, there is no way to reach the Danish Gambit.

To answer your specific questions:

> But what happens if the opponent deviates from this move order?

Then you have to find the best move to deal with the different position on the board.

> Would it still be the Danish gambit?

No.

> Can I still follow the moves in the Danish gambit or do I have to use other moves?

It's possible that any given chess move could be useful in another position (for example, 2.d4 is a fine move after 1.e4 e6 just as it is after 1.e4 e5), but you have to evaluate based on its merits in the actual position. Blindly following a sequence of your moves and ignoring what your opponent does is a recipe for disaster.

> Does an opening variation involve any alternative moves?

Sure. For example, the Danish Gambit is defined by 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3. Black might decline to take the pawn and play something like 3...d5; it is still called the Danish Gambit, but the gambit has been declined. Or after Black does take the pawn with 3...dxc3, White could take it with 4.Nxc3 or offer a second pawn with 4.Bc4; these are both different branches of the Danish Gambit.

# Answer
> 5 votes
You never "have" to follow an opening sequence, especially just for the sake of following an opening name. There's nothing special about the "Danish Gambit"; it's just a group of moves someone decided to give a name. Any sequence of moves can be given a name if people really wanted. If your opponent plays a different move order or unexpected move you should adjust your play accordingly. But of course there's always a chance you might transpose back into that "Danish Gambit" line depending on what moves are played.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The opening is the first 10-20 moves of a chess game. The move order is critical. In an opening system, you aim to reach a certain position after the opening phase is completed. This position can be reached using different move orders. You will have to adjust your individual moves in order to reach the desired position.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Following an opening doesn't mean just follow the lines but follow the concepts and strategies behind that and after each move track tactical possibilities. Opening lines are guidelines to find the best analyzed move but you should always know the opponent on the other side can play something else deliberately or not. After that in many cases you can take the chance to get some advantages (also it's really hard when the opponent is better than you).

For example in your selected line, after `1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3` if black doesn't take your pawn `3. ... dxc3` and plays `3. ... Nc6`

```
r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/3PP3/8/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4

```

You should obey the principles and occupy the center by `4. cxd4` and it's a good advantage. (However this gambit is not good because opponent can simply develop his pieces if he knows good responses)

# Answer
> 0 votes
A specific set of opening moves might be deemed to be the best at given time based upon previous play. But opening theory is always evolving, and better moves might be found. As long as you have a reason for your move, deviating from a prescribed set of opening moves might not be bad. In fact, it might even be better. Your opponent has to see what your purpose is. If he doesn't, than your deviation could even give you an advantage.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


title: How to beat 1.e4 g6/b6?

text:
# Question
Title: How to beat 1.e4 g6/b6?
I am having some trouble on defeating this opening. Any general tips you can offer me? I use the d4-Nf3-Nc3-Bd3-Be3 formation.

# Answer
I'm not a long time member here but I was pretty sure that question regarding this opening will show up. First of all, this kind of defense is really great against weaker players, let's say \<1800, who don't know how to place their pieces/how to maneuver properly. By doing this, black dodges theoretical conversation, which can be pretty desirable. Since you gave us only two moves of black `g6 and b6`, I can't provide you lines or variations, no point to consider all possible setups of black pieces. If you want - share a game with us, I'll be glad to point out not-the-best moves. For now I can only give you few tips:

* Avoid playing `Bd3 and Be3`. That's too squeezed. The light-squared bishop should be placed on `c4` in most cases. (I assume black plays `e6 and d6` not `d5`. (See, you should be more precise!:)).
* You can wait to develop the dark-squared bishop a bit. `g5` might be a nice spot occasionally.
* As "waiting moves" to use above, you can castle, or play `Qe2`.
* When your opponent plays `a6` consider responding with `a4` to avoid some `b7-b5-b4` followups.
* And the most important: do NOT hurry here. Don't go all in too early, in such set-ups black has an easy counter-attack in the center once you commit to go all in on a side. It's serious. I saw many people losing games due to immediate attacks like `Be3, Qd2, Bh6, h4` and stuff.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I agree with @PhilipRoe.

The Modern defense is a sound opening and OP's setup is sound against the defense. So if you keep losing, it's because the opponent is stronger, not because of the opening.

Also, Nimzowitch once said, if you fear one particular opening the other colour uses, you should play that opening yourself (when using that colour)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, modern-defense
---


# Question
Title: How many times should I let my opponent know they forgot to press their clock?
I've had this question on my mind for a while, and I searched around and found a previous question (Should you let your opponent know if they have forgotten to press their clock?) that touched on the subject. In that previous question, it was asked if one should remind one's opponent if they forget to press their clock. The general consensus in the answers seemed to be, yes, remind them - and I always have done so, myself. My question, though, is - at what point do you stop? I've played against a number of opponents who've had the habit of forgetting to press the clock after almost every move. After reminding them the third or fourth time, it starts to get annoying, and it distracts from my own concentration on the game if I have to continually watch to make sure my opponent deals with their clock as they're supposed to. At what point does one just give up, and sit there and let their clock run until they figure it out? At what point is it no longer poor sportsmanship to refrain from warning them? If I've already reminded someone four times in one game to press their clock, does it make me a bad sport if I just sit there without speaking (or gesturing towards the clock, which is what I normally do) and without making a move, and let their clock run out when they do it the fifth time?

And actually, now that I'm thinking about it - am I actually committing a rules infraction myself, by communicating with my opponent so frequently about their clock? I've always wondered about that, too.

# Answer
Its a matter of opinion, and much more likely to occur at the beginner or amateur levels of chess.

I believe it is best to show the high levels of sportsmanship and notify them immediately for the first couple of times they forget to press there clock. If they continue to forget to press the clock, start by waiting 1 minute, followed by 2 and 3 etc. … If it's becoming a serious problem and your position (clock and board) is sufficient, I would consider going for a walk to look at other games in attempt to drill the point home.

Drilling deeper into the matter, when players don't press their clock, they are costing yourself and themselves XX seconds from increments and can cause problems when playing games with multi time control periods.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If it's in a tournament, you're under no obligation to tell them. They'll learn quickly enough through hard experience. I would liken that to telling them to take back a bad move. In a casual game, good sportsmanship would favor continuing to make some indication that they hadn't punched their clock, but that would be up to you. And I believe you're right that you're not supposed to talk to your opponent in a tournament game anyway.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, etiquette, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Why did Capablanca win a majority of games playing as black?
The first-move advantage is said to make it slightly more likely for white to win. This is shown in many databases of chess games, such as chessgames.com which shows the following results:

> White wins 294,068 games (37.57%)
>
> Black wins 216,938 games (27.72%)
>
> 271,659 games are drawn (34.71%)

Despite this, Capablanca actually had a higher win rate when playing black compared to playing white. Of course there is always an exception to the rule, but what aspect of his play makes him different to all the other players of his time?

# Answer
> 13 votes
In Megabase 2016, Capablanca played 791 games as White and won 52.6% of them, and played 406 games as Black and won 48.5% of them, so he didn't win more as Black but it was surprisingly close.

The discrepancy between number of White games and Black games was surprising, so I broke out his simultaneous displays (in which he would generally be playing White). In his simuls, he played 304 games as White and won only 40.8% of them, and played 26 games as Black and won 34.6% of them.

When we subtract out the simul games, he won 292/487 = 60.0% of his games as White, and 188/380 = 49.4% of his games as Black.

In conclusion, I suspect that the unique aspect of his play was that he didn't try that hard in simuls.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Capablanca was a master of strategy and positional playing and was able to play some of the greatest defenses of all times. Those are all aspects that are fundamentals in playing as black. Also Magnus Carlsen excels in those aspects and plays very good games with the black pieces. Yet, the win % of both is higher with White.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Surely Capablanca played much more than a few hundred games, so obviously the observation bias makes it undesirable to base this answer on the numbers.

Therefore I provide a general answer to why strong people may score better with black than with white:

> If you play a significantly weaker opponent, it is common courtesy to let them play with white. At least in the first game.

As a result ones scores with black can be 'boosted' compared those with white if one plays against weaker opponents in casual settings frequently.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Check out the simul games and results of a top player from today: Topalov. The last I saw his play in simuls was horrendous. I think there are just some players who use time differently and faster time controls hurt them. Nigel Short is another stark example.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Capablanca was the best defensive player of his time (if not of all time). He excelled at games where he beat back an (overextended) opposing attack, and went on to win. He was a good attacking player, but no better than many of his peers, and inferior to Alekhine at playing White. It was at "defense" where he excelled, and that's why he won a greater percentage of such games than other masters.

Most of the above types of games were played as Black. There was one famous exception where he was playing Ruy Lopez against Marshall who unveiled his signature Marshall Attack. Capablanca defeated a "prepared variation," one of the greatest bugaboos of chess masters, by playing "defense." This is a testimony to his defensive ability, which is more often demonstrated playing Black.

---
Tags: capablanca
---


# Question
Title: From which top class game is the endgame motive?
I think this happened in Kasparov game but I am not sure about that. It was minor piece endgame with quite blocked queenside. Black took pawn on the kingside (h4 maybe) and white, instead of 'obvious' pawn recapture, moved his knight, temporarily sacrificing pawn, but kept the position open. I guess it was N vs. B endgame.

