# Question
Title: Is it bad etiquette to keep playing in a clearly hopeless position?
Recently I played a blitz game (5m+5s) with an opponent with rating 1500+. I had a clearly losing endgame (K vs KQ). My opponent was not under any time pressure but he made a blunder and the game ended as a stalemate.

I know this does not happen every day; it is extremely rare that I can draw a clearly losing game, but it may happen say once out of 100 games. If I resign whenever I feel hopeless, my record for these games will be 100 losses; on the other hand, if I keep playing, it could be 1 draw and 99 losses. So my overall record will be slightly better if I never resign; instead, I keep playing until I am checkmated or rarely, the game ends as a draw.

So continuing to play in a clearly losing game seems a reasonable strategy. But it is considered as bad etiquette not to resign when the game is clearly hopeless?

# Answer
As a general rule, if something is not done out of malice then it's not bad etiquette in my book (especially if it's allowed in the rules). So if all you do is play on in a lost position, then I don't see how anyone could complain; for instance, should a novice not be allowed to play on until checkmate? That would be absurd, no matter who said novice were facing!

The only unsportsmanlike behaviour I've witnessed in this regard was a player in an OTB tournament just sitting and waiting for his clock to run out when the position became hopeless, since his intent was obviously to spite his opponent and waste their time. If he had been making moves I wouldn't even have reacted, but since he was just doing it to annoy his opponent it was a clear act of malice and therefore bad etiquette.
> 31 votes

# Answer
* It's not bad etiquette, and *further*, many people think(and I partially join them) that resigning and draw agreements in chess should be forbidden.
* Reasoning - it's necessary to expand chess popularity as sports and to make it possible for non-chess-players to follow competitions and games. It happens so often - two GMs playing - one resigns and half of spectators don't have even close clue of why
* Also compare to other sports - imagine in tennis - someone resigns when result is 0:4 in first set or after first lost set or players agree to a draw after 1:1 in score in sets... - no one would follow such weird sports. Imagine similar in hockey, football, soccer, basketball, volleyball. Imagine how many people would follow boxing if two fighters would exchange one hit and then agree to a draw in a beginning of first round ...
* So if we want chess to become popular and to make it possible to get TV time for it, make it Olympic sports, etc - we must behave like a sports - fight till end of game; if you watch NHL - so often team loosing 0:5 or more - keep fighting till end and score goal late in game when result is clear - that's why the game is so popular and can be watched as entertainment by people who don't really understand it.
* Chess is too weird as a sport currently and something should be done about that.
* and practically, specially in blitz there are great chances to get positive score in lost position - so playing on is completely normal.
> 14 votes

# Answer
## No one plays optimally, so it is perfectly fine to continue playing in hope that your opponent will not play perfectly.

In any pure strategy game like chess, there is only a single possible outcome for perfect play. (For chess it's *probably* a stalemate, although I don't believe we know for certain).

Chess is only interesting as a game because it is too complex for anybody to play perfectly. As such, assuming that your opponent will play perfectly is clearly an unreasonable assumption. And if their skills are lacking in some way, then it's entirely possible that they lack the skills to beat you in this particular game. Just because a player has the skill to reach a dominant board position does not necessarily mean they have the skills to capitalize on their advantage.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I would say it depends on the circumstances, mostly the time. If it's blitz and your opponent is low on time, sure, go for it.

In a match with increment or if your opponent has more than enough time, I would consider it bad etiquette since by playing on, you are basically saying "I don't think, you are good enough to win this". This also depends on the level you are playing, for higher ranks, this already applies if you are down by a knight in midgame for example.

The second point is about wasting time. If a match is decided and you keep on playing, you waste both your and your opponent's time by prolonging a match that has already been decided and many players consider it boring to play a match that has already been decided.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The ability to remain sharp even in unfavorable situations is a useful skill, and it is perfectly acceptable to use tournaments to hone one's skills. Even if one's position is such that one is almost certain to eventually lose against any reasonable opponent, there is nothing wrong with making an opponent earn his victory *if one is in fact endeavoring to play as well as possible while making moves at a reasonable pace*.

What would be poor sportsmanship would be for someone with an hour left on his clock to insist upon playing on in an obvious forced mate-in-three position, while taking twenty minutes to make each of the remaining three forced moves.

I think a fair criterion would be whether one *either* has a realistic chance of winning, or honestly feels that one is receiving some benefit from continued play. If one can't honestly say that they're continuing for any reason other than to annoy their opponent, then continuing play in such circumstance would be poor sportsmanship, but that would be a matter for the player's own honest judgment.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It's totally fine, especially if it's blitz. It's a question of whether you have chances to win or not. If you have close to zero chance to win or draw, then there is no point of playing further and yes your continuing to play will be considered malicious and a waste of time.

An extreme example, you're playing Magnus Carlsen, and you're a Queen down. Now take the same situation, and you're playing a player only 100 rating points higher and you're a Queen down. I would continue playing and it's not bad etiquette. Especially if both of your ratings are low enough that he won't see that knight fork coming that he loses the Queen to. Now if you're 2200 and they're 2300, it's unlikely this will happen. And whether it's bad etiquette or not may depend on the position (and of course how much time is left). Some positions have enough nuances to continue playing, or the position provides a clear win for a player with those ratings and it's a waste of time to continue. Of course if you're a Queen down against Carlsen and he's got only a second on the clock, and you have an hour, then heck yeah continue playing.

For a blitz game, if your opponent is low on time, you have a good chance of winning, so pursuing the play is not bad etiquette. Since winning by time is a valid way to win. Now if your opponent had outplayed you in every way, they may be irked that you won the game. Things happen. Even Kasparov got mad every once in a while.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: etiquette, resigning
---


# Question
Title: How can I find the endgame probability based on the opening?
I want to find the endgame probabilities based on the openings I play.

This would be a game changer when it comes to prioritizing what endgames to study.

I know Chessbase provides a tool for this, but I don't have Windows or the money to shell out on Chessbase. Is there a free online alternative or an easy way to find the endgame probability of an opening via searching through an online database (e.g. chessgames.com)?

For example, if I want to find the endgame probabilities based on the French Defence, Exchange Variation, a tool might output the following:

**Endgame probabilities based on the Exchange Variation**

1. `N vs N` = 66 percent
2. `Pawn Ending` = 13 percent
3. `Q vs Q` = 8 percent
4. `R+P vs R` = 5 percent
5. `R vs R` = 4 percent
6. `R vs N` = 3 percent
7. `RN vs RB` = 1 percent

# Answer
> 6 votes
Learn CQL (http://www.gadycosteff.com/cql/), then write a program to automate the process

# Answer
> 10 votes
You can do something like this in SCID, which is a free program. It takes a little effort, but it's not too bad.

First, load the desired database. Then use a filter to select only games from the opening of your choice. You can filter either by a position, or by ECO code, to get the desired opening. Note how many games meet the filter criteria.

Next, use the "Search for material or board patterns" filter feature. You can use the "Common Endgames" button on that screen, or you can select your own criteria. Make sure to select the "AND (Restrict filter)" option. Hit the Search button, and the filter will be restricted to only games which meet your selected criteria. Note how many there are, and with some basic math you can calculate what percentage this is.

Repeat this for all desired endgames.

You can also use the Opening Report feature to get some quick endgame probabilities. Put the desired position on the chessboard, and then run the Opening Report from the Tools menu. This does, however, include *all* games in the database with that opening, regardless of whether they really have an "endgame" or not. It will count a Scholar's Mate as a "Q, R, BN" endgame since those pieces are all on the board.

---
Tags: opening, endgame
---


# Question
Title: When capturing en passant, is a position possible such that there is a pin over the square of the taken pawn, rather than the taking pawn?
I am trying to write a simple chess program, and as part of this I am writing methods to find all valid moves. I can detect pins and have no trouble leaving out the moves that would result in the moving player being in check, except for one situation I am not sure about.

After an en passant capture, not only is the square previously occupied by the capturing pawn now vacant, but so is the square of the captured pawn. Is there any position at all where capturing en passant results in a discovered check **on the king of the player that is capturing en passant**, not because the capturing pawn was pinned, but because the check was previously stopped by the captured pawn?

I think this situation is simply not possible, at the very least I can't think of a position and series of moves that results in this situation; the fact that you have to capture en passant at the first opportunity means that either the pawn that should later capture en passant is pinned and can't advance to the fifth rank, or the check is blocked by a different piece anyway. Unfortunately I am having trouble ruling out there is some counter-intuitive position where this might happen. Could someone confirm my suspicions (or provide a counter-example)?

# Answer
> 37 votes
Really interesting question. I think the following shows that such a situation is sort of possible, depending on how you define the pin.

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "7k/4p3/8/2KP3r/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... e5 2. dxe6?! {Illegal move!}

```

Now, 2. dxe6 is illegal. The check would go from being stopped by both pawns, to being stopped by neither.

# Answer
> 10 votes
On a related note, enjoy a chess problem that demonstrates the weird mechanism of the pawn being pinned by the taken pawn. I pulled this from Yet Another Chess Problem Database.

```
[Title "Erich Anselm Brunner, Deutsches Wochenschach 12/1908, Selfmate In 3"]
[FEN "8/8/5Q2/2p3Pk/5R1P/5r2/1PPKB1P1/2NRB3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ra4! c4 2. Qf7+ Kg4 3. b4 c3#

```

The rook on a4 pins the Black pawn such that it cannot take en passant, as that would expose the Black king to check. As such, Black pawn cannot perform an en passant and must move forward with a mate.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just to clarify IA Petr Harasimovic's comment in the answer provided by Cleveland, here is a position in which capturing en passant is illegal due a diagonal pin.

```

[FEN "5k2/2p2b2/8/3P4/8/2K5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc4 c5

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
It's possible, but you need to check who's getting checked ( slight pun intended... :-) ).

Let's say it's black's move:

Black moves a pawn two ranks, opening it up to an en passant move from a white pawn. If this move leads to a check on the black king it's an illegal move. If this leads to a check on the white king, white must respond be defending the king and so can't do an en passant move unless that move will protect the king.

If no check is made, white can then make the en passant move. If this leads to a check on the white king it's an illegal move. If it leads to a check on the black king, black must respond by defending the king.