# Answer
You are probably thinking of the game Karpov - Kasparov form round 9 in their first World Championship Match in 1984-85. This match was later called off after 48 games before a winner was declared.

The situation you describe appeared after black's 46th move in this game.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "World Championship Match"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1984.10.05"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Anatoly Karpov"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Startply "92"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O
O-O 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Qb3 Na5
13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Nf5 Rc8 15.Bd4 Bc5 16.Bxc5 Rxc5 17.Ne3 Be6
18.Rad1 Qc8 19.Qa4 Rd8 20.Rd3 a6 21.Rfd1 Nc4 22.Nxc4 Rxc4
23.Qa5 Rc5 24.Qb6 Rd7 25.Rd4 Qc7 26.Qxc7 Rdxc7 27.h3 h5 28.a3
g6 29.e3 Kg7 30.Kh2 Rc4 31.Bf3 b5 32.Kg2 R7c5 33.Rxc4 Rxc4
34.Rd4 Kf8 35.Be2 Rxd4 36.exd4 Ke7 37.Na2 Bc8 38.Nb4 Kd6 39.f3
Ng8 40.h4 Nh6 41.Kf2 Nf5 42.Nc2 f6 43.Bd3 g5 44.Bxf5 Bxf5
45.Ne3 Bb1 46.b4 gxh4 47.Ng2 hxg3 48.Kxg3 Ke6 49.Nf4+ Kf5
50.Nxh5 Ke6 51.Nf4+ Kd6 52.Kg4 Bc2 53.Kh5 Bd1 54.Kg6 Ke7
55.Nxd5+ Ke6 56.Nc7+ Kd7 57.Nxa6 Bxf3 58.Kxf6 Kd6 59.Kf5 Kd5
60.Kf4 Bh1 61.Ke3 Kc4 62.Nc5 Bc6 63.Nd3 Bg2 64.Ne5+ Kc3 65.Ng6
Kc4 66.Ne7 Bb7 67.Nf5 Bg2 68.Nd6+ Kb3 69.Nxb5 Ka4 70.Nd6 1-0

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: endgame, master-games, kasparov
---


title: dark-squared Bishop in KID

text:
# Question
Title: dark-squared Bishop in KID
In the typical KID black tries to play for a mating attack. Consequently, the dark squared bishop usually ended up sleeping on g7 or sometimes reroute itself to defended the d6 pawn which is critical in KID. (correct me if my understanding is wrong)

So my question is the following. 1. Should we trade our dark squared bishop for any of white's pieces, because it doesn't participate much in terms of checkmating White's king.

# Answer
My understanding is that the dark squared bishop on g7 in this opening is a strong defensive piece and should be preserved there if possible. White I know will typically try to trade off this bishop to enhance his own kingside attacking chances, by playing his dark squared bishop to e3 and supporting it with his queen on d2 so he can penetrate with this bishop to h6 to trade off black's g7 bishop. Doing so will then weaken the dark squares around the black king, giving white better attacking chances there.
> 2 votes

# Answer
From a purely positional point of view, the Bg7 should only be exchanged for White's dark-squared Bishop, or in a case of emergency for another attacking piece, if absolutely necessary, or if the gain of material presents itself. Bg7 protects your king position and the weakened squares on f6/h6 (due to g6), and e5 central square, and by extension, d4.

I don't play the KID, but those are my 'feelings' about that particular piece in that particular setup.

Good luck.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There is not a single opening called the Kings Indian Defence defined by Nf6,g6,Bg7. There are some very different developments, and if you play KID you must be comfortable with all of them.

A. Black plays ..e5 and ..exd if permitted. The Bg7 is then a key player in a Q-side attack, probably involving an open b-file. See some famous Bronstein games.

B. Black plays ..c5 instead of ..e5 (eg against the Four Pawns Attack) Again the KB controls the dark squares and should be preserved. Sometimes not even given up for a Rook.

C. Black plays ..e5 and White closes the center with d5. This is the case where Blacks ambitions are on the K-side. The KB has already played a role by encouraging White to close the center. It may become a liabiity in the endgame, and is often exchanged for Whites QB to allow the Black Knights and major pieces to penetrate the weak dark squares. If White avoids this, the KB may become a strong attacker itself via h6 and f4 or e3. If those squares are blocked, then f6, h4, g3.

Correct handing of the KI Bishop is crucial but seldom simple.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, bishops, kings-indian, bad-bishop, kingside
---


# Question
Title: How to win against queen with queen+rook, avoiding the draw with multiple checks
I recently played the game where I was playing black and during end game I had queen and rook remaining and white had queen and two pawns.

I thought since I had more material, it would be easy for me to win the game but white kept checking me with his queen which left me with no option to sacrifice the rook to avoid draw. But this action got me in a position of losing but fortunately I managed to escape with a draw.

https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=2183712648.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.07.02"]
[White "rasimibrahimoqlu"]
[Black "111YearsOld"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B40"]
[WhiteElo "1229"]
[BlackElo "1101"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[EndTime "4:11:48 PDT"]
[Termination "Game drawn by stalemate"]
[CurrentPosition "7k/7P/5PK1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 71"]

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d4 Qc7 4.Bd3 h6 5.O-O a6 6.Re1 d6 7.d5 Bd7 8.dxe6 Bxe6 9.e5 b5 10.c4 b4 11.Bf4 d5 12.cxd5 Bxd5 13.Nbd2 Nc6 14.Ne4 O-O-O 15.Qc1 f6 16.Bxa6+ Kb8 17.Nxc5 Bxc5 18.Qxc5 fxe5 19.Qb5+ Ka7 20.Rac1 exf4 21.Nd4 Nge7 22.Rxe7 Qxe7 23.Nxc6+ Bxc6 24.Qxc6 Rd7 25.h3 Rhd8 26.Qa4 Rc7 27.Be2+ Kb8 28.Bf3 Rxc1+ 29.Kh2 Qa7 30.Qxb4+ Kc8 31.Bg4+ Rd7 32.Qxf4 Rc7 33.Qf8+ Kb7 34.Qb4+ Qb6 35.Qe4+ Ka7 36.Qa4+ Kb8 37.Bxd7 Qd6+ 38.g3 Qxd7 39.Qb4+ Kc8 40.a4 Rb7 41.Qf8+ Kc7 42.b4 Qxa4 43.Qxg7+ Kb6 44.Qxh6+ Ka7 45.Qe3+ Rb6 46.h4 Qxb4 47.g4 Qxg4 48.Qe7+ Ka8 49.Qd8+ Rb8 50.Qa5+ Kb7 51.Qb5+ Kc8 52.Qc6+ Kd8 53.Qd6+ Kc8 54.Qc6+ Kd8 55.Qd6+ Qd7 56.Qxb8+ Ke7 57.Qe5+ Qe6 58.Qg5+ Kd7 59.Qg7+ Kd6 60.Qg3+ Kd7 61.f4 Qe2+ 62.Kh3 Qe6+ 63.Qg4 Qxg4+ 64.Kxg4 Ke6 65.Kg5 Kf7 66.h5 Kg7 67.f5 Kh7 68.h6 Kh8 69.Kg6 Kg8 70.f6 Kh8 71.h7  1/2-1/2

```

How could I have won this endgame?

# Answer
> 1 votes
In general, if you are materially superior, you should try to trade down into a winning ending. Your extra rook in this situation against your opponent's queen and two unconnected pawns should normally have been enough for you to win. Unfortunately, in your game the queen was too far away to help support your rook, and you had to permit a draw on moves 52 through 55 by triple repetition. Giving up your rook instead at that point should have ultimately led to a lost king and pawn ending for you after you allowed the queen trade. You were fortunate to get the draw then. Your taking the "g" pawn on move 47 led to that particular situation.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You were actually winning until `49. Rb8` (then it's just a perpetual check). The easiest way out of the checks was running down the a-file with your king (at least to a5 or a4), because you **must** use your queen for defense, one rook isn't enough.

---

Another piece of advice is not to exchange queens when being 2 pawns down (I saw that you even offered it few moves before it actually happened). You have 100x bigger chance to draw the game in queen's ending than in a pawn's ending.

---
Tags: endgame
---


# Question
Title: Which tie break system would be used in Tata Steel 2015?
Which tie break system would be used in Tata Steel 2015?

I didn't find it on the tournament website. I don't know how to get it.

# Answer
Not sure if this question is still relevant … :)

I have looked up this information on chess24.com's broadcast page for that event. They are usually in direct contact to the organizers and their *Information* tab is relatively reliable.

According to that page the tiebreak rules were as follows:

1. Points scored
2. Direct encounter
3. Sonneborn-Berger
4. Most games played with Black
5. Rating

Keep in mind this is from a secondary source. If you want to be sure, ask the organizers.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: Why is there a women's championship

text:
# Question
Title: Why is there a women's championship
Recently the U.S. mens' and womens' chess championships were concluded. Is there any legitimate reason why in this enlightened age women still have to have their own championship? Women are obviously as intelligent, not to mention as competitive, as men. If it were a physical activity where strength were involved, it might begin to make sense, but since chess is a mental activity, what's the point of having separate venues for men and women? Judit Polgar, who to her credit would not participate in womens' tournaments, has proven the folly of this apparently sexist practice. Why aren't the powers that be paying attention?

# Answer
As like there is 'Under 18', 'Zone', 'District', 'State', 'Country', 'Continent' people can be partitioned into different categories.

If there is no category, there will be same winners and any game will be boring to watch/play.

It is not superiority of any gender or category for the game of chess.

As bof said in comment it can be an effort to increase women's participation in organised chess.

And in general it is just a category(named female in gender) of players allowed to play for the championship.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: Tips to enjoy a tournament

text:
# Question
Title: Tips to enjoy a tournament
During a long chess game, it's difficult to maintain an emotional balance. In some positions we feel comfortable, and in other uncomfortable.

But, do you have some tips to stay emotionally balanced? And more important, any tip to enjoy the game and maintain the competitivity ?

# Answer
There are quite a few things to do to improve your results as well as enjoy the tournament.

On the physical side stay well rested and well hydrated during your game. Eat plenty but keep it healthy. When it's not your move walk around and look at other boards, resting your tired eyes and getting the blood circulating. Do a light exercise in the morning before your games even start. Lastly if you didn't sleep well maybe have some caffeine ready to go.

As for mentality, don't worry about anything except having interesting, exciting games you can show your chess friends when you get back from the tournament. Win or loss, make sure you play what you think are the best moves, even if they get very complex. Don't look at your opponents rating just briefly glance enough to see your board color and the table you're playing at. Knowing their rating and letting it distract you won't let you make better chess moves over the board. Keep your entire focus on the game you are playing. Once you finish a game, win or loss, don't think about it too much and relax. You just played a physically exhausting game, recupe the best you can and focus on getting your energy back. As long as you tried your best that's all that matters. Results are just check marks for one side or another, what really matters is being brave and showing determination to play the best move you can see, and improving your understanding using those games once the tournament ends.

At least I try to do all these things when I play tournament chess, I've even come first in my section a number of times.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I find that first of all it pays to be well rested before I play. Opening preparation for various contingencies helps inspire confidence. Some anxiety before the game is natural, but once I start to play, that seems to dissipate. I try to play quickly but soundly, not falling behind on the clock. A sense of panic is less likely to occur if you don't feel pressed for time. I initially look for obvious things, like unprotected pieces, then simple tactics, for both players. If the position is very complex, I try to make sound decisions and not see imaginary threats. If I can't see a combination, I don't try to defend against it. If there's something there that I can't see, so be it. I'll learn thereby and hopefully be better prepared for a future game. I keep in mind that some losses are inevitable and are not the end of the world. If I find that I have to stand up occasionally during a game to stay alert, I do that. I try to keep in perspective that it's a game and not of overwhelming significance in the great scheme of things. If you play regularly and try to apply the general principles throughout the game, progress is inevitable over time. Chess is to be enjoyed, so I try not to let anything detract from that attitude.
> 1 votes

# Answer
My tips to enjoy long game tournament matches:

I faced this situation many times.

I play short timed games(5-20 mins) more than long games. But in some tournaments we have to play long games. In that situation I will use opponent's time(not more than 5 mins) to think well that what will be his/her move and decide what will be the best respond move for me. It will work 80% for me. In that case I will walk around and sing some melody song(note: which only I can hear), drink little water and just see other board people face expressions(not the board to confuse with mine).

Then after some time I will resume back to my board and get back to normal.

Hence I won't have pressure more than 5 minutes and I will get my mind relaxed often.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There can be many ways where you can enjoy a tournament depending upon the number of participants, the weather, which influences a lot especially in India, how many of your friends are playing, the number of rounds, the location and many others. These are technically not the original parameters, but definitely to some extent factors .

The natural way to enjoy a tournament is to enjoy playing chess and observing the chess games of others. You need to love the game more and more, and watching a game between two players should be a treat. If you have friends talking about chess history, different openings, who is the best chess player, strengths and weaknesses, and exchanging of ideas can make you lively and should never tire you.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tournament, psychology
---


# Question
Title: How can I play sharp in positional openings (English, Closed Sicilian, Giuoco Pianissimo)?
> Learning to trust your intuition is an important part of developing as a strong player. If you sacrifice and you are wrong, you will probably lose. On the other hand, **if you do not sacrifice and you are wrong, you might be able to draw.** \- *Mike Henebry*

I have realized that I am a sharp player. I benefit quickly from lines where a mistake by either side can quickly end the game.

What are some lines which...

1. give sharp middle games?
2. are easy to transition to?
3. **lead to open lines**?

Lines like the Sveshnikov Sicilian that favor creative over principled play. Rules to be broken.

# Answer
> 4 votes
First of all, you must build an opening repertoire. One as White, one against e4, and one against d4. As a sharp player, I suggest you **always** play 1.e4 as White, the Sicilian Defence against 1.e4, and the King's Indian against 1.d4.

When you are white, I'm sure you won't get to play the English (since **you** are the one to choose not to play it!). If he responds with Sicilian, make it open. If he responds with French or Caro and you really want to open lines, exchange pawns. If he responds with 1...e5, I suggest you to go to the Italian. Avoid Giuoco Pianissimo with the Evans Gambit or even the Italian Gambit! If he responds with anything else, build up a big pawn center and crush him.

Now, when you are playing the Sicilian, I know that some of your opponents does not play d4 and give you the position you want (this is my own experience). Therefore, I have prepared a setup if he does not open the position. That is, Nf6, Bg7, e6, d6, g6, Nbd7, a6, b5, Bb7, Qb6/Qc7, Rc8/Rd8, c5-c4, Nc5, and so on. Break with d6-d5 if possible.

For the King's Indian, if you haven't tried it, I'm sure you'll love it. It's closed, but extremely aggresive, since it's a race between Q-side and K-side.

To sum up, never rely on your calculation skills alone. You **must** have a plan for every opening you play, and never hope for your opponent's mistake.

> *A bad plan is better than no plan at all* \- Emmanuel Lasker, 2nd World Chess Champion.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You may *think* you are a sharp player and like going for tactics, but you really have to do a self-examination of your tournament games to identify your weaknesses and shore those up first and foremost, before you start assigning labels to yourself. And, I would say at your level, understanding and being able to identify tactics is the best bang for your buck for study time. Trusting your intuition is a learned behavior in chess - you develop it by playing, seeing many of positions under fire. Losing to simple tactics should get old quickly and repetition (i.e., work) will solve those holes in your game eventually.

Personally, I like the Kalashnikov Sicilian vs e4 if given the chance. It generally catches players out because they try to play it like the Sveshnikov and in general, is the wrong way to play against it. But at times I've gone from the Dragon, The Paulsen, the Sveningen, and a few other variations. I don't consider myself stylistically as a "sharp" player. I just try to play good moves in openings that I have some strategic understanding. If my opponent knows it better than me, I learn something. Against d4, I opt for the Dutch Defense which can give white players headaches and can get dirty looks.

---
Tags: opening, attack
---


title: Is the 6.h4 Najdorf that bad?

text:
# Question
Title: Is the 6.h4 Najdorf that bad?
I see that a few strong GMs are playing 6.h4 vs the Najdorf Sicilian. And I have also seen this move given a dubious (?!) value. Apart from its surprise value (always important in chess), I see it as a rather logical move if you want to play aggressively vs the Najdorf. What is, in your opinion, the main idea behind this variation?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I play the Najdorf with Black and would say that on move six White has tried almost everything: almost every legal move is a move and so are attempts like 6.h4, 6.a4 or the like.

That said, there are nevertheless basic principles and ideas that make some lines more sound (and played) than others. Historically the sharpest try to refute the Najdorf has been 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4, described in hundreds of chess monographs: however, the so-called Poisoned Pawn variation with 7...Qb6 8.Qd2 followed by either 8...Qxb2 or 8...Nc6 has somehow refuted the 6.Bg5 line as it has been worked out to a draw with correct play where White cannot really force the win.

Nowadays the current trends and sharpest tests go in the direction of the English attack (6.Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8.f3) or fianchetto lines (6.g3 or 6.h3, the Adam's attack) followed by a quick g4. Here the underlying idea is, no matter what line you choose, to long castle and play g4-g5 supported by the f or h pawns (in f3 or h3); meanwhile, Black is reacting with b5-b4-Rc8 almost all the times. This means that in order to play g4 White must support its pawn with either f3 or h3 (that are currently played as main lines, almost) to avoid any chance of tactics against the g4 pawn: in this respect h4 does not defend the g-pawn, nor does it attack any of Black's pieces, nor does it develop any (like 6.Be3 or 6.Be2 would, for instance). Nevertheless it is at the moment being tried at the GM level, the basic idea still being a pawn storm against the King side, but it is not yet a main line due to the fact that it does not pose any direct threat and gives Black the initiative with b5-b4 without the possibility of a quick g4-g5 (because White has wasted one move with 6.h4).

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: What's the point of early a2-a4 in the Modern Italian?
It seems that just every top GM is now playing the modern interpretation of the Italian Game (with c3 and d3) with an early a2 to a4 Pawn move, something that only a few years back was considered a waste of time in the best of cases. The first "important" game with this idea is, if I am not wrong, the Carlsen - Karjakin game from 2016 World Championship. So what is the point of this early Pawn a2 to a4 move? Just gaining space on the queenside?

# Answer
White obviously doesn't want to give light square bishop for knight. He can waste two moves with Bb3-c2, which is the old main line. Or he can just create escape on a2, after which Na5 doesn't make much sense. It gains space while it doesn't have to be so bad to exchange the bishop after Be6, if it didn't make additional moves.
> 5 votes

# Answer
a2-a4 does quite a few things.

1. First it makes a Square for the Bishop on a2.
2. Restricts b5 from Black on most occasions.
3. a3 move is quite a timid one which loses a tempo even if White decides to play a4 later on.
4. Sometimes the Black's Bishop is on b6 where a4 move attacks it.
5. a2-a4 marks the beginning of Q-side play from White.
6. If you see games of Carlsen and Kasparov they have done Rook uplift to bring the Rook to the K-side.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Besides giving the LSB an escape square on a2, this move is preferred than a2-a3 due to the fact that it discourages the push b7-b5, which is either to sacrifice the pawn and get an open file, or to have some queenside counterplay (usually, the kingside favors White in this opening since he has an extra move).
In addition, a2-a3 is usually played to discourage a Knight or Bishop from using the b4 square, something that is better done via c2-c3 (since it also prepares a central breakthrough).

If you want to keep the bishop on the strong diagonal while slowing down Black's queenside expansion, a2-a4 is definitely a strong choice. However, a2-a3 is probably better if you have a knight on c3 (instead of a pawn) since it keeps off Black from using the strong b4 square.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawns, italian-game
---


# Question
Title: A word for the resulting piece of a promotion?
I'm looking for a word that represents the piece after the promotion. In a chemical reaction there are the reactants and the products. Is there an equivalent word for product in promotion?
(In case I haven't make it clear: after a8=Q, is there a word for that queen?)

**Edit**: I was looking for a generic term (preferably one word) for the resulting *piece*, not a specific type like queen or knight.

**Summarizing some suggestions**
The following suggestions are from comments and answers (thank you all) at the time I'm editing this: "promoted piece", "promotee", and "new piece".

# Answer
> 3 votes
It is not clear what you are after, if you are looking for a generic term describing a piece that was added in the game during the play then you seem to be after something that is not embedded in the game. There is no such word and there cannot be any because if there was such a word it would suggest that the new piece is somehow different from an equivalent piece that was there at the beginning of the game. But that is not the case the piece into which the pawn is promoted is absolutely equivalent to another piece of the same name and colour.

Occasionally it may be useful to refer to a piece that has just been added (but this you seem not to want to do). There are several reasonable suggestions in the comments I will just add that the Laws of chess use "the new piece" for this purpose (as in "... and the effect of the new piece is immediate" or "...when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion...", articles 3.7.5.3 and 4.7.3, respectively).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Since I don't reckon any terms describing such things, why don't we create them?

> New born Queen = Princess
> A young Horse/Knight = Foal
> A junior Bishop = Suffragan
> A smaller Rook = Crow

I know I will face a lot of disagreement, and I'm not sure if people will ever use these stupid terms.

---
Tags: pawn-promotion
---


title: What does the †† notation mean?

text:
# Question
Title: What does the †† notation mean?
I am reading a book on chess openings called *51 Chess Openings for Beginners by Bruce Albertson* and the author uses notation like so:

> 6. ...†† Kxf7

What does the `††` mean? I know a single  means *check* however the author doesn't (to my knowledge) explain what the `††` is meant to signify.

**EDIT**: here's a screenshot to provide some context of its usage

# Answer
> 2 votes
If † means check, then †† means a double check. A double check is when two pieces give check at the same time. For example:

```
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[FEN "7k/8/5Rpn/8/3Q4/8/8/7K w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[CurrentPosition "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 1 2"]

1.Rf8++

```

If this does not apply to the position in question, then you should know that †† is sometimes generically used to indicate a footnote.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Well, after your update I come to the conclusion that these signs are used by the author to mark the omission of the notation of the respective move by White.

This is not a common usage of them, and I have never seen it before. It *should* be documented somewhere at the beginning or end of the book. But I'd not be surprised if it's not, since it doesn't reflect a healthy common sense to use the check symbol of all things for this purpose to begin with..

# Answer
> 0 votes
Single plus sign means a check. Here the king can move, or a piece can interpose (place itself in between the checking piece and the king) to prevent the check, or the checking piece can be captured.

Double plus means a double check. Here the king has to move only.

---
Tags: notation
---


title: clock simultaneous exhibition

text:
# Question
Title: clock simultaneous exhibition
In a clock simultaneous exhibition, would the exhibitor normally be given extra time to compensate for his/her walking time from board to board? The question was prompted by a scene in a movie (the "Lewis" mystery series) where the exhibitor would come to each board with the opponent's move already having been made and the exhibitor's clock running, make her move and then hit the clock and move on. Although I realize there's a skill discrepancy, it would still seem to be a distinct disadvantage to the exhibitor otherwise, particularly in a large exhibition. I have never seen or participated in a clock "simul" myself, which must be relatively rare.

# Answer
The exhibitor usually gets more time. Not really to compensate for the time walking from board to board takes, but because he potentially has all of the clocks running at the same time!

The most famous clock simultaneous exhibitions were the ones in which Kasparov took on national teams, including those of the Czech Republic and Israel. According to this old Chessbase article, Kasparov had three hours for 50 moves and the Czech GMs two and a half hours per 50 moves, with half an hour added after 50 moves (he won this 5.5-2.5 over two days).

Usually the difference is larger, but I can't find a source.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: chess-clocks, simultaneous
---


title: Why does the GCT 2017 use delay?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does the GCT 2017 use delay?
The Grand Chess Tour 2017 events use delay, not increment, according to event regulations.

Have the organizers made an official statement as to why, or is there a consensus on what the unofficial reason is?

# Answer
> 1 votes
As literally everyone hated this pseudo-novelty, Grand Chess Tour reacted on some guy's tweet 'I see! I imagine the results are more decisive with the delay?'. GCT answered that 'Yes and increment is confusing for spectators who aren't familiar with chess clocks', which is ridiculously wrong. I had a much harder time explaining this strange delay rule to my non-chess-players colleagues than to explain them the simple increment one. I am not even sure I understand it properly myself, and I guess I am not the only one.

Another suggestion was that replacing increment with delay would limit the amount of time a game can last. But you could simply switch to 3min+2s if that is the real goal. I think the real goal behind that was to try to get the tournament to a format acceptable for TV broadcast, which is obviously what all tournament sponsors are dreaming of (money money).

But the most likely reason was to catch the players in situation they aren't familiar with and create time trouble, to make the games and results more spectacular and decisive. Again, that serves the goal of making the sport more exciting to the global audience to hope for TV broadcast.

See this article from chess24 where they discuss on this (point number 4)

---
Tags: time-control
---


# Question
Title: What is the best Black reply to 1. d4 in regards to getting an open game?
What is a good reply to 1.d4 that will give me an open game?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**1...d5**. Tarrasch defense and, in general, **c5** ideas practically always give an open game. As long as you can get in the move **c5** with Black, you have excellent practical chances of achieving an open game.

Some sample variations -

```
  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 (2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 (3. Bf4 e6 4. Nf3 c5) 3... c5)
 (2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 (3. e3 c5) 3... c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. O-O Nf6 6. c4 dxc4
  7. Qa4 Bd7 8. Qxc4 b5 9. Qd3 Rc8) 2... e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5
 (4. Nf3 Nf6 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 a6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. b4 Bd6) 4... exd5
  5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is a recent book on 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 by Alexei Bezgodov. The idea is to liquidate the center pawns and get an open game. Inspired by the book I play it a lot as Black in my online blitz games with good results. Check out https://www.newinchess.com/the-double-queen-s-gambit

# Answer
> 0 votes
I personally like 1. d4 Nf6 because there are much more openings and traps white can use on black if he does 1. d4 d5.(for example Queen's Gambit) Plus, you can use the Budapest Gambit (which I really like) if the opening is 1. d4 Nf6

---
Tags: opening, theory, 1.d4
---


title: Where can I start to learn?

text:
# Question
Title: Where can I start to learn?
I have been pretty interested in chess for about 8 months now. I know the rules and basic moves.

I'm looking right now for a place where I can start learning chess strategies, tactics etc. When doing a web search, I only get an unordered list of articles, books or videos out of order, which don't really help me to get an organized start.

What learning resources would you recommend?

# Answer
I believe it helps to focus more on enjoying the game rather than learning. If you enjoy the game, you learn a lot in the process.

So, my advice would be to enjoy your chess. Find players that are roughly your skill level and play many games. Once you've played a few dozen games, you will gain some experience and then you will be ready to start learning chess in a formal way - reading books, articles, listening to video lectures, etc.

As of today, I am about as strong as a Candidate Master. I will tell you how I learned the game. At first, as a kid, me and my dad would just play for fun. My dad would often let me win and I would enjoy it. Then, when I was about 9 or 10, my dad took me to a few tournaments (no age group) and I was surprised that I could beat a few players who were older than me. Up until this point, I had no formal training (my dad was just an amateur player), but then one of the arbiters of the tournament offered to help me learn and then I would go to his place quite often and play a few games with him. After each game, he would show me the mistakes I made and what I needed to learn from that game. He told me about general opening principles, but his main focus was the endgame. He told me that it's very important to know the endgame. After that, I also learned a few openings, mostly by going over the games of stronger players and observing the types of moves they made. I didn't simply copy their openings, but I tried to play like them and incorporate their ideas into my game, as I understood them.