---
Tags: rules, check, en-passant, pins
---


title: Longest possible FEN

text:
# Question
Title: Longest possible FEN
What is the longest possible FEN? The reason for that question is, that I am designing a PGN viewer (again), and I have noticed that the FEN is dependent on the width of the board (the FEN test area is placed below). So the following number of lines are necessary:

* FEN width \> 460: 1 line
* FEN width \> 240: 2 lines
* FEN width \< 240: 3 lines or more

But is that sufficient as a heuristic? If I would known how many characters a FEN string has as maximum, I could compute it.

Addition: I did some experiments with games, and did not found FENs longer than 72 characters. So the current answers are of course sufficient, but could someone provide a (legal) position that comes near those 90 characters?

# Answer
> 12 votes
The FEN consists of six parts (see definition of FEN here):

1. piece placement: at most 64 characters, one for each square plus 7 times "/" to delimit ranks = 71 characters
2. active color: one character ("w" or "b")
3. castling: at most 4 characters
4. en passant: one or two characters
5. half move clock
6. full move number

In addition there are 5 space characters between them.

So in total I count a maximum of: 71+1+1+1+4+1+2+1+x+1+y = 83 + x + y

x and y are the number of characters to represent half moves since the last capture/pawn move and the total number of moves respectively.

In most realistic games you'd have x=3 (after 50 moves = 100 half moves a draw can be claimed after 75 moves = 150 half moves it is a draw) and y=3 (allowing games up to 999 moves long. If you want to be on the safe side, taking x=3 (no pawn move or capture for 999 half moves max) and y=4 (games up to 9999 moves long).

This would leave you with a string of 90 characters, but read on...

---

## Additional consideration 1 (en passant)

The first part of the FEN string can be 64+7 characters long. One possible position is:

```
b1q1k1n1/p1p1p1r1/1r1b1n1p/1p1p1p1P/1P1P1Pp1/P1P1P1P1/R1R1K1B1/N1Q1B1N1 w - f3 0 1

```

Note in particular, that it is possible to have en passant capture in such setup (thanks Fabian Fichter for pointing this out), i.e. to have a 2 characters en passant string and 64+7 characters for the piece placement.

## Additional consideration 2 (castling)

Any of the four castlings is described by one character (to be compared with one character if no castling is possible).

In order for castling to be possible, neither king nor the respective rook can have moved. For queenside castling this does not create any problem, because e1 and a1 (e8 and a8) are squares of the same color and you can place pieces alternatingly similar to the example above.

However regarding kingside castling, if e1 and h1 (or e8 and h8) are occupied, this will break the structure and shorten the 1st part of the FEN string, by 1 for each color's kingside castling.

## Additional consideration 3 (en passant and half move clock)

\[Again due to Fabian Fichter\]:

En passant is only possible if the last move was a pawn move. Any pawn move however resets the half move counter (5th part of FEN). If you compare one extra character for en passant (2 chars vs just "-") with two extra characters for the half move counter (3 digit number vs "0") the conclusion is, that in the longest FEN, en passant is not possible.

This reduces the string by 1.

## Additional consideration 4 (50 or 75 move rule)

The game is drawn after 50 moves (if claimed) or at most 75 moves without a capture or pawn move. Captures shorten the 1st part of the FEN by 1 char, so clearly you don't gain anything with regard to the last part of the FEN string by extending the game via captures.

The maximum number of pawn moves (for a full board with 64+7 string for the first part of the FEN) should be 24, e.g. by moving every second pawn 1 square ahead and the other pawns two squares in two moves (=2\*(4+8)=24). So the pawn moves can extend your game to 24\*50=1200 or 24\*75=1800 moves.

This shows that it is possible to have a 4 digit move counter without a forced draw and also that it is not possible to have 5 digit move numbers because the game would be drawn before. (even if captures are included you would only gain another 62\*75=4650 moves, leaving you well below the limit of 9999 moves).

---

So the total maximum number should be 90 - 2 (for castling) -1 (en passant vs half move counter) = **87 characters.**

Note that all this holds for regular chess games. If you need to support any non-standard variants you might have to reconsider these numbers.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Using the definition of FEN it is relatively straightforward to compute an upper bound:

1. piece placement: 64 (pieces/squares) + 7 (slashes)
2. color: 1 (w/b)
3. castling: 4 (KQkq)
4. en passant: 2 (e3)
5. halfmove clock: 3 (100)
6. fullmove number: 4 (considering that maximum game length \< 9999 due to the 50-move rule)

spaces between fields: 5

So in total we get as an upper bound: 64+7+1+4+2+3+4+5 = **90**

---
Tags: pgn, records, mathematics, fen
---


# Question
Title: Lichess puzzle 87510: How much calculation would a strong player do before playing Bg4+ when white has a range of (all losing) responses?
Lichess puzzle 87510 has this position.

```
[FEN "r1b1k3/pp4R1/2q3RQ/4p3/5P2/bP2P3/2P1K2P/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

The solution is 1...Bg4+,.after which White has 6 legal moves:

* 1...Bg4+ 2. Rxg4 Qxh6, which is the computer solution, possibly followed by 3. Rg8+ Bf8,
* 2. Kd3, which is mate in 7,
* 2. Kd2, which is mate in 8,
* 2. Ke1, which is mate in 5,
* 2. Kf1, which is mate in 4, and
* 2. Kf2, which is mate in 4.

I feel like a human player in a tournament would not calculate the whole decision tree, and probably just intuit that 1...Bg4+ is going to win since black can continue with a range of powerful moves Qf3, Qc2, Rd8, and Bb4 and at least one of them is with check, depending on White's response.

**Question**: How much calculation would a strong player (say an FM+) perform before playing 1...Bg4+?

It's a dangerous move Black begins with an exposed king, with mate threats and a possible rook skewer, and queen attacked, and Black responds by creating an undefended bishop. If the checks ended, Back would probably lose.

PS black has already castled

# Answer
> 15 votes
I'm an FM, and my calculation process would be as follows:

1. See that after 2.Rxg4 Qxh6 2.Rg8 Bf8, I'm clearly winning and White has no follow up.
2. Look at White's king moves to get out of check. Immediately Kd2 and Kd3 can be discarded since they just let me play ...Rd8+ for free. Also, Kf1/Kf2 lead to the same thing after I play 2...Qf3+. So I'd just look at Ke1 and Kf2.
3. Everything looks good, so I'm done.

If I were in time trouble, I'd play 1...Bg4+ seconds after seeing it. Since 2.Rxg4 doesn't work, there's no practical risk to playing it.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'm no FM, but here's how I would look at it logically, while keeping in mind that calculation can overrule logic.

Black's move pretty much must be a check, given the mate threat and the threat to Black's queen. Four of the checks look really bad because they immediately lose the queen for no discernible benefit. This leaves only two choices: ...Bg4+ and ...Qxc2+.

While ...Bg4+ puts the bishop *en prise*, it is easy to see (a two-ply calculation) that taking it would be disastrous for White, even though, according to the engine, it is White's best move! If White doesn't take, even without doing a lot of calculation, you can have a "feeling" that there are mating chances now that you have your bishop and queen cooperating in the attack and the possibility of adding the other bishop, as well as the rook, which is now free to move to the open file.

With ...Qxc2+, the problem is that the only attacking piece is the queen, which on its own gives you perpetual check at best. Now that your queen isn't pinning White's rook against the queen, there is no good way of bringing the light-square bishop into the attack.

The problem is that if it so happened that ...Bg4+ didn't work after all (something which you can't know for sure without further calculation), it could well be that a draw is the best result for Black, which would make ...Qxc2+ the better choice! So "logic" can give you an indication of which move is likely to be better, but it is not foolproof. How much a FM would calculate probably depends on how much time they have. I would be interesting to hear from an actual FM. :-)

# Answer
> 2 votes
With enough time (let's say a couple of minutes), a strong player would most certainly do all the calculations (down to mate) before deciding on a move here.

Doing the calculations here is actually not all that difficult because of several factors:

1. As pointed out, because of white's threats against the black king, black is basically forced to check and obviously has only two good candidate moves to do so: Bg4+ or Qxc2+. If playing for a win, Bg4+ is more attractive because it adds another attacker to the game, so one might as well start calculating the consequences of Bg4+ only.
2. All moves are forced and many of the longest mating sequences all follow the same pattern: basically black capturing the e3 pawn with check opening more diagonals for activating the dark-squared bishop.
3. While Kd2 and Kd3 lead to the longest theoretical mates from the position, they are quite obviously lost after Rd8+, when white has the option of prolonging the game by sacrificing all his pieces or getting mated immediately (e.g. after easy-to-see Kd2, Rd8+, Ke1, Rd1+, Kf2, Qf3++). Of course once white loses all his pieces there is no point calculating the shortest route to mate.

So in summary, the mates after Bg4+ boil down to calculating something like a mate in 4 where black gives check at every move. Not at all difficult even for sub-FM players like me (around 2200 strength).

In addition to calculating the mates, one would also have to decide that 1. Qxc2+ does not lead to mate (quite obviously because black is only attacking with the queen) and that Bg4+, Rxg4, Qxh6 is winning for black (also obvious because of the large material advantage).

# Answer
> -2 votes
I someone who knows how to play chess, I, with confidence, would say none. If I got into this position in a game, I would already know the correct answer before I got to this move. If I saw this as a puzzle, I would assume that only two moves are worthy of consideration, and only one is doing more to restrict the king.

Not the answer you're looking for, and others will think that it's a bad answer, but it's the truth.

---
Tags: tactics, puzzles, calculation
---


# Question
Title: What’s the difference between Partial Retrograde Analysis and Retro Strategy?
What’s the difference between Partial Retrograde Analysis (PRA) and Retro Strategy (RS) which are different ways of interpreting retrograde analysis chess problems?

# Answer
The history of some chess positions can be determined with certainty and some cannot. PRA looks at each alternative history and finds their different solutions. These typically revolve around if the right to castle exist, then you have some solution; or if last move allows en-passant then another solution exists.

RS involves 'mutual dependency', for example if a pieces existence on a square can mean either one side can't castle or the other side can't castle; Then the first to castle proves the other couldn't.

There is also the AP (a posteriori) convention, which is controversial as the variations can involve moves motivated more toward proving if certain moves are legal than by real chess motivations.

Tim Krabbé's book Chess Curiosities covers these things.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, problems, castling, en-passant, retrograde-analysis
---


# Question
Title: Most different openings by transpositions?
What sequence of opening moves can include most different named Openings or Defenses by transpositions?

For example, I just played a bullet game that went:

1.d4 e5 2. e4 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bb5.

In this sequence, we have, in just four moves:

Queen’s Pawn Opening; Englund Gambit; King’s Pawn Opening; Center Game; Philidor’s Defense; Ruy Lopez; Steinitz Defense to the Ruy Lopez;

Very interesting is also:

1.e4 d5 2.d4 c6 (or 2...e6), and so on.

Are there any other similar (or better) examples of this kind?

# Answer
Another well-known example is the following:

```
[fen ""]
1. f4 {Bird's Opening} 1... e5 {From Gambit} 2. e4 {King's Gambit} 2... d5 {Falkbeer Counter Gambit} 3. exd5 exf4 {King's Gambit Accepted}

```

A total of 5 distinct names.
Bird's Opening
From Gambit
King's Gambit
Falkbeer Counter Gambit
King's Gambit Accepted
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, defense, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: What are the best books on (A) General Theory, (B) Calculation Process/Improvement?
I will introduce my request by saying that up until fairly recently I was completely oblivious to chess despite practicing as a kid, I have a clear understanding of the FIDE rules but that's about it.

Though being an advanced player in similar disciplines I understand the concepts of opening theory, endgame, evaluation of position, albeit not in a chess context.

What are the best books of reference on:

(A) General Theory: or ways to think about chess beyond the rules themselves, having heard terms such as scope, dynamics, positional judgement, the importance of the center, pawn structures, etc/?

(B) Calculation in chess: a description of the thought process, methods for improving?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Chess principles:

* Aron Nimzowitsch's My System \[Essential. Good for beginners as well\]
* School of Chess Excellence series 3 - Strategic Play by Mark Dvoretsky. \[Intermediate level\]
* Grandmaster Preparation - Strategic Play by Jacob Aagaard \[Advanced. Aagard's books have tough puzzles which will be very hard for Beginners.\]

Pawn Structures: \[You can read the theory and games to understand the principles. Not very technical, so should be equally understanable by Beginners. At the same time, intermediate/advanced level player will be better able to *participate* with the book using analysis.\]

* Winning Chess Middlegame by Sokolov
* Winning Pawn Structures by Alexander Baburin

Calculation:

* Think like a Grand Master - Kotov \[Good for all levels. But beginners will find the technical parts difficult\]
* Secrets of Chess Training by Mark Dvoretsky. \[Advanced. dot. A difficult book since it dwells on analysis and getting better at the technical aspects\]
* Other authors: Jeremy Silman, Andrew Soltis (The Inner Game of Chess?) \[I have all the above books in my library, and have read them in parts at least, but I don't have the books of Soltis and Silman. Never read them, But I heard good feedback about them. Worth a try, I guess.\]

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would recommend Chess Tutor Step 1. It is a training software that starts with the most basic level and goes until 1800 rating, more or less. The software costs around $20. When you finish you can follow with Chess Tutor Step 2 and Chess Tutor Step 3. Even they have several languages available. I have been a chess trainer for 30 years, and I have never seen something so good. I have no commercial relation with the author. The program includes puzzles, lessons, and even a chess program that you can play with. I would not go with a book because this chess software check if the move that you propose is right, and gives you advises if your move is wrong. If you want something extra, even though they are designed for kids, I would also recommend Dinosaur Chess. I love also Fritz and Chesster. You can find computer, tablet, and phone versions. Definitely, do not start with a book. You can find where to buy them with Google, Bing, Amazon, or any search engine. If you want additional advises, just write me. I like to help.

---
Tags: theory, books, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Plan against pawn formation of c4, d5, e4, e3 in the Nimzowitsch defense (or similar positions in the Dunst opening)
I'm a 1700-ish player who plays opening systems starting with 1.Nc3 as white and 1. ... Nc6 as black, and generally I'm pretty happy with my results. But there's one type of setup that I struggle forming a plan against, where my opponent trades bishops on e3 (or e6) recapturing with the f-pawn. A typical example would be:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.d5 Nce7 4.c4 Ng6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bc5 7. Be3 Bxe3 8.fxe3

```

What should my strategy be as black in this position? Usually with the dark-squared bishops off the board I would try to place my knight on f4, but that's impossible with the pawn on e3. I usually end up trying to attack the e3 pawn (with O-O, d6, c6, Ng4, Qb6 in some order), but white has no problem defending that. Stockfish says the position is even, but I've not scored well in these type of positions and feel kind of at sea. Any suggestions?

# Answer
I play systems such as this myself. In your example White has been very unambitious and you are certainly equal at least, but you do not have the advantage that you may feel entitled to. It is worth bearing in mind that nothing is weak unless it can be attacked, and this is true of the doubled pawns here. By focusing on them I believe you are wasting your energy.

I think that the correct attitude for Black is to recognize that you have no weaknesses and an easy development and should be happy with that. Counterintuitively, Blacks strategy should revolve around ..f5, even though this allows White to dissolve his doubled Pawns and perhaps exchange his bad Bishop. This break would be normal if, for example the Pe3 were still on f2, and it is still a good idea. Black can start with ..d6 and ..0-0, then put the Nf6 somewhere and play ..f5. From your diagram play might go 8...d6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 Ng4 11.Qd2 f5 12.exf Bxf5 13.Bxf5 (13.e4 gives away the square f4 and makes the White Bishop permanently bad.) Rxf5. In this position I would prefer (slightly) to be Black.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawn-structure, planning
---


title: How does b3 prevent e5 here?

text:
# Question
Title: How does b3 prevent e5 here?
```
 [FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp1b1pp/3ppn2/5p2/2PP4/5NP1/PP2PPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

White plan is to play b3 and then Ba3 to render the move e5. But how does it prevents e5?

# Answer
Currently e5 is not playable due to pawn loss. b3 is good as if ever e5 occurs after preparing for it with Nbd7, dxe5 dxe5 would make the long diagonal accessible to the bishop forever. In double fianchetto positions, an open centre is desired for maximum range of bishops.

Obviously, It's not strict, e5 is a very important break in many dutch positions.

This is an opening position. Many things are possible here. You can read some books on classical dutch for more insight into this position.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Another factor here: e5, dxe5, dxe5, Qxd8, then Bxd8, Bxf8 (bishop for rook) or Rxd8, Bxe7 (free bishop), and the pawn on e5 is still ungarded.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy
---


# Question
Title: What was Caruana's plan in playing c6 against Carlsen in Game 10 of the Clutch Chess International?
In Game 10 of the 2020 Clutch Chess International, Caruana played `c6` in response to Carlsen's `9. Nd5`.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Clutch Chess International"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Caruana, Fabiano"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2881"]
[BlackElo "2773"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nc4 Nxe4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. Ne3 Nc6 7. Nd5 Nd4 8.
Nxe7 Nxe2 9. Nd5 c6

```

What was Caruana's plan in making this strange move, since the white knight can just gain the rook through `Nc7+`?

# Answer
> 6 votes
If White goes for **11.Nc7+**, then Black can reply **11...Kd8 Nxa8 Nxc1**, however if Black played **10...Nxc1** directly, **11.Nxc7+** would win an extra pawn.

Note **10...c6 Bxe2 cxd5** would have been OK for black.

---
Tags: opening, online-chess
---


title: Creating a New Neural Network for chess

text:
# Question
Title: Creating a New Neural Network for chess
I'd like to have my own chess engine similar to Leela for personal use. I’d want it to have a decent strength, let’s say 2k, and be able to play with it.

I'm wondering if I can use Leela to create a new network that is trained on select number of games (essentially supervised learning instead of self play). Basically, it will be a network that can train on games of past masters such as Tal, Morphy etc. Any help is appreciated.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have done some Deep Reinforcement Learning so I can tell you that making a NN is not the way forward here and it is far from easy. If you manage to take the NN of LC0 as it is and train it with another algorithm (according to how you want it), you can get your training software. Even designing this algorithm would be difficult.

The point here is that LC0 NN is capable of having a strength matching 3900 levels. It learns patterns in chess very efficiently. If you want a strength of 1600 or 2000 or whatever your rating is, it's definitely more than capable. Maybe you would need a new NN if you want a strength of 4500. Intelligence is already out there. You just have to customize it for your needs.

A much more practical thing would be to try to beat LC0 snapshots of past close to your rating. They should be available on lc0 site, you'll have to make the appropriate frontend. But you can get an easier version by trying to beat stockfish levels on lichess. Maybe you can request the lichess community to add more levels at smaller intervals or make some more yourself.

Earlier engines like Fritz and I guess the very old Deep Blue itself were trained on GM games so this is not anything new. Self play is much stronger and you'll be able to feel playing many levels how NN itself learns patterns step by step.

P.S. Such a thing would help Carlsen, Anand and others much more as you can learn through books but they can't. They can try to beat 2900 LC0 but you can learn from books. Everytime they crush the opponents who write the books we read.

---
Tags: engines, programming, computer-chess, leela
---


# Question
Title: Why is this king and two passed pawns vs. king and rook endgame not drawable?
I aways thought that the king and passed pawn vs. king and rook endgame was always drawn. But I had two passed pawns in the below game,with Black to move, I was unable to draw the game. Why is that?

```
[FEN "8/1R6/8/5pp1/3K1k2/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
There is no absolute result for this type of endgame-it all depends on the position of the pieces. In fact, any result is possible.

Objectively, this particular position with black to move is a loss-you didn't make a mistake.I suggest you consult endgame tablebase, which announce a loss in 24 moves with best play by Black. Here is an example line.