Then, I continued playing in tournaments and gradually my playing strength improved because my tactics improved, my endgame knowledge improved, my knowledge of chess strategy improved and so on. I also began to analyze my own games with the help of a computer. Before I had a computer, I would analyze them by myself (believe me, this helps you become a better player even if your analysis is actually wrong!). Overall, I enjoyed the game and in the process I learned quite a bit and now I'm aspiring to be a FIDE Master in the near future.

Here are a few books I recommend that you get hold of (this is after you have first played a lot of games and gained some experience)-

Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn

Winning Chess Openings by Bill Robertie

The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev

Good luck to you!
> 6 votes

# Answer
I recommend you learn a system and go with it. Play the same opening with white and black, with time you will learn how to avoid common pitfalls, effectively defend yourself, where its safe to put your pieces, where to attack, test your system against a strong engine, and improve your strategy.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I joined lichess, onlinechess/strategy. You can play on your browser or download the app on android. There are puzzles and different types of game play, with other players or AI. Rules, strategy, practice, watch others play. It's pretty cool, might be worth your time to check it out.
> 1 votes

# Answer
At the beginning, you should play more. Reading stuff cannot teach you as much as actually playing more games. After playing a game you have to go through it to find out what mistakes have been made. You need to purchase at least one chess book which covers all the major openings.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, books
---


# Question
Title: How do I respond to 8. g3?! in the 4. e3 Slav?
This is taken from a rapid game where my opponent threw me by playing 8. g3, coming out of book in the 4. e3 Slav:

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "17"]

  1. Nf3            Nf6
  2. c4             c6
  3. d4             d5
  4. e3             Bf5
  5. Nc3            e6
  6. Nh4            Bg6
  7. Nxg6           hxg6
  8. g3

```

I didn't keep a gamescore (it was at work during a lunch break), but I remember at this point I could think of no constructive plan at all (I played 8...Bb4 and ended up playing 2 knights vs. 2 bishops with a cramped game).

My question is, **what should black have played on move 8 and why?**

# Answer
I see no reason to ?! mark. 8. g3 is good book move and standard way to limit opponent's play with open h-file. The most flexible move by far is 8...Nbd7 after it. After 9.Bg2 dxc4 should be good. But again, 4...Bf5 is no refutation of slow Slav and 5...Bg6 is in my opinion less challenging than 5...Be4, while there's nothing wrong with 8.g3. Don't expect you have guaranteed equality in this line. Once I played the NN vs. BB game in similar line and it is suffer, even if computer says it is OK. I was always somewhat worried about 4...Bf5 as white, but as black, I played 4...Bg4 every single time :-)
> 13 votes

# Answer
There is nothing to worry about when an opponent makes a surprise move in the opening and you are unaware of it.

g3 is not a move that you would be blown away by it. Just follow basics to develop your pieces. Black has the open h-file. Nbd7 and then a centre break of e5 should follow next course. The bishop on f8 comes to b4 or d6 and knight comes to e4. I think black has a better piece activity and should have gone on to winning the game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, planning, slav-defense
---


# Question
Title: Do chess coaches ever get disappointed with their students?
I'm wondering if a student can disappoint their chess coach if they lose to many games for a long duration of time or any other reasons. What have been your experience as a student or teacher?

# Answer
I, as a teacher of elementary age students, don't get disappointed in the students' results. I only get disappointed if the student doesn't try.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am not a Chess Coach though but surely a coach will get disappointed if the student commits the same mistake over a period of time, and does not show discipline enough to improve his weaknesses.

A coach will get disappointed if a student is unworthy to take any lessons and does not show interest in chess.

A coach may get disappointed if a brilliant student is unable to pay his fees on time.

As students are a reflection of their teacher's training, and learning, a coach will want his students to shine so that his name also shines along with them.

There can be other different cases but the above ones are most common.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: coach
---


# Question
Title: What is the best chess site for strong players?
A decade ago, it was clear that if you wanted to play against titled players, ICC was the best way to go. With the rising popularity of free chess servers such as lichess.org and chess.com, is ICC still the best place to play chess if you are looking for games with masters? Does chess.com have more masters/day that visit their site? I suspect that that there are significantly more titled players that play on chess.com these days but since I don't have an ICC account, I cannot verify. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Honestly I believe that Chess.com is the best site for strong players and to gently and steadily climb up the ladder according to your rating. What I have witnessed in Chess.com is that there is a background algorithm which works for everyone and when you ask for a game it would exactly pair you up in a range which would be +400 & -400 rating points. You can even customize it according to your wish.

The benefit is if you are a 1800+ player, it would show up on the dashboard and other players would also be observing your game which is quite encouraging and you never get someone who would be too much below your rating.

Moreover, the site has infinite material resources about openings and middlegame understanding from top-level players, which makes it a great deal if you want serious progress. Even there are a lot of advertisements and strong players play there regularly, the UI is also superb.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Playchess.com, hands down, the best by test. The best interface - essentially the same as ChessBase - whereas ICC is clunky, and Chess.com is increasingly for kids.

At Playchess, 2000 players play like 2000 players, and 1400's play like 1400's. I find the rating strengths fairly equivalent to OTB tournament strength.

---
Tags: online-chess, online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find lists of best games per tournament?
I would like to obtain a list of best games per tournament (World Chess Championships, Chess World Cup, ...).

By "best" I mean games that either have won a brilliancy prize, or games that are considered by some other participants in the tournament as a best/most beautiful game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Chess Informant quarterly subscription gives you the best of games played in that quarter.

Or, The Week In Chess is the raw scores of games with no commentary and no qualifications.

---
Tags: tournament, history, database, world-championship
---


# Question
Title: Is the person in this video any relation to Ian Nepomniachtchi?
Towards the very end of this video that shows a talk or lecture by Mikhail Tal from 1988:

https://youtu.be/5bb6e0gFdS4

during question and answer time from the audience, someone introduces himself as "Nepomnyaschiy, engineer". It's at about the 1:13:30 mark of the video.

Is this possibly some relation to Ian Nepomniachtchi, or is it just a coincidence? (I'm assuming the name is an English phonetic transliteration, and could be spelled either way...)

I just happened to see this and was surprised, as I've never heard of anyone with that name before (then again, I don't live in or near Russia, so that might be why - not sure how common the name is...), and thought I'd ask about it just because it's an interesting question....

# Answer
Family name Непомнящий (*Nepomnyashchy* or however you spell it in English) is of course not one of the most common in Russia but it is definitely not one of the rarest. There are about 20 more or less promiment persons with this name on Russian Wikipedia. So it is very unlikely that the person in Youtube video is somehow related to Ian Nepomnyashchy.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish: Engine suddenly changed the side?
I asked this question in stockfishchess.org support but didn't get any response. So I'm trying to get some answers from you all.

My question:

Please find the output of communication with the engine here. (It has only 8 steps.) The last best move (`bestmove c5d4 ponder f3d4`) is not for white, but for black.

Am I doing something wrong here or has engine confused for some reason? Appreciate your help to understand.

Original question link: http://support.stockfishchess.org/discussions/problems/8262-engine-suddenly-changed-the-side

# Answer
> 4 votes
The reason is very simple:

> position startpos moves e2e4 d7d6 d2d4 e7e6 g1f3 c8d7 f1d3 h7h6 e1g1 c7c5 f1e1 e8f8

This is invalid. The position before `e8f8` is:

`e8f8` is invalid because Black has a bishop on f8. Stockfish can't play the move, so it just skip it.

To Stockfish, the diagram position is the position it's thinking. The best move is `...cxd4`.

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, uci
---


title: How are centipawns calculated?

text:
# Question
Title: How are centipawns calculated?
I found on the Web some information what centipawns are. But how exactly programs calculate this loss? How can I recognize if one move will bring less centipawn loss that an another? Assuming both would not lead to a loss of a chess piece.

# Answer
I think that's your question:

**Q: How does a chess engine evaluate a chess position and give centipawns score?**

I don't want to bore you with technical details, let me give you simple explanation:

1. Chess engine is able to evaluates a chess position and give a score

The score can depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

* Material
* Pawn structure
* Mobility
* King Safety

> https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Evaluation

2. Chess engine searches as many moves as possible and compare the moves by evaluation score. The best move is the move that gives the best score.
3. Now we know a chess engine can give a score. For convenience, they scale the scores to centipawns.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, programming
---


title: What is valid PGN?

text:
# Question
Title: What is valid PGN?
I want to build a program that makes and reads PGNs. What is valid PGN? What arguments are valid in the header? What values are mandatory, what can be omitted?

Can I find somewhere rules for composing PGNs?

# Answer
> 4 votes
PGN is not a rigorous file format. Everything in the wikipedia link (posted by @Ghotir) applies, but nothing is "mandatory".

The most common headers are:

* Event
* Site
* Date
* Round
* White
* Black
* Result

But they are not mandatory. For example, you can get away by not specifying the player names.

Most chess programs only require you to define a header, but it can be anything. You have to define something because that's how chess programs parse the file - it expects the `[` character.

Your PGN parser **must** be robust and handle invalid PGN scenarios. I personally deliver PGN softwares, and I know what I'm talking about. Common PGN errors:

* "o", '0' in castling (e.g: "o-o", "0-0"). Correct is "O-O", but many people confuse the letters.
* "{" instead of "\["
* "1-o" or "1-O" instead of "1-0"

# Answer
> 2 votes
The PGN (Portable Game Notation) format has its origins in a text document from 1994. It contains a specification and copious examples.

The best location to read the original text transformed into a web-optimized format is at this link. The Colophon near the beginning discusses the different iterations the original text went through before finding its way to that website.

Different PGN readers have implemented various aspects of this format and taken liberties of their own. Still, this is the closest you'll find to an official standard.

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: How do you have Arena show the second and third best move in analysis?
How do you have Arena show the second and third best moves in analysis?
I seem to be able to only see the evaluation for the engine's best move.

# Answer
Right click on the analysis output window to be able to enable Multi-PV mode:
> 8 votes

# Answer
1. Stop the Engine
2. Open Configure page
3. Set MultiPV option equal to 3
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, arena
---


# Question
Title: Is a loss of two pawns worth the negation of opponents castling?
Consider a move where a bishop takes a pawn and gives check but without any defense, so the King can take the bishop. In many openings there is a opportunity in the first moves to do so. Can this give an advantage to the sacrificing player?

# Answer
As mentioned in a comment, sacrificing a bishop for a pawn is a completely different thing than sacrificing two pawns, even when they have equal "pawn values".

Most importantly: If you sacrifice material to prevent the opponent's king from castling, your objective is to lure him out into the open and checkmate him as soon as possible (before your opponent has the chance to coordinate his now numerically superior forces). Giving two pawns for this purpose might or might not be worth it (greatly depends on the specific situation) - their absence might open additional lines for your pieces to attack the opponent's king, so their loss might actually turn out to help you. Sacrificing a bishop on the other hand counteracts your chances to deliver a quick mate: You weakened the squares around the king, **but you also weakened your ability to attack these squares**. Again, it all depends on the situation. If you can force a mate anyway with, say, your queen and a knight, it's all good. But then the question should be a different one.

* Is it worth to sacrifice a bishop for a concrete mating attack? Hell yeah!
* Is it worth to sacrifice a bishop just to prevent the opponent from castling, without a concrete mating combination? Most likely not.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, castling, sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: What's the right approach of storing moves generated using bitboards?
I am building a chess engine from scratch using bitboards and, so far I am able to generate pawns moves. But, I am stuck on what should I do after finding all possible moves for pawns.

Right now the current function is generating QUIETS moves pushing pawns ONE or TWO squares. Later i will deal with en passant and validations.

My question is, Am I doing right generating all pawns moves at once? And, I would like to know what is the right approach of storing the moves? What information need to saved and what data type should I use?

**Here my code (C++):**

```
#include "moves.h"

//Pawns moves
Bitboard single_push(Color color, Bitboard pawns, Bitboard empty) { // EmptyBoardBB
   return color == WHITE ?  north(pawns) & empty :
                            south(pawns) & empty;
}

// also used for en-passant
Bitboard double_push(Color color, Bitboard pawns, Bitboard empty) {
   return color == WHITE ?  north_north(pawns) & empty & Rank4BB :
                            south_south(pawns) & empty & Rank5BB;
}

// Right now just testing pushing pawns 1-2 squares
Bitboard generate_pawn_moves(Color color, GenType type, Bitboard Us, Bitboard Them)
{
    Bitboard bb, empty;
    empty = ~Them;

    if (type == QUIETS)
    {
        bb = single_push(color, Us, empty);
    }

    return bb;
}

```

Thanks in advance for any info that can take me on the right path.

# Answer
> 6 votes
**Q1: Should I generate all pawn moves at once?**

Yes. There's no reason not to do that. But... your code wouldn't work because you're returning a bitboard in your function. You should instead return a list, Stockfish does that:

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/movegen.cpp
>
> ExtMove\* generate\_pawn\_moves(const Position& pos, ExtMove\* moveList, Bitboard target);

The function `generate_pawn_moves` takes a position object and append new pawn moves into a list (`ExtMove*`). You shouldn't just return a bitboard because:

* It's not a convenient data structure for looping over moves (you'll need to loop over moves while doing your engine search)
* It doesn't tell you where you pawn starts and thus you can't undo a move
* By squeezing all the pawn moves into a single integer, you lose important information. For example, if you have a pawn on c4 and e4 and you can capture on d5. You need to save c4-d5 and e4-d5, not just d5.

Your function should look like:

```
void generate_pawn_moves(List *moves, Color color, GenType type, Bitboard Us, Bitboard Them);
{
    if (type == QUIETS)
    {
        for (... all single push ...)
           moves++ = <single push move>

        for (... all double push ...)
           moves++ = <double push move>
    }
    else
    {
        for (... all captures ...)
           moves++ = <captures move>
    }
}

```

You will need to allocate enough memory for the `moves` pointer, there're other ways to do that but C++ discussion is off-topic here.

Later on, you'll need to do a search (otherwise why'd you generate the moves?). Like this:

```
  for (auto move : moves)
  {
       <make the move to the internal board>

       ..... search and evaluate the position after the move ....

       <undo the move>
  }

```

You see, you'll need to undo the move and it's only possible if you know where your pawn starts.

**Q2: What do I need to save a move?**

Let's take a look at Stockfish.

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/types.h

```
/// A move needs 16 bits to be stored
///
/// bit  0- 5: destination square (from 0 to 63)
/// bit  6-11: origin square (from 0 to 63)
/// bit 12-13: promotion piece type - 2 (from KNIGHT-2 to QUEEN-2)
/// bit 14-15: special move flag: promotion (1), en passant (2), castling (3)
/// NOTE: EN-PASSANT bit is set only when a pawn can be captured
///

```
* Destination
* Origin
* Promotion
* En Passpant
* Castling

# Answer
> 5 votes
I really appreciate the response from our contributors, but still there is a question unanswered floating on air. How do I implement the “MOVE” structure? Based on Bitboard approach?

In reality, there is no a common ground among chess engines. Some programmers will tell you go with a structure and store any move’s detail within, but, on the other side, others will tell you, go simple with just one data type (Integer, String, etc).

To be honest, in simple English means, USE whatever flavor you feel comfortable with and, not a subject related to best performance. So, based on that assumption, I will provide you how to implement both cases.

To make this simple, let’s break down what kind of information is needed to encode a move.

* Index of square destination
* Index of square origin
* Type of move (quiet, captures, evasions, en passant, castling, …)

**Structure Approach**

If you decide to go with a structure approach, you will have something similar to this:

```
struct Move {
    Int from;
    Int to;
    Int moveType;
};

```

That will work if we have an enum for our moveType:

```
enum MoveType {
    QUIET, CAPTURE, EVASION, ENPASSANT, CASTLING
};

```

The structure approach will do the work and, then you just need to create an array with that structure to store the list of generated moves. And that’s it; you have your container to store moves.

**Single Data Type Approach**

Suppose we decide to go with Integer type. How we can store the move information in one single integer? The response is, Bit manipulation (Duh!, we are using bitbaord representation).

The idea is really simple, let’s use partial portion of the Integer to store the “square origin”, and next to it, use it to store the “square destination” and last, insert the “Move Type” (call it flag if you want).

If we have an Integer that holds 16 bits, we can dissect it into the following:

> 0000 0000 0000 0000 – index of square origin
>
> 0000 0000 0000 0000 – index of square destination
>
> 0000 0000 0000 0000 – move type (flag)

We can use the first 6 bit to store the square origin.

> 0000 0000 0011 1111 – 6 bit for square origin

We can do the same with the rest. At the end you will have something like this:

> 0000 0000 0011 1111 – index of square origin
>
> 0000 1111 1100 0000 – index of squire destination
>
> 0011 0000 0000 0000 – move type (flag)

To put this into a better context, let assume we have a structure that represent each square:

```
enum Square {
SQ_A1, SQ_B1, SQ_C1, SQ_D1, SQ_E1, SQ_F1, SQ_G1, SQ_H1,
SQ_A2, SQ_B2, SQ_C2, SQ_D2, SQ_E2, SQ_F2, SQ_G2, SQ_H2,
SQ_A3, SQ_B3, SQ_C3, SQ_D3, SQ_E3, SQ_F3, SQ_G3, SQ_H3,
SQ_A4, SQ_B4, SQ_C4, SQ_D4, SQ_E4, SQ_F4, SQ_G4, SQ_H4,
SQ_A5, SQ_B5, SQ_C5, SQ_D5, SQ_E5, SQ_F5, SQ_G5, SQ_H5,
SQ_A6, SQ_B6, SQ_C6, SQ_D6, SQ_E6, SQ_F6, SQ_G6, SQ_H6,
SQ_A7, SQ_B7, SQ_C7, SQ_D7, SQ_E7, SQ_F7, SQ_G7, SQ_H7,
SQ_A8, SQ_B8, SQ_C8, SQ_D8, SQ_E8, SQ_F8, SQ_G8, SQ_H8
};

```

Imagine you have a pawn sitting on f2 and you need to move it to f4, and there is an enemy pawn on e4. This will raise the en passant flag, isn’t it?

So, we need to encode our pawn move from f2 to f4 and flag it as enpassant availability.

*Pseudo code will be like this:*

```
move = enpassant-flag + destination + origin;

```

Now we need to translate this to bit manipulation (shifting bits).