```
[FEN "8/1R6/8/5pp1/3K1k2/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... g4 2. Kd3 Kf3 3. Kd2 g3 4. Ke1 Ke3 5. Rb3+ Kf4 6. Kf1 Kg4 7. Kg2 f4 8. Rb4 Kf5 9. Kf3 Ke5 10. Rxf4 Kd5 11. Kxg3 Ke5 12. Kf3 Kd5 13. Re4 Kc5 14. Re5+ Kd4 15. Rf5 Kc3 16. Rf4 Kd2 17. Rd4+ Kc2 18. Ke2 Kc3 19. Re4 Kb2 20. Kd2 Kb3 21. Rd4 Kb2 22. Rd3 Ka1 23. Rb3 Ka2 24. Kc2 Ka1 25. Ra3#

```

In the game, the White king is able to get and front of the Black pawns after Black tries to push them for promotion. White is then able to scoop them up as Black attempts to defend them with their king. Once Black is down to their king, it is a simple king and rook endgame for White. Win.

Some nice online resources about this endgame type:

General ideas and examples

More general ideas, examples and statistics

Real games collection
> 7 votes

# Answer
What I was taught was that a king and two connected passed pawns was "drawable" if the pawns were both on the SIXTH rank, with the pawnholder to move. Assuming that the two kings and rook were all in a position to support/oppose the pawns.

If the pawn are both on the seventh rank, you might be able to win by "queening" one of them. Unless the opponent can sacrifice the rook for BOTH pawns.

In your case, your pawns were on the fourth rank, not far advanced enough to be "threatening," giving the rook too much time (and space to maneuver).

Pawns gain value the further advanced they are. A protected passed pawn on the sixth rank is worth TWO points (not one) and two connected passed pawns are worth more than four points because of the "synergy," that is, about a rook.

A protected passed pawn on the seventh rank is worth about three points, because the opponent will have to give up at least a minor piece to prevent it from queening.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Yes, the game is won by white if it's white to move, otherwise black finds safety in a stalemate, but only if the b-file pawn is pushed first.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, rook-endgame, passed-pawn
---


# Question
Title: What's an ideal game for teaching a new beginner?
I sent my nephew a chess set for his 8th birthday. He doesn't play yet.

When my children were small, I taught them to play by working through a simple game in which each piece was introduced in turn. I made it into a story (e.g. "Now your queen is in danger! What can we do about that?") until finally the child won the game with a checkmate (of course).

I had to make it up as we went along, but I am sure there must be some well-known games that would do the same job better, which is to say more excitingly and succinctly.

Can you suggest something suitable for a beginner's very first game? It doesn't need to cover things like *en passant*, pawn promotion or castling - just the very basics, to introduce the different characters and the plot.

(By "well-known", obviously I mean **well-known as a teaching game**, devised for the purpose of introducing a complete beginner to the very basics. It's completely irrelevant whether the game is a famous example from the history of chess, since that will mean absolutely nothing to an eight-year-old beginner playing his first game.)

# Answer
I vote for the Opera Game. It showcases the very basics of strategy (controlling the center, getting the pieces developed ASAP, and attacking the king), and ends with a fantastic combination to force checkmate.

This is one of the most well-known games ever played, and it has been covered by nearly everyone online, so you can definitely find a good overview of this game in many youtube videos. If you watch a few yourself, (such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKvUQpQWie0) you should be able to present it as a story to your kid too.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The suggestion of the "Opera Game" is a good one, but I'm afraid it still might be too advanced for a complete beginner. What might be more suitable would be the elementary games in a beginner's chess manual, of which there are numerous available. These are probably not going to be famous games between well-known players since they would be too sophisticated. If a well-known player would be involved, his opponent would most likely be a novice who would fall into an elementary trap. The following short, instructive game from Ken Whyld's "Learn Chess in A Weekend" did involve one famous player, Paul Keres.

```
[Title "Caro-Kann, Keres-Arlamowski"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6  2. Nc3 d5 {beginning the fight for the all-important center squares to gain maximum mobility for his pieces} 3. Nf3 {development toward the center in preparation for castling} dxe4  4. Nxe4 {recapturing to maintain material equality} Nf6 {challenging the centralized knight} 5. Qe2?! {defending the knight and setting a trap. This move really isn't the best since it blocks in White's king bishop, but White is hoping for a Black mistake} Nbd7 {Black, seeing only a knight exchange on f6, overlooks that his e-pawn will be pinned to the king if the knight on e4 moves elsewhere and blunders away the game} 6. Nd6# {a "smothered mate"}

```

---

```
                                                                               The following short game from Savielly Tartakower's "A Breviary of Chess" is between two famous players and is well known.

```

---

```
[Title "Caro-Kann, 1910, Richard Reti-Savielly Tartakower"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Qd3 {better than in the previous game} e5 {to open lines of play for the pieces} 6. dxe5 Qa5+ 7. Bd2 Qxe5 {regaining the forfeited pawn, although at the cost of several tempi, which are important in the opening when time in development is of the essenc} 8. O-O-O {instead of defending his knight by 8.f3, White conceives a plan to emphasize his lead in development of four pieces in play versus two} Nxe4 {falling into the trap} 9. Qd8+! {sacrificing his queen to force checkmate!} Kxd8 10. Bg5+ {double check, from which the king can only flee} Kc7 {or 10... Ke8 11. Rd8#} 11. Bd8#

```

Other beginner's manuals will have similar instructive games. Such books by I.A. Horowitz, Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev were popular during my older generation, but I'm sure current books for beginners are just as good.
> 4 votes

# Answer
A beginner's "first game" should be his own game. Newcomers won't really understand the moves that are being made. Sure, you can give him an explanation about why the moves make sense, but you could give a just as convincing one about a game that goes \**1.a3 a6 2.h3 h6 3.g4"

The only way to experience chess is doing it (and screwing it up) yourself
> 2 votes

# Answer
Famous games are usually famous because both players are very high level and something unexpected happened, like a bold sacrifice or incredible positional play. While they are useful learning tools, they maybe aren’t what a true beginners very first games will look like.

I think illustrating games where one player captures (“om nom nom”, in childspeak) lots of material through very simple tactics (eg opponent leaving pieces en prize, knight forks a king and rook) are pretty illustrative. These games generally aren’t well known - with good reason.

So to find them, I recommend just playing some games online against some very low rated players who make these mistakes. As an added benefit to having played the game yourself, you can influence the game to illustrate whatever threats and tactics you wish. (And if you’re opponent doesn’t cooperate, feel free to demonstrate your cooked lines). You also have had time to consider some sidelines, which gives you the option on calling an audible if your kiddo suggests such a move while going over the game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: beginner
---


# Question
Title: Is there any important thing to note from this game?
```
[FEN ""]

1. c4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 b6 9. Qe2 Bb7 10. Rd1 Qc7 11. Bb2 Rad8 12. Rac1 Qb8 13. h3 Bd6 14. e4 dxe4 15. Nxe4 Bf4 16. Nxf6+ Nxf6 17. Rb1 c5 18. dxc5 bxc5 19. Ne5 Qa8 20. Ng4 Nxg4 21. Qxg4 Bh6 22. Bf6 Rd7 23. Bf1 Qc8 24. Rxd7 Qxd7 25. Rd1 Qc7 26. Bg5 Bxg5 27. Qxg5 h6 28. Qd2 Be4 29. Qd7 Rc8 30. f3 Bc2 31. Rd2 Bb1 32. Qxc7 Rxc7 33. a3 Rb7 34. Rb2 Bg6 35. b4 Kf8 36. Kf2 Ke7 37. Ke3 Kd7 38. Be2 Kc7 39. b5 Rb6 40. a4 f6 41. a5

```

I was analyzed this game, but sadly couldn't find anything to learn from it. Did I miss something, or is this just a simple game as it appears to be?

# Answer
Even simple games are full of possibilities. If you want to learn, you have to investigate these possibilities. Ideally without an engine.

Some lines of investigation:

What happens after 23.Bxh7 and Rxd7?

What about 23.b4 cb 24.Bxh7?

How does 26.Rd3 with the idea of Rg3 pan out?

How does 31.Qxc7 Rxc7 32.Rd8+ differ from the game?
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Trapped Rooks: Does Stockfish penalize more if the king can't castle temporarily?
In this talkchess thread, they discuss trapped rooks and castling rights. In post #5, user @Lyudmil Tsvetkov posted:

> I would give at least some 10-15cps for temporary prevention of castling.

Here is how StockFish implements it:

```
score -= TrappedRook * (1 + !pos.castling_rights(Us));

```

Here an example position.

```
r3kb1r/pp3ppp/4bn2/3p4/P7/4N1P1/1P2PPBP/R1B1K2R w Kq - 0 1

```

When searching, the move Bg2-f1 leads to the position.

```
r3kb1r/pp3ppp/4bn2/3p4/P7/4N1P1/1P2PP1P/R1B1KB1R b Kq - 1 1

```

As you can see, the White bishop has blocked castling, but `pos.castling_rights(Us)` for White still returns true, which means Stockfish is not penalizing for the temporary prevention of castling.

Is it intentional or is it a Stockfish bug?

# Answer
White hasn't lost his castling rights. It's just not a legal move right now. There is a distinction.

White would still be able to castle king-side, if the bishop were to move.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, castling, evaluation, rooks
---


# Question
Title: Using Stockfish in an automated way, for example, to analyze games in pgn format
I am looking for a way to use Stockfish for an automated analysis of games which I have in pgn format. Similar to Fritz/Chessbase's Blunder Check function I would like Stockfish (or any other UCI engine) to "simply" go through each position of each game in the pgn-file (convert to FENs?), let Stockfish run for a fixed amount of seconds and then return the evaluation and depth reached. Maybe later I would like to add things like node count or the eval in each depth reached. Finally, the program should format the output to a human readable format.

Maybe there is a similar program already out there which I could use as a template but if not what would be the easiest way to get started. I have limited programming skills in Python and VB.

# Answer
There is a library for Python (`import chess.engine`) that allows you to use an engine (like Stockfish) to analyse games in a PGN file.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, uci
---


# Question
Title: Which chess GUIs support the chess variants Atomic and King of the Hill?
I want to play against Stockfish offline because I'm going on a trip. I downloaded the compiled exe from GitHub since my laptop will have limited Internet connection. After loading it into the Arena GUI I noticed it only supports Chess960. Which GUIs support the chess variants Atomic and King of the Hill?

# Answer
There are three chess variant GUIs supporting both atomic and king of the hill that I am aware of:

The latter is well suited for automated engine matches and human vs. engine games, but less for game analysis. All three should work fine with the multi-variant Stockfish you downloaded.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, stockfish, atomic-chess, king-of-the-hill
---


# Question
Title: How should one respond to the Sodium attack?
The Sodium attack is characterised by the move 1.Na3, tending to be followed by the fianchetto of the bishop. This opening has never been played by myself, but I seem to encounter it quite frequently amongst lower rated players. What would be the best way to respond?

# Answer
Play whatever.

Two-three moves like that hardly constitute an "opening". It could help if you told us what kind of set up white tries to achieve in the center (e.g. which of the central pawns are moved.)

Generally moves like that are nothing I'd worry about. Playing just normal moves (occupy the center, develop pieces, take it from there....) should be fine. If you have a favourite black opening against say d4 or e4 you might be able to follow it.

You might want to make the somewhat fundamental decision on whether you prefer to block the b2 bishop by playing e5 at some point or to limit the space for the a3 knight by playing d5.
> 6 votes

# Answer
What should you play? You play chess!

You can't have a prepared answer for every nonsense move your opponent may play. If you can't easily equalize as Black against **1.Na3**, then your chess skills should be improved somehwere else other than the opening
> 7 votes

# Answer
FM Graham Burgess suggests the following when facing this kind of unorthodox but modest opening from White: play as though you (as Black) gained a tempo somewhere. In other words, you now have an advantage, but it's not much; therefore you should try to keep the initiative, but don't play too aggressively trying to refute the opponent's opening.

So after 1. Na3 (a clearly bad opening move), play 1...d5, 1...e5 or 1...Nf6, which are all natural developing moves. You occupy the center and develop normally, and don't get drawn into aggressive moves like ...d4 or ...e4 before you're developed.

As an example, consider:

```
[FEN ""]
1. Na3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 {A quick check with Stockfish shows that this isn't one of its top choices - it prefers ...e5 or ...d4 - but it's safe, the knight is probably developing here anyway, and by avoiding having to play ...Qxd5, Black avoids potential traps} 3. Nf3  Nc6 {Amazingly, ...Bf5 would be a mistake because it exposes the Bishop to the latent threat of e4. For example 4. cxd5 Nxd5? 5. e4 Bxe4 6. Qa4+ wins a piece, while 4. cxd5 Qxd5 5. d3 still leaves Black scrambling to defend against the threatened e4. If you are unfamiliar with this line you'd be forgiven for falling for this, but that's why FM Burgess suggested not playing too aggressively. 3...Nc6 avoids these traps by leaving all your pieces defended, and follows the principle of developing knights before bishops.} 4. d4 {White has to stop 4...e5, and now we're effectively in a (slightly unusual) Queen's Gambit.} Bf5 {With the a4-e8 diagonal blocked, Black can safely play this now.}

```

Black wins no prizes for maximally exploiting White's weak opening play, but that's not the point - he has survived White's opening to reach a playable middlegame.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You should think this through a bit. 1.Na3 puts the Knight on a bad square but gives it access to the good square c4. If you play 1...e5 then 2.Nc4 gives White some kind of initiative (2...Nc6 3.e4). If you play 1..d5, you start to make the Knight look silly. It will have to come into play via c2, but could then reach good squares via e3. In the early part of the opening White will need to find a good square for that misplaced piece and your play should include some way of making this difficult. "Whatever" is seldom a good answer. If the player of a wierd opening can make you lazy in your analysis they can point to some success.
> 2 votes

# Answer
As a longtime proponent of Durkin's Attack, I think the best answer to 1. Na3 is 1... Nh6!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: How to win a rook endgame with two extra pawns-4 vs 2 general plan
In this diagram it's White to move. Black should be winning in this endgame. I want a simple plan on how to move the Black pawns in a way that I will avoid the horizontal and vertical checks from the White rook.

```
[fen "8/R4ppp/4pk2/1r6/8/5K2/6PP/8 w - - 8 40"]

```

Sometimes I get stuck in a blitz game because I don't have a plan how to win such kind of positions. I would really appreciate it if somebody can give me a straightforward plan. My plan was to keep the Black rook on the 5th or 4th rank to cutoff the White king and advance the h and g pawns. But then what?!

# Answer
> My plan was to keep the Black rook on the 5th or 4th rank to cutoff the White king and advance the h and g pawns. But then what?

Your plan is a bad one.

The general rule in rook and pawn endgames is:

* Your king protects your pawns
* Your rook attacks your opponent's pawns

You can add another one:

* Push your passed pawns

As you can see your passed pawns are not your g and h pawns. Therefore you should not be pushing those pawns as a first priority. You may want to push them to help the e and f pawns to advance.

Regarding "Cutting-off the opponent's king", in rook and pawn endgames it is usually much more important to cut off the opponent's king *vertically* not horizontally. You want to cut off the king from where the pawn or pawns are going to be. The White king on the 3rd rank is not cut off. If you are going to make a queen then sooner or later one of your pawns is going to have to try and reach the 3rd rank when the White king would be ideally placed. The white king on the a or b file would be cut off.

Your king is already protecting your pawns but your rook is not attacking your opponent's pawns. In the changed position with White's king now protecting the g pawn the best way to attack the pawns is not the immediate Rb2 because there is a more efficient way to do that.

First Rb3+ either forces the king to the fourth rank or to the second rank. In either case the move Rb2 then comes with tempo. The White king has to move.

Then you want to try and push f6 or f5 to get your e and f pawns rolling. Your king will need to be out of the way on g6 and you will want to move the h and g pawns up so they aren't vulnerable to attack by the rook. So g5 creates space on g6 for your king. You can follow up with h5 and then get ready to push the f and e pawns. Your opponent can try and stop this by g4 or just sit and wait passively.

One line might be:

```
[fen "8/R4ppp/4pk2/1r6/8/5K2/6PP/8 b - - 4 38"]

1... Rb3+ 2. Kg4 Rb2 3. Kf3 g5 4. h3 h5 5. g4 (5. Rc7 g4 6. hxg4 hxg4 7. Kxg4 Rxg2) Rb3+ 6. Kg2 h4 7. Ra6 Rg3+ 8. Kh2 Kg6 9. Rb6 Re3 10. Ra6 f6 11. Rb6 e5 12. Ra6 Rf3 13. Kg2 Rd3 14. Rb6 Kf7 15. Ra6 Ke7 16. Rb6 Rd6 17. Rb2 Ke6 18. Rf2 (18. Re2 Rd4 19. Rf2 e4 20. Rf5 Rd2 21. Kg1 Rd3 22. Kg2 Rg3+ 23. Kh2 e3 24. Rf1 e2 25. Re1 Re3)  e4 19. Re2 Ke5

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
With such an overwhelming pawn advantage it should be easy enough to win.

What you said is definitely a good plan. You can push h5 and g5 to push the king back.

```
[fen "8/R4ppp/4pk2/1r6/8/5K2/6PP/8 b - - 4 38"]

1... h5 2. Ra4 g5 3. h3 Ke5 4. Ra2 f5

```

We can see here that black has an easy win. g4 is coming and once the pawns are traded, Black's two extra pawns win the game
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, pawns, rook-endgame, planning
---


# Question
Title: What is the worst opening move, and why?
Grouping of initial moves of a chess game are well known, though I've never seen analysis of the worst possible opening move, any thoughts? If so, please provide more than just a move, but the exact reason why such a move would be the worst assuming such a move was against a GM.

# Answer
> 32 votes
`1. f3` is almost certainly the single worst move. It irrevocably weakens white's king position without doing anything useful.

Other moves like `1. b3` and `1. g3` prepare to develop a bishop, so they're not *so* bad. `1. c3` doesn't do too much for white, but it also doesn't hurt him.

`1. a4` and `1. h4` both ignore the center, but they do help develop the rooks, and there are positions where `1. a4/h4` can be useful (especially when the kings have castled on opposite sides of the board.

# Answer
> 29 votes
I agree with Andrew on `1. f3` (Barnes Opening). No first move can be decisively wrong, but some first moves are questionable. In *Chess Opening Theory* (Wikibooks):

> Quite a rarely played passive starting move that gives up White's first move advantage. White's position is slightly weakened by the White King exposure to a check on the h4 - e1 diagonal. The kingside Knight's favourite developing square f3, is also not currently possible. In fact, this is arguably the worst possible first move by White.
>
> No stats as `1. f3` occurs rarely among serious chess players.

Next on the list would probably be `1. h4` (Desprez Opening):

> `1. h4` is a rather useless move that does nothing to assist the important central squares. No top masters have ever used it in professional play, although some, most notably Hikaru Nakumura, play it during blitz. It could be said that White has made his position worse, as castling kingside is now less attractive.
>
> This move is rarely seen among serious chess players.

# Answer
> 15 votes
The other moves cited, especially 1.f3, are bad, but I would rather plead the case of the ugly Grob opening, 1.g4?.

Pawns do not go back, so this double step weakening is much more committing than a one step pawn move. After, say 1...e5, White has not only lost time, he has also:

* Self-destroyed the most natural shelter for his own king, reached by short castle.
* created weaknesses for himself, as Pg4 can and will be targeted by Bc8 or Ph5.
* got himself a disadvantage in the fight for the center.

If, in some kind of handicapped game, I could choose my opponent's first move in order to maximize my chances, I would rather force him to play 1.g4 than anything else.

# Answer
> 12 votes
For an objective take on this question, one might take a look at the Chessok Opening Tree:

1. 1.f3 -0.33
2. 1.g4 -0.29
3. 1.Nh3 -0.22
4. 1.b4 -0.18
5. 1.h4 -0.18

Given that white should be able to achieve a plus of 0.11 (according to the Tree) these are the only moves that not only lose the first move advantage but more than reverse it.
Of course these computer evaluations have to be taken with a grain of salt, but they do bear out the intuition of experienced players and provide some food for thought (especially to adherents of the Sokolski …).

# Answer
> 11 votes
The worst move is 1. resigns. It goes from equal to lost in one move, much worse than moves like 1. f3 which go from equal to slightly worse.

# Answer
> 8 votes
`1. h4` has been deemed the worst move by John Watson (author of the Mastering the Chess Openings series). Other people are saying `1. h3` and `1. a3`. That is not true. Michael Basman is a noted unorthodox player that opens with `1. a3/h3`, etc. and is rated \>2400. `1. a3/h3` come out to be useful in a variety of openings, but it's certainly not what I would start with.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I agree `1. f3` is quite bad, but `1. Na3` and `1. Nh3` aren't pretty either, especially as they have to move again to avoid a doubled pawn after `...d5` or `...e5`.