```
unsigned int move;

//insert square origin using 6 bits
move  = (origin & 0x3f << 6); -the hex to mask 6 bits.

// insert square destination using also 6 bits
move = (destination & 0x3f);

//insert the flag
move = ((flag & 0xf) << 12);

// now putting everything together…
Move make_move(Square from, Square to, unsigned int flag) {
    Return move = ((flag & 0xf) << 12) | (destination & 0x3f) | (origin & 0x3f) << 6;
}

```

Now you can call the method as follow:

```
moveList  = make_move(SQ_F2, SQ_F4, ENPASSANT);

```

I hope this information will be useful to the public :)

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Chess Programming Wiki has all the resources you should need.

1. Since you have all the pawns represented, it makes sense to generate all their moves at once.
2. The way to store the moves is what you are most comfortable with. The basic information you need is just the two squares involved. Back in the old days, people would compress all the information into an integer. Seven bits would represent the "from" square (0-63), and seven bits for the "to" square. Most would include extra information to make it easier to actually make and store the move. These include: promotion piece (4), EP (1), EP possible (1 or 4), captured piece (4), castling (1 or 4).

I prefer the old methods of representing the board, since it's easier for me to visualize the board and methods. However, Stockfish is one of the best engines and you can freely download its source.

---
Tags: engines, programming, bitboard
---


# Question
Title: Does rating increases in bulks or is it a steady increase?
I have been taking lessons from a coach since two months and I also played my first OTB tournament two months ago. Since then I have played around ten tournaments with an average of one or two tournament every weekend.

Even though I have learnt a lot from every single tournament by analyzing my games with the coach, and I myself know I am more knowledgeable and experienced now then when I played my first tournament my rating has just fluctuated between 1000 and 900 throughout.

My question is does the rating increases in jumps in general or is it like a steady increase where you increase rating points gradually playing every tournament? If its a steady increase, then I am sure I am not doing something right.

If I am 900 something after two months, is it a realistic goal to aim for 1500-1600 in the next 10 months, with coaching and playing 1-2 tournament per week?

# Answer
Rating increases usually occur in plateaus rather than linear. That's because as you get stronger and play stronger opponents, there's more to know. If you have native talent, e.g. are very adept at tactics, your early rating increases will be greater than those later on as you face stiffer competition. If you are motivated, have good training, apply what you've learned, play regularly and analyze your games, with a stronger player if possible or coach as you indicate you are doing, and also have some natural aptitude, it's not unrealistic to aim for a 1500 rating within a year. Does playing two tournaments per weekend give you enough time to analyze the games in depth? Too many games might be counterproductive if not.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Usually, in the beginning, the rating increase jumps quickly. Just not hanging pieces could be a multiple hundred point increase. As the rating increases, the rating increases become smaller. This is because there is a smaller amount to learn, and technique improvement brings little gains. Playing in this many tournaments doesn't really give you time to find and reduce your mistakes. A coach can find your errors, but you won't be able to correct them within a week. 1600 is a realistic goal, and you should be able to reach 1800 within 5 years.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Rating is definitely more of a steady increase thing but takes jumps initially. Please have a look at the FIDE Calculator. There is a K-Factor which determines it.

Please check the both as initial ratings as well as rating change calculator .

https://ratings.fide.com/calculators.phtml
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, theory, rating, tournament
---


# Question
Title: Stockfish - Function that predicts checkmate
I'm working on a function that can forecast whether, for a given position, I can be checkmated by the opponent. I have this function, already in Stockfish:

```
bool Position::is_mate() const {

  MoveStack moves[MAX_MOVES];
  return in_check() && generate<MV_LEGAL>(*this, moves) == moves;
}

```

This tells me that I am already being checkmated. Ideally, I would like to write a function:

```
bool Position::is_trap() const {
  for all of the opponent's legal moves
    if move i results in is_mate()
      return true

  return false
}

```

Both of these functions will be in position.cpp.

Subsequently, I want to generate a list of all legal moves that will result in is\_trap() being true (all legal moves that will result in me being checkmated in the next turn). In movegen.cpp I have:

```
template<>
MoveStack* generate<TRAP>(const Position& pos, MoveStack* mlist) {

  assert(pos.is_ok());
  MoveStack *last, *cur = mlist;
  // Generate all legal moves
  last = generate<MV_LEGAL>(pos, mlist);

  // If a legal move isn't a trap, remove it
  while (cur != last)
    for (i = 0; i = MAX_MOVES; i++)
      pos->do_move(mlist[i].move);
      if (!pos.is_trap())
          cur->move = (--last)->move;
      else
          cur++;
      pos->undo_move(mlist[i].move);

  return last;
}

```

Is there a more efficient way of doing this? Thank you for your help!

# Answer
I don't understand why this is an issue. What you're asking is just chess engine search. Nothing more.

1. Generate all possible moves to a list
2. Make a move to the position
3. Search the new position with Stockfish (the `search<>` function)
4. Check the returned negamax value if the move leads to forced mate
5. Undo the move
6. Get the next move from the list, go back to (2) and repeat
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish
---


# Question
Title: How can I control my nerves during chess tournaments?
I always get nervous during a chess match and that really affects my performance. I can easily beat a 1400-1500 in a friendly match but when it comes to a tournament, I can't even win against 1300s. I also lose against people with whom I have won hundreds of times in friendly games.

Any tips or suggestions?

# Answer
First of all, as @Jimmy360 stated, you should practice with tournament-like conditions. Apply the similar time controls, touch-move rule, threefold repetition, and all those 'boring' rules if you need to. This will surely make you nervous, however, it is a good practice, since tournaments will make you nervous anyway. When you get used to it, you will know how to relax, and furthermore, treat tournaments as friendlies!

Another suggestion I can give is that play in **lots** of tournaments. I know it isn't possible with limited time and money, however, chess.com and other chess websites have made things easier. Just play in lots of online tournaments, and you will feel that things will get easier, and you'll get used to playing under tournament atmosphere.

Finally, I suggest you to always think twice before making a move. This is what players of your level usually fail to do. Try inspecting your games; how often do you hang pieces, or fall to forks and pins? Well, the problem is, with the added stress due to it being a tournament, we tend to forget these 'little things' more easily. Therefore, every time you play in a tournament, try to sit back, relax, take a deep breath, double-check every move, and most importantly:

> Enjoy the game!
> 3 votes

# Answer
I've had similar problems. When I analyzed the situation, I concluded that I was giving the result too much importance, tying my worth as an individual to it for example. I've been able to largely overcome this by realizing that it doesn't have that much significance in the infinite scheme of things. It's only a game, and our skill at it will be determined by how much we learn. That can be a lengthy process. Losing in fact is a learning experience that will over the long term help us improve, so look at defeats in that context. Look at each game as a chance to learn something new. Chess is not a quick study for most people. The great Capablanca said that you have to lose 1000 games to become good, if that helps keep it in perspective. In other words, try to make playing a positive experience in itself and don't let the outcome be the most important part of playing. You can have winning as the goal, but not to the extent that it destroys your joy in playing. Enjoy the process rather than the outcome. Progress will inevitably come with time regardless.
> 2 votes

# Answer
OK, so here is an environment-related situation. What happens is your nerves crumble in the tournament hall. It is a respective scenario people face in public speaking or when children are trying to clear a mathematics paper in their school.

But there can be another way around also. Maybe against the people you play, they do not take the games seriously, and they play in a juvenile spirit, and in tournaments they focus more, and you focus less. It would be wise if you play the friendly games with a similar feeling of the tournament with equal time controls. The second thing please leave the rating aside. OK, I understand that rating is something you cannot ignore, but taking someone lightly will cost you One of the most harmful things in Sports/Chess that when you practice casually and take tournaments seriously which should be discarded. Practice seriously and then you would see the tournaments will give the best results.

There was an instance I had read, and would like to share from Bobby Fischer's play. During the 1960's in one of the playing halls, Bobby was playing a match and suddenly the lights went off. The entire hall was in chaos but Bobby was sitting there trying to find the best move even in the dark situation. He did not join the other players, and everyone was amazed at Fischer's utmost concentration. These small things make a player better than the best among us all.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Try playing your casual games in tournament-like setting. Use the same time control, etc.
> 0 votes

# Answer
If you are losing to 1300's then you are clearly not blunder-checking your moves, perhaps because of nerves. Make that your first priority in your next tournament and your results are bound to improve.

So, "If I do that move what is my opponent's best reply?"
> 0 votes

---
Tags: tournament, psychology, problems
---


# Question
Title: How to write a chess evaluation function?
I don't know very much about chess beyond the rules but I enjoy programming and am trying to write a chess engine. I recently found this evaluation function: Simple Evaluation Function. What would be the best way to improve on what has been done there?

# Answer
> 2 votes
**EDIT for comment**

The most important by far is the material count and PST already discussed in your link. You won't go anywhere unless your engine can count materials properly. Other than that, the common knowledge such as rook behind a passed pawn, castled king, pawn majority and mobility are important. Your human knowledge to chess should be sufficient.

**ORIGINAL**

The best way to improve it is to study the Stockfish source code. Read the comments, and study the implementation.

Code your engine, make it work with a simple evaluation function. Gradually and slowly apply Stockfish's ideas to your own engine.

There's **many** possible improvements. I can only list some of those. I will give you a link to the Stockfish source code below.

* Two bishops advantage
* Interpolate between middle game and endgame scoring
* Bonus to pawn structures (the page only gives very simple PST values)
* Calibrate the values better with a statistical model
* Castled king
* Number of squares controlled
* Number of attacking squares near the enemy's king
* Asymmetric evaluation (Stockfish doesn't do that but some engines like Chess Genius does that)
* Pieces attacked by the king
* Rook behind a pawn
* Pawn on the check colour as bishop
* Mobility bonus
* Enemy checks
* Rook on semi- or open file
* Insufficient defended squares
* Passed pawn that is not blocked
* Candidate passed pawn (pawn majority)
* ......

Let's take some random examples from Stockfish. Please examine the source code yourself for details.

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/69eb391cd779223c331fb0de80392cbd323055a9/src/evaluate.cpp