# Answer
> 7 votes
1.Nh3 and 1.Na3 (Ammonia attack, Sodium attack) are REALLY bad. It breaks the "move one piece one time" rule, and 1.Nh3 blocks h3, a good move to prevent back-rank mate.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The idea of the opening moves is to allow an early development of pieces. Therefore the worst moves would be the ones that allow you the least opportunity to do so. So I would say `1. a3`, `1. h3`, and `1. f3` would be the worst. You not only lose the race in developing your pieces quickly (the only piece you can develop after these moves is the knight), but you also give up control on the central squares.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I would say `1. Na3`. The reason is that it is the most useless move as far as building a setup around it. Even moves mentioned like `1. h4` and `1. f3` can be useful in some contexts - `1. f3` can be useful if you play `d4` and `Nc3` and plan `e4`. `1. h4` can be useful because you discourage your opponent from fianchettoing his bishop, and you can push it again for cramping effect. It is difficult, however, to imagine any setup where `1. Na3` is a helpful move, and furthermore after `...e5` you will have to move the knight or play `b3` to avoid getting doubled a-pawns, which are probably the worst doubled pawns since the open b-file is rarely useful and they are not supporting anything or guarding any important squares.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I'm just trying to protect a move that's mentioned above as being perhaps one of the worst. Grandmaster Mednis years ago wrote a little opening theory book ("*How to play good opening moves*," Edmar Mednis, ISBN-13: 978-0679141099) in which he states that

1.g3

is one of White's *perfect* opening move choices, when followed by

2.Bg2.

He does mention some of White's *awful* first move choices, but doesn't rank their badness.

# Answer
> 6 votes
`1. g4` ... `2. f3??`

This is a horrendous opening (especially in combination with the second move) because it severely undermines the ability to castle on the king's side, very aggressively throws a pawn into action where it has no defenders and isn't helping any cause in particular.

`g4` allows to fianchetto the light-square bishop, as well as hide the dark square bishop behind it later, if needed, which is an odd, but somewhat redeeming quality, but as soon as it's followed by `2. f3`, the light-square bishop is entombed and white have ZERO center control or active development for whole 3 tempi, allowing black to gain a MASSIVE center presence and advantage. And after `1. ...d5` followed by `2. ...h5` the `g4` square now belongs to the black and sets a great entry point to a king-side attack. If white tried to take on `g5`, black now has a semi-open file without ever moving the rook. Thanks for that!

Such a horrible game would typically go like this: `1. g4 d5 2. f3 e5 3. Bg2 h5` \- and black is 2+ points in the lead without having taken a single piece yet, according to any decent engine. White would need a major miracle and a blunder from black to have any chance to recover from that.

Example: Hou Yifan throws game

# Answer
> 4 votes
***1.f3***

***PROS*** The only pros of the opening is some small center support.

***CONS***

1. This opening weakens the king's safety. The f pawn is an important shelter of the e1-h4 diagonal and the g1-b7 diagonal so moving it makes the kingside pawn structure destroyed.
2. This opening don't open any lines fo development, and it blocked the knight!
3. Wasted tempo.

***SUGGESTION FOR PLAYING*** I do not suggest it for anyone

***1.h4 and 1.a4***

***PROS*** None

***CONS***

1. Doesn't open any lines nor development.
2. Weakens pawn structure.
3. Wasted tempo.

***SUGGESTION FOR PLAYING*** I do not suggest it for anyone

***1.h3 and 1.a3***

***PROS*** Does not weaken anything.

***CONS***

1. Wasted tempo.
2. No development lines.

***SUGGESTION FOR PLAYING*** For white players who want to play black.

***1.Na3***

***PROS***

1. It can develop to c4 or c2 but that would waste some tempos.
2. Support c pawn, but can't the c pawn move already?

***CONS***

1. After 1...d5 and an exchange the pawn structure is lost.
2. Wasted tempo.

***SUGGESTION FOR PLAYING*** Only in blitz.

***1.Nh3***

***PROS***

1. It can use another tempo to go to f4.
2. I'm surprised at nobody mentioning it, but it protects f2!

***CONS***

1. Wasted tempo
2. After 1...e5 and exchange the pawn structure is lost... and the f2 protection is gone!

***SUGGESTIONS FOR PLAYING*** Only in blitz.

***1.c3***

***PROS*** Support d4

***CONS***

1. No development and blocks knight
2. Wasted tempo.

***SUGGESTION FOR PLAYING*** For Caro Kann players.

***1.g4***

***PROS*** Open lines for bishop development

***CONS***

1. The g pawn is undefended.
2. Weakens kingside.

***SUGGESTION FOR PLAYING*** Only in blitz.

***The third most bad is 1.Na3?! and 1.Nh3?!*** ***The second most bad is 1.h4?! and 1.a4?!*** ***The most bad is 1.f3?!***

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would say 1. Nh3.

1.f3 is bad however after g3 white is only down a couple of tempos and has a somewhat reasonable position.

1.Nh3 allows black the potential to to wreck white's pawn structure and even threaten a very quick mate. Yes, white can avoid that with Ng4-\>Nf3 but you've wasted two tempos when you could have done the same thing with 1.Nf3

White is in a struggle for equality after 1.Nh3 and is one slip away from losing the game for the next several moves. Even if white does play perfectly, he has thrown away several tempi for no reason and allowed an equal game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Just tell you one thing, 1.f3 is bad, it does not control the center actually, it stopped the knight, and it place the king in danger. Sometimes even followed by 2.Kf2, I think this is the hammerschlag variation, further weakening the king, this is to laugh at beginners, but no one have win me with it yet.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Is the bishop pair and a pawn equivalent to knight and a rook?
In theory, rook (5) + knight (3) = 8 points.

And bishop (3.25) + bishop (3.25) + pawn (1) = 7.5 points.

For example, do you think black is better in the following scenario or do you believe white can hold with good play?

```
[fen "1n2k2r/ppp1pppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/2B1KB2 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
It's an oversimplification to think of the bishop pair to be worth 0.5 points on average. There are cramped positions where a bishop is barely better than a pawn. It's very difficult to generalize based on your question, it will vary greatly from position to position. But in case you're only interested in an "on average" answer, then the side with the rook has a slight edge.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It depends on the situation. Sometimes players lose 3 points, but have an advantage in position.

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. b3 Bc5 3. f4 Nf6 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Qg4 Nf2 6. Qxg7 Rf8 7. d4 Nxh1 8. Nf3 Bb4+ 9. c3 Be7 10. Bh6 d5 11. Qxh7 Qd7 12. Bxf8 Bxf8  *

```

Or for example this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUr\_gdKQ8j4

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is very situational. Generally, the side with the bishop pair is simply down the exchange.

# Answer
> 1 votes
" Adding the better cooperation of the rook with the bishops, many Soviet theoreticians believed that, in active positions, rook and two bishops outperform two rooks and a knight. "

# Answer
> 0 votes
This position is equal or maybe White is slightly better. If there were open files it'd be a different story, though!

---
Tags: knights, rooks, bishops, point-value, exchange
---


# Question
Title: Have engines refuted any established openings?
Before engines were introduced to chess in late 20th centry, there were many established openings that were played by the top players at that time. I am wondering if any of those openings were refuted (and thus are seldom played today) by engine? Namely, have engines found any flaws in established popular openings?

# Answer
> 7 votes
**No, engines have not refuted any established openings**, unless you're including nonsense openings like 1.e4 d6 2. Qg4, which humans already know to be unsound.

In 2012, Rybka's author Vasik Rajlich authored an April's Fool prank in Chessbase claiming to have proved the King's Gambit is at best a draw. Owning up to the prank a few days later, he said:

> It's reasonable to construct a search tree of around 10^18 positions using modern technology. The chess alpha-beta tree is thought to have at least 10^45 positions. The alpha-beta tree for the King's Gambit will be at most 10x to 100x smaller than that. So, we're still probably a good 25 or so orders of magnitude away from being able to solve something like the King's Gambit. If processing power doubles every 18 months for the next century, we'll have the resources to do this around the year 2120, plus or minus a few decades.

The last couple of lines are the most relevant ones. It's 2019 as I write this, so if processing power doubles every 18 months for the next century, we're still a hundred years away from solving the King's Gambit, plus or minus a few decades. The same goes for every other opening, even those 20+ moves long. Talking in terms of order of magnitude, even if the alpha-beta tree for those openings are a billion times (10^9) smaller than chess's, we'd still be a good 16 orders of magnitude or so away from being able to solve it.

If you're also interested in endgames though, then there have been endgames which humans couldn't solve that have been solved by engines (or engines found flaws in human analysis).

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'm adding another answer because although this opening is not refuted, I believe it's quite close and OP will be interested.

**Edit with better example**: this line of the Najdorf, also played in the TCEC Season 18 superfinal, might very well be "busted".

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. g4 b5 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. g5 Nd7 13. f5 Nc5 14. f6 gxf6 15. gxf6 Bf8 16. Rg1

```

This is another position that's been seen in loads of human games, but in this superfinal the engines might have found the refutation. When playing White, Stockfish reached +4 eval after four moves (16...h5 17. a3 Qb7 18. b4), while it reached +2 eval after only three moves as Black (16...h5 17. a3 Qb6). +2 is very near decisive; usually when Stockfish reaches this level it is expected to win against itself as White.

Caveat: Leela was not nearly as optimistic in the position. Still, it seems unlikely Leela is correct - after all it was not able to hold the game with Black.

**Addendum**: GM Matthew Sadler writes that as far as he knew prior to the game, this line was still playable, but based on the results it looks like future theory will consider these two games the refutation of 13...Nc5 (in other words, 13...Nc5 might be the losing move).

---
Tags: opening, engines, computer-chess
---


title: lichess vs chesscom players

text:
# Question
Title: lichess vs chesscom players
I have been playing on chess.com and lichess for more than 2 years. My rating in blitz on lichess is around 2100, and on chesscom is around 1800. Yet I highly believe that the players on chesscom are much more accurate. Like sometimes I look at the position and they don't do any blunders, 1 mistake, and a few inaccuracies in a position that's really tough to play. Like I would beat them with good moves (not the best moves) and then I would be surprised at the end that overall they played better almost every time! This is very strange. I don't know if there's more cheating on chesscom or what? I would really appreciate it if you can give me your feedback on this topic because it has been driving me crazy. Like I find it easier to beat a 1900 player on lichess than a 1800 on chesscom which is insane!

# Answer
> 7 votes
Let's look at this from another perspective. Instead of assuming that the problem is just that the ratings at different sites mean different things, let's take that out of the equation. Let's look at the reasons that you could observe that opponents *at your rating* on one site play fewer mistakes than opponents *at your rating* on another site.

Your opponents might only *appear* to be stronger on one site:

* If you are using the computer analysis from the different sites to find mistakes, the analysis on one site might be different from the analysis on another. The threshold for "mistake" might be different, or the analysis might be stronger or weaker, which affects how many mistakes are found.
* If players at a particular site are making larger mistakes, they could make fewer of them. (Or, conversely, they could be making many very small "mistakes" that are below the computer's inaccuracy threshold.) Relatedly, if players at one site tend to play more strategical rather than tactical games, this might let the computer think they are stronger, since they aren't playing as many obviously bad moves.
* If players at a particular site are more prone to running out of time, they could lose some of their games without playing any weak moves. (This doesn't really make them a stronger player; time management is a big part of blitz.)

Your opponents on one site might be stronger *in some situations*:

* If, on one site, you tend to play more Swiss tournament or team match games, it could be that your opponents are taking those games more seriously than their other games, causing them to play stronger than their rating would ordinarily indicate. Arena style tournaments, on the other hand, might get some of your opponents looking for a quick knockout rather than playing the objectively best move, so they can get more games in before time runs out.
* Time of day and the geographical distribution of players might even matter. If one site has a larger number of players from a particular time zone, and if the time of day you tend to play is such that players from that time zone are on but would be tired, that could make them play weaker than their rating would ordinarily suggest.

Your average opponent on one site might *actually* be stronger:

* If a site has a large number of players who only play a few games and then quit or make a new account, this could have an impact. A player might be 2200 strength on a site but only have a rating of 1800 because they simply haven't played enough games for their rating to catch up. (As a sub-category of this, this could happen if players are caught cheating and have their accounts deleted and make new ones.) Under the Glicko and Glicko-2 systems that these sites use, new players don't affect the rating of established players as much, so you wouldn't lose many rating points by playing them, either.
* The issue could be with you! If, on one site, something causes you to play stronger (maybe you like the visual layout better?) then the rating you equalize at will also be stronger (even if it's a lower number than the other site) and your opponents will thus be stronger than at the other site.

# Answer
> 26 votes
> Like I find it easier to beat a 1900 player on lichess than a 1800 on chesscom which is insane!

Why is that insane? According to one site, an 1800 blitz rating on chess.com is about equivalent to a 1915 rating on lichess (based on people who answered their survey and have ratings on both sites.) So, your experience of the 1900 lichess player being easier to beat than the 1800 chess.com player conforms to reality.

I think the issue here is simply that an 1800 rating on one site does not correspond to an 1800 rating on another site. Even if they used the same rating rules (which they don't), the ratings would likely diverge due to differences in the player pools.

In the end, rating is just a number, and that number means different things in different places. Just because 1800 rated players are a particular strength on one site does not mean 1800 rated players will be about that strength on another site.

# Answer
> 18 votes
Elo does *not* signify how strong of a player someone is.

Elo signifies how strong a player is in comparison to some community.

Assigning a numeric score to rank how strong someone is in chess would be very difficult to do. The way Elo works (and even the way it is designed) is simply to keep track of players in some group and make predictions about which player in that group is more likely to win against another player in that group. Having a score of 2100 in lichess means that the system has predicted you are more likely to win if you play against someone *on lichess* who has a ranking \<2100, and more likely to lose if you play someone higher.

Having a ranking of 1800 on chesscom means that the system has predicted that you are more likely to win if you play against someone on chesscom with a ranking of \<1800, and more likely to lose if you play someone higher.

Since presumably you play at the same level on both sites, that would imply that these numbers are more or less comparable. There are a lot of reasons that a player would have a different Elo rating in a different community

* One community could simply be more skilled, or targeted at different types of players/
* If the different communities have different "starting ratings" like you mentioned.
* If the communities have a different size. In a smaller community, it's harder to get a very high Elo score (Imagine this taken to the extreme. If you track your Elo against one other player, you will get diminishing returns from beating them. Even if you are the best player in this "community", you will never hit Magnus Carlson level Elo scores)
* It is *possible* for Elo ratings to differ between communities because of different standards of preventing cheating. But I would not expect that to be the case here, given that both sites have (Lichess, Chess.com) have written extensively about how they try to prevent cheating. If you feel like playing on one of these sites is unfair, reading through those articles can help you judge whether it's a fair place to play.

> I know that there are many differences such as the starting rating of a new player on chesscom is 1200, but on lichess is 1500

That makes a huge difference. That means a score of 2100 on lichess is "1.4 times better than average" (which is an oversimplification of how Elo is really calculated and what it represents) whereas a score of 1800 of chesscom is "1.5 times better than average", which is a very minor difference.

---
Tags: lichess, cheating
---


# Question
Title: Strategies for dealing with chess burnout?
I am wondering if anyone else has faced chess burnout. Do you have advice? I am a novice enthusiast (~1400) but, with a wife, child, and job, do not have the opportunity to dedicate as much time to it as I would have in my youth. Because of this I have mostly been playing correspondence chess online, which I am sure is contributing to burnout. Being tied to 50+ games at once against fairly faceless opponents is not conducive to passion for the game I am sure.

Some ideas I have had:

Play more OTB and find better live opponents. I always enjoy the game more and play better when it is personal, like a dance or a good conversation. I have found clubs intimidating but I think at this point I need to bite the bullet and go for it... at my level I am by no means good but I definitely have trouble finding challenges against casual players.

Teach (what little I know). Generally speaking, pouring into others helps motivate and inspire the teacher as well. Maybe I should start a chess club at the local library? (Just to be clear, I have no delusions of grandeur with my measly 1400 but one can always teach basics or facilitate, right?)

Have any of you successfully dealt with burnout? What were your experiences and what would your advice be?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I experienced burnout once from too many correspondence games and I chose to limit my correspondence games to only 10 games, 5 per server that I play on as the max that I would start. I only play on 2 servers. For me, it really helped.

I have a growing family, a full time job and like we all have, the realities of life going. Not a lot of time to really dedicate to developing my game as much as I would like or get to the chess clubs as much as I would like.

Keeping my expectations to be based on the input that I can realistically give to developing my game helped me out mentally as well. I can't expect monumental results in my development in chess when my top priorities are not chess. I also plan on trying to get to the chess clubs and just keep track of local tournaments so if the opportunity for me comes that I can play I know where and when the tournaments are.

Also for me, some of my hobbies help. I'm a programmer enthusiast(novice-beginner) and I'm making my own database, data processing program for pgn files so if I'm feeling a little burnt out I can redirect my attention to the programming stuff for a bit. Seems to help me so maybe if you have a hobby, chess related or not, you can throttle time between them.

Hope however you chose to deal with your issue works out the best!

# Answer
> 6 votes
It sounds like you simply crave some human contact in chess, and that is understandable, oh, and much more fun.

Starting a club, or getting involved in state chess "politics" is certainly one way, but it is a much bigger undertaking with more responsibility. Think hard about this commitment before you do this.

Helping kids at a school, possibly your child's school, is another. If you do attempt to teach, focus on the rules and basic tactics, which you can get straight out of a book. Give them a few puzzles each week, but go through them yourself first before you go over them with the kids. If you have any questions about certain avenues of defense for a particular problem, then you can go over it with Stockfish first so you are ready to answer their questions. You can also see if some local Master would come in and give a talk, play a few games, or give a simul. I have done this quite a few times over the years just because I like kids, and thus, did it for free.

Another think that came to my mind first, and that is go to a club, and make friends with someone, who is close in rating, and invite each other over to your homes, and play for a few hours (or all night...I did that a lot when I was first learning) every week, or couple of weeks.

I would finish the correspondence games, and get away from that. When i started playing in 1980, correspondence was still chess. Now, it is who is better with a computer program. I can see why you do not find much fun in that.

Playing tournaments is also a way to meet up with people, who you will see many times over the years.

Good luck, and let us know what you decide to do.

P.S. You could also take lessons yourself as that would also fit the bill.

# Answer
> 5 votes
50+ correspondence games is a lot of them. If you don't have time for chess you are either dedicating time you don't have or not even thinking most of the moves you are playing.

Correspondence games are supposed to give you a spot where you can think your moves for almost as much time as you want. If, instead, you are rushing through them in order to play all 50+ games, then what's the difference between that and playing Blitz?

Sure, human contact is also a key factor in staying motivated. Go to a local club and play some games. If they make a tournament on a day you are free, give it a try! You may even also find your chance to teach there once you are trusted!

# Answer
> 4 votes
1) Get away from correspondence and play more blitz. I realize blitz may not be the healthiest for your long term development but it is fun and correspondence (esp that many games) can be stressful and demand a lot. I know sometimes I avoid analyzing correspondence positions because I know they'll take hours to figure out. It become this stressful thing that dominates my thinking. If you're playing 50 correspondence games at a time you're either analyzing in a superficial way (which leads to frustration) or you're neglecting other areas of your life. At that point it starts to feel like work. A blitz game is over in ten minutes at most and then you can think about something else.

2) Take a look at your opening rep. Play some fun openings. The Englund gambit is very simple to learn and perfectly playable in blitz or even in classical up to about 1800. Evans gambit, scotch gambit, king's gambit, vienna gambit. Anything with the word "gambit" in it is probably good.

One thing I've noticed is that players around your level tend to play defensive openings and play for material pretty much exclusively. 9 times out of 10 learning to play for the initiative over material is what takes a 1400 to a 1600.

3) Take a break if you need to. When you come back spend some time on what interests you- Maybe a particular player or opening or concept or whatever. If it were me I'd play through Fischer's 60 memorable games or maybe take up a new opening. Maybe a biography of a player. Whatever interests you.

4) Lastly, I agree with the person who said you crave some human contact in chess. It sounds like you're looking for some other way to enjoy chess beyond solitary study. I wouldn't be afraid of a club. At 1400, you'll be better than some of the players and the stronger players will help you improve. There are plenty of other avenues to explore also like teaching.

# Answer
> 4 votes
You are playing way too many games at once! Stop doing that!!

Better yet, stop playing completely, and start studying until you are much stronger. 1400 online is a pretty low rating compared to the complete set of all chess players, and very low to those who compete online, and even lower for those who play OTB tournaments.

What is your prioritized list of goals for your life?
I suggest God, Family, Self, job, retirement, country, ..., and finally chess. You need to make your own list looking at the far future as well as the near future and not just today.

What value is chess providing? Is it worth the time and effort?? Do you want to get better? Do you just enjoy playing and don't care about your rating??

Clearly for burnout you need to resign at least 45 of those games and then phase them out while you move into the plan the questions above helped you make.

# Answer
> 4 votes
It may sound little counter intuitive, but taking little break from chess can help you. Invest time into other hobbies. Also, watching games of older masters (Tal , Morphy, etc.) , who play quite attractivly, attacking chess also sparked some extra joy in me and reminded me why I have started to play this game after all. :)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I used to be playing chess with a clock lots a few years ago. Then I felt like my brain was naturally trying too hard and I couldn't control that and it was stressing me out so I later stopped playing entirely except for the few rare occasional games. When I played just a few games after not having played for so long, it was less stressful. Maybe in actuality, I never played any games after the time I stopped except for those 3 that one day at the Annex Chess Club but I think it just happened that way and I was open to playing games at other times. I decided not to worry about giving up chess. If your brain is different than mine was at the time I gave it up, my solution for myself might not work for you. My mind is not on chess anymore. I don't want to push myself to play it when I don't feel like playing it.

Here's another strategy that might be a solution for you but I have no idea. I don't know exactly how tournaments work but if there is a competition category whose time control is 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move plus half an hour after move 40, it might help to play no other chess games than those in tournaments in that category. Then you'll notice a pattern over a long period of time of your opponents' game play. You need to be patient. Then in baby steps, you'll learn from beating weaker opponents how to gradually start beating stronger and stronger opponents.

Source: What is the time control for FIDE chess tournaments?

The original link in that question at https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=39&view=category won't load on my computer so I linked the answer itself instead.

---
Tags: learning, online-chess
---


# Question
Title: What rearrangent of the starting position's pieces, in any manner, has the fastest stalemate?
It is well known that the fastest stalemate is in 19 ply. But what is the fastest possible if all pieces, not pawns, may be shuffled at will on their first ranks? This will be difficult since there is much to consider, but 19 ply is certainly beatable.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Down another ply to 17 (stalemate after White's 9th move):