```
// RookOnFile[semiopen/open] contains bonuses for each rook when there is no
// friendly pawn on the rook file.
const Score RookOnFile[] = { S(20, 7), S(45, 20) };

```

and

```
// ThreatByMinor/ByRook[attacked PieceType] contains bonuses according to
// which piece type attacks which one. Attacks on lesser pieces which are
// pawn-defended are not considered.
const Score ThreatByMinor[PIECE_TYPE_NB] = {
  S(0, 0), S(0, 33), S(45, 43), S(46, 47), S(72, 107), S(48, 118)
};

```

and

```
// Scale down bonus for candidate passers which need more than one
// pawn push to become passed or have a pawn in front of them.
if (!pos.pawn_passed(Us, s + pawn_push(Us)) || (pos.pieces(PAWN) & forward_bb(Us, s)))
        mbonus /= 2, ebonus /= 2;

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would like to add up a couple things to support the good answers you have already.

* Stockfish never applies evaluation function for positions where king of either side is in check.
* Evaluation is based on the state of your Middle Game and End Game.
* Also a smooth transition between the phases of the game using a fine grained numerical game phase value considering type of captured
pieces so far. This is called "Tapered Eval".

Here a snippet of my own evaluation for middle gale

```
EvalPhase middle_game_evaluation(&pos) {
  int ev = 0;
  ev += piece_value_mg(pos) - piece_value_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += psqt_mg(pos) - psqt_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += imbalance_total(pos);
  ev += pawns_mg(pos) - pawns_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += pieces_mg(pos) - pieces_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += mobility_mg(pos) - mobility_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += threats_mg(pos) - threats_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += passed_mg(pos) - passed_mg(colorflip(pos));
  ev += space(pos) - space(colorflip(pos));
  ev += king_mg(pos) - king_mg(colorflip(pos));
  return EvalPhase(ev);
}

```

---
Tags: engines, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find a whole bunch of complicated PGN files?
I'm interested to test that the atom syntax highlighter for pgn files -- https://atom.io/packages/language-pgn -- can handle the full range of possible files. Is there a suite of difficult test files somewhere?

Also related might be this question:

What are all of the possible tags for PGN?

# Answer
> 2 votes
As an author of some PGN-processing software, I would also be interested in having access to a general test suite but I am not aware of any, unfortunately, and all I can offer is some advice based on experience.

I would be wary of throwing a large database of games at an application in order to test it before you have developed reasonable confidence with its fundamentals. In the early stages, at least, I find it most effective to create a lot of small examples, each of which tests an individual feature. That way, errors are relatively easy to spot because they don't get lost in a mass of output. Once I have got rid of the basic errors I would then look at combining a small number of both related and unrelated features in individual tests to make sure that there is no unexpected interference between the associated functionality. Only late on would I switch to large datasets to make sure there are no issues with scaling up.

I also highly recommend re-running all the existing tests each time a new feature is added. I have been amazed how often I have unexpectedly broken something seemingly unrelated as the code has developed.

Apologies if these principles are already well known to you!

# Answer
> -1 votes
http://www.chessgames.com might be a good place.

Another one is http://www.top-5000.nl/pgn.htm

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: Can white do better versus the Sicilian Defense by avoiding an early d4?
Given that 1.d4 is said to produce better results than 1.e4 and about half of all 1.e4 games involve the Sicilian Defense, could a simple idea like avoiding trading the d pawn for black's c pawn in the Sicilian be used to produce better 1.e4 results? Perhaps after 20 or 30 moves the d pawn will come in handy after all!

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you're strong at tactics, after you've played 1.e4, playing an early d4 to open up the game puts the burden of defense on Black to defend against these. Generally when you've played 1.e4 in an opening, your goal should be an early if sound d4 as well. The same is true for Black after 1..., e5, i.e. to seek an early ..., d5 when sound. Playing a Closed Sicilian gives Black more time to build up a defense. And since Black generally plays a lot of early pawn moves in the Sicilian, that also gives White a time advantage which he can try to exploit tactically by an early opening-up of the game. But as someone else has pointed out that Larsen had claimed, the standard "d" pawn for "c" pawn trade is giving up a center pawn for a less valuable off-center pawn, which can be positionally suspect. If you're well versed in the Sicilian lines and good at tactics, playing the standard early follow-up d4 would still seem to me to be the better course of action though. Conversely, the Closed Sicilian may be better suited to someone who is not as strong tactically but plays a strong positional game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
All the main lines against the Sicilian are the open Sicilian. This opening of the center gives white better attacking chances against black's lack of development.

Larsen claims that playing d4 is a positional mistake, allowing black to exchange a less valuable wing pawn for a center pawn.

Spassky played the closed Sicilian with great results. And there are many anti-Sicilians which claims to give white the advantage. The Grand Prix is the most fun, but I personally prefer the KIA.

The main difference between the open and closed Sicilians is the number of moves before the attacking begins. The open offers more tactics right from the start. The closed allows both players to finish developing before any attack really develops.

The real answer is that neither is necessarily good for white. Since every line of the Sicilian is so heavily analyzed, the advantage goes to the player with the better knowledge and comfort in the positions.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You are certainly far from being the first person to raise the question. Alekhine, in his Collected Games, recommends in the notes to one game that White should play 3.Be2, but in all of his other games he actually plays 3.d4. There is a book called the Chameleon Sicilian by Andy Soltis that points to certain advantages of 2.Ne2, retaining the options of d3 or d4 depending on how Black responds. For example, if Black expects d3, and combines ..e6 with ..g6, then d4 becomes very strong. On the other hand, if ..d6, then d3 leads into lines where Black usually goes for ..d5.

One of the remarkable things about Chess is the balance inherent in the initial position. Typically White keeps a small but tangible advantage ("normal opening advantage") for about 20 moves, and nothing much has ever changed that. One could define the statistically best moves but in practice psychological comfort is more important. (and high winning percentages sometimes attach to the moves that strong players adopt versus weak opponents.)

As has been pointed out, avoiding d4 can cut down on the amount of book learning that is needed, but that cuts both ways. Strong Sicilian players just need to know one good reply to each of Whites offbeat attempts.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you see in Chessgames.com then you can see the below openings e4 c5 Nf3 d6 which is pure Sicilian Najdorf in the Opening Explorer then you would be seeing the winning percentages of White Najdorf Winning Percentage

Now you can see that with d4,c3,Nc3,Bc4 white has the maximum percentage win even though the most number of games are with d4.

You can delay d4 if you find convenient for yourself and make some other move. What I feel is that you do not have a liking for Open Sicilian and want to deviate. So it is not a difficult choice either. There are other lines where different ideas also come into picture and honestly these Lines are easier to understand than open Sicilian .

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, pawns, center
---


# Question
Title: How to connect a UCI chess engine play on FICS?
I see that there are several chess bots playing on FICS. I would like to have my own chess engine running on FICS (guest mode is ok), but so far I haven't found any bot source code. I tried eboard and Raptor but these are only interface and do not allow a FICS - engine game.

# Answer
You can use icsDrone or Zippy with Winboard to connect an engine using the Winboard protocol to FICS. You can use PolyGlot as an adapter between Winboard and UCI protocols to connect your UCI engine to Winboard or icsDrone.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I use ChessPartner 6.0.4.3

r.click in the Internet Console and choose Properties

Autoseek Cmd:

getgame\n

Login script:

set chanoff 1

set silence 1

set tell 0

set formula !computer & !abuser

set notakeback 1

set tolerance 0

set autoflag 1

set style 12
> 3 votes

# Answer
You could connect to FICS using simple telnet program. This is the basis of writing bots. Mekk- the author of watchbot on FICS has created an excellent tutorial, on going about writing FICS bots. Here's the link:

http://blog.mekk.waw.pl/archives/7-How-to-write-a-FICS-bot-part-I.html

Overall, the workflow would be something like this:

a) Create a FICS client program (using any programming language) that interacts with the FICS server using telnet.

b) Host your engine and fics client on some machine (maybe your desktop or a server)

c) Use the fics client to play games on fics, while at the same time interacting with your chess engine to evaluate the moves and feeding it back to fics client.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I have uploaded my script on http://smallchess.com/Scripts

The script provides you infinite flexibility because you choose your engine, time limit etc in bot.ini. You should also update your login in FICSLogin.txt. The script is written in perl and therefore runs on all platforms.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, uci
---