```
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "brqnkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBRKBNQ w - - 0 1"]

1. h4 h5 2. g3 f6 3. Qxb7 Kf7 4. Qxc7 Be4 5. Qxd7 Rh6 6. Qxa7 Bh7 7. Qxb8 Kg6 8. Qxc8 Ne6 9. Qxe6 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't know if this is the fastest, but I managed to shave one ply off of the standard chess example by moving the queen to a better starting square. This allows the side giving stalemate to start capturing one move sooner, resulting in stalemate in 18 ply instead of 19.

```
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "rnbnqbkr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

1. a4 d6 2. Ra3 Qxa4 3. h4 h5 4. Rah3 Qxc2 5. f3 Qxd2+ 6. Kf2 Qxb2 7. Qxd6 Qxb1 8. Qh2 Qxc1 9. Kg3 Qe3 1/2-1/2

```

---
Tags: problems, stalemate, records
---


# Question
Title: Why is drag and drop more popular than click-click in online blitz?
There are two ways to move the pieces in interactive interfaces, to drag and drop or to click-click. Drag and drop is by far the more common choice. Why is that given the two advantages of click-click? 1) Click-click avoids making mouse slips in online blitz play. 2) Click-click is easier from the ergonomic point of view.

I have switched to click-click in online blitz very soon after starting to play regularly in order to avoid mouse slips and it works. I am a fast click-click player mostly using a touchpad and see no reason to think that my opponents play faster with their drag and drop technique. But they slip.

Perhaps the answer lies deeply in the psychology of making a move on a real chessboard when there is clearly the moment of taking hold, then an interval of keeping hold of the piece, and then the moment of releasing. Drag and drop instantiates the same psychological experience while click-click has no relation to the original hand movement. Any ideas?

# Answer
Is there any research/poll that supports your claim for drag&drop being more common choice?

Personally, I use click-click, and most people I know also prefer this option. It's just as fast as drag&drop and it's much less prone to slip, as you already stated. And that's especially true when using smartphone instead of the mouse. :)

Perhaps, apart from being similar to real-life behavior, drag&drop gets used more when there's GUI that presents it as preferable (although I would say it's a bad design). For example, when you click on a piece, it pops-out/enlarges immediately, so it's somehow more obvious to just drag it; I guess some people don't even bother trying if click-click works at all afterwards.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I read this question the other day, and as a habitual drag-drop player (in spite of already knowing that click-click would at least be more precise) I couldn't really give a convincing answer why I do it.

I was playing some chess just now, however, and noticed one thing that does separate the two. Similar to what I mentioned in this answer, when using the drag-drop method you can 'see' what the board looks like after your move and then if you don't let go of the mouse and decide it's not a good move you can retract it. Of course, I am not suggesting this as a good way to play online chess, but I played a few games with click-click just now and in a few situations found it a little jarring to not have that extra second of thinking time while you're moving the piece.
> 3 votes

# Answer
One thing you mention is that you use a touchpad, which behaves significantly different from a mouse. And keep in mind that most people in online chess still use a mouse.

I recently played a lot on Lichess, where you can use both methods in the same game (no need to configure in advance) and find that personally in most situations I prefer to drag and drop, only if I have enough time I will consider to make a 'half premove' where I already click the piece that I am likely to move and be ready to click on the spot where it needs to go.

In that particular time the amount of effort that needs to be made is less, but normally the amount of actions is more (though not neccesarily more intense as the actions are different).

Here are the steps for click-click (when using a mouse)

1. Mouse down
2. Mouse up
3. Move mouse
4. Mouse down
5. (Mouse up)

Now compare this with the steps for drag and drop

1. Mouse down
2. Move mouse
3. Mouse up

So, though I cannot be sure this is the reason, but this may be why people typically use drag and drop over click-click.

Also, I personally don't mis-drag very often, and don't think I would personally expect a reduction if I switched to click-click on the mouse. But yeah, on a touchscreen that could be a different story.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: online-blitz
---


# Question
Title: Calculating the precise number of combinations of possible moves from a given position
I was surprised Bobby Fischer couldn't find a mate in 3 within 30 minutes in this problem by Pal Benko. This made me wonder-how many actual moves are possible with so few pieces left in only 3 moves?

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/4k3/8/8/2BQKB2 w - - 0 1"]

```

It turns out there's a lot, which I base on an estimation assuming (*very* crudely) 10 possible moves per piece per move, which would result in `(4*10) * (1*10) * (4*10) * (1*10) * (4*10) * (1*10)` = 64,000,000. But of course this is a very very rough estimation.

How can we calculate the precise number of move combinations possible in 3 moves, whist avoiding manual calculation via estimation or decision trees, and preferably using some free and open source software/engine/equation?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Your estimate is a bit high. In particular you overestimate the number of king moves. At most a king has 8 moves (not including castling which does not apply here), however here, both the black and the white king have a lot less legal moves than your estimated 10. The white king because it is on the edge of the board and the black king because it is not allowed to run into check. A more realistic number for the possible king moves would be 4. The number of legal moves for all four white pieces here is somewhere between 30 and 40. With these estimates you should have around 1 million variations which is confirmed by the data below.

I wrote a simple (should be done with recursion), not-elegant loop in python-chess to count all the legal variations until the 3rd white move and ended up with 347 863 variations. If I go one ply further (i.e. like in your example) until the 3rd black move I get: 1 403 476 variations.

The program loops through all variations and adds the number of legal moves for the 5th ply (3rd move by white). Example program below is until the 3rd white move. Simply add a loop if you want to go until the 3rd black move.

```
import chess

board = chess.Board("8/8/8/8/4k3/8/8/2BQKB2 w - - 0 1")

counter = 0

for move1w in board.legal_moves:
    board.push(move1w)
    for move1b in board.legal_moves:
        board.push(move1b)
        for move2w in board.legal_moves:
            board.push(move2w)
            for move2b in board.legal_moves:
                board.push(move2b)
                counter += board.legal_moves.count()
                board.pop()
            board.pop()
        board.pop()
    board.pop()

print('The number of variations is:')
print(counter)

```

---
Tags: engines, software, problems, mathematics
---


title: Who was A. Karu? (played Paul Keres)

text:
# Question
Title: Who was A. Karu? (played Paul Keres)
The first game in Paul Keres' book "The Complete Games of Paul Keres" is a correspondence game against "A. Karu" who is otherwise unidentified. I could find no entry for him in Chess Personalia by Jeremy Gaige.

Who was he?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Investigating a bit further, we find that A. Karu wasn't quite an "ordinary Joe", he was actually one of Estonia's strongest correspondence players at the time.

He finished shared 6.-7. place at the Estonian correspondence chess championship in 1935/36: table.

He was also, together with Keres, part of the Estonian national correspondence chess team during the 1935-1939 IFSB European Olympiad: see table at the bottom of the page.

He lived in the small village of Haaslava, and he took part in a correspondence tournament organized by the Deutsche Schachzeitung: Uus Eesti 16 veebruar 1936.

# Answer
> 3 votes
According to 365chess.com, Aivi Karu was a female player from Estonia.

She has 12 games logged, including those with Keres, and scored 20.83%. In fairness, she played against highly rated players (elo's above 2000), so my guess is that she was an amateur player who played some correspondence, training games and open tournaments where she was inevitably mismatched.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The best sources I can find reference a Aivi Karu, who Keres played in correspondence chess.

Take note (from Wikipedia):

> \[Keres\] played about 500 correspondence games, and at one stage had 150 correspondence games going simultaneously.

It is likely this was a person he played in correspondence, but we may never know who he/she actually was.

Also worthy of note, Keres was only *fifteen* years old when he played this game!

---
Tags: history, famous-players
---


# Question
Title: Does everybody has a different natural ability to improve in chess?
I have seen some players quickly increase their ELO within months, and some within years. Is there some genetic intelligence in those players (like someone in their family also played chess)? I ask this because my tactics (blitz) rating is not improving. I did about 3000 puzzles this month. After 2500 of them, I can't get past ELO 1560, and that's why I'm thinking about leaving chess. Is there really a natural gift?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Different people have different abilities for chess, just like for any other activity. Some people are "gifted", others aren't. Your chances also diminish with age, but almost every human can make it past 1560 (or 2000 for that matter)

That being said, you won't improve much in just one month. Consistency is much more important than intensity. Try making a reasonable amount of puzzles every week rather than doing thousands of them one month only to burn out for the next.

Also note that tactics skills are the most important aspect you need to train, but not the only one. Have you tried contancting a coach? Even if you can't afford it on a regular basis, it may be good for you to book a season and define a training plan.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, but some approach learning in smarter ways than others do. We all have 4 ways of learning that we usually prefer one from,but not everybody picks the best for whatever reason at the time.

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---