# Question
Title: Human analysis for a KRBNNPP against KRRN ending?
This line of play leads to this position:

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black to move"]
[FEN "8/rp4p1/1N1nkb2/3n4/6R1/1R6/8/2K5 b - - 1 38"]

```

StockFish 10+ assures me that Black has a big advantage, but I am interested to know whether it is possible to humanly analyze it and be completely certain of a winning strategy. Although SF suggests keeping my pieces, my instinct is to exchange as many pieces as possible except the pawns, while pushing the pawns to queen, which includes taking the knight immediately. However, is there any hope of **proving** a winning strategy here, rather than relying on intuition? I think this is somewhat plausible because Black has enough minor pieces for the king to hide behind (even after exchanging 2 of them), and so White cannot make sustained checks. The question is whether there is a systematic way for Black to push the pawns that is guaranteed to work.

I do not see any convincing reason that there cannot be a proof of a winning strategy, because there are numerous examples of endgames with human analysis of the optimal strategy (e.g. ,,,,). If the position was not so imbalanced, I know it would be much harder to prove a win. But here, Black has sufficiently many pieces that I feel there should be a proof that we can force some trades to get to a certain winning position. That is also why I would choose to take the knight immediately to hopefully make a full analysis humanly tractable.

# Answer
@SmallChess is right. This position is absolutely hopeless for White, and there is a very human strategy for Black, which consists here in not exchanging pieces, but **hunting the white king**. This strategy will force White to exchange pieces unfavorably or White will lose material to avoid being mate.

The principle behind this strategy is simple ***"with three or more pieces in the attack the enemy king will not be able to escape."***

Here is an example where nothing is forced but it's very difficult to suggest good ideas for White. White is completely squeezed.

```
[White "White"]
[Black "Black to move"]
[FEN "8/rp4p1/1N1nkb2/3n4/6R1/1R6/8/2K5 b - - 1 38"]

1...Nc3! {Black chases the king and cuts off the two rooks. They can't easily coordinate.} 2.Nc4 Nde4! {same strategy: coordinating the pieces to go against the White king} 3.Kc2 (3.Ra3 {is probably better but now Black is happy to exchange and push the g pawn} 3...Rxa3 4. Nxa3 Kf5 5.Rg2 g5-+) b5 4.Ne3 (4.Rxb5 Nxb5 5.Rxe4 Kf5-+ {does not help White}) Rc7 {here with get our principle of three or more pieces in the attack and the White king feels unsafe} 5.Rg2 (5.Kd3 Nf2-+) Na2! 6.Kb1? (6. Kd1 {is better but the King does not escape} Rc1+ 7. Ke2 Nac3+ 8. Kf3 Rh1-+) Rc1 7.Kxa2 Ra1#

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
The position looks clearly winning for Black, and I don't think it makes much of a difference whether you exchange knights or not. It might make your task simpler, but Black's knight could be a bit stronger than White's.

To win all you really have to do is push one of your pawns, with the support of the king. Your other pieces can be used to block checks, and the minor pieces can also chase any blockading rooks out of the pawn's way. Eventually things will get to the point where you win a White rook for the pawn and a minor piece (in the worst case scenario), which will result in an easily won position.

I'm not sure how to give a certain proof that guarantees a win, as there's no forced mate yet. It's just a position where Black is up 4 points, so a winning edge should be taken for granted at this point.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, endgame, pawn-promotion, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


title: Can White win this knight endgame?

text:
# Question
Title: Can White win this knight endgame?
```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/p2N1pk1/1pn1p1p1/2p1P2p/5P1P/2P3P1/PP6/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

I thought that I had advantage as White since I was able to temporarily cutt off Black king. I have underestimated Black's counterplay on the queenside with `...Na5`, misplayed it and drew.

The more and more I analyze on my own, the more and more I start to wonder: Did I have any winning advantage at all, or was my position just "prettier" ?

# Answer
> 4 votes
You definitely had an advantage, but it's a bit of a challenge to turn that into victory. If you don't use all of your advantages and his disadvantages, it can quickly turn into a draw.

In this position, your main advantage is your Knight - it can jump very easily between very useful squares d7-f6-e4-d6. Your King can be activated very easily in the next few moves, while black King is quite passive and has limited movement due to your Knight and Pawns (both yours and his) blocking him. Moreover, your Knight can't be threatened at d7, so it's your decision when to move it (and give his King some breath).

His ...Na5 is a logical choice from his side, but you have nothing to fear, your aim is to get your King closer to the center (Kf2-Ke3) and also put Pawn on b3 (not if he pulls back with his Knight, of course) to disable any chances of his Knight getting through (preferably he plays Nc4 before you play b3, so you play that move with gaining a tempo).

However, the problem you have is that you can't go too far away with your King. Ideally you would come to the Queen side and take his Pawns, while his King watches helpessly; but you can't do that as he threatens Ne7-Nf5, which leaves your g3 Pawn at his mercy if your King isn't there to defend it. Now, you can try to exchange your g3 Pawn (Kf3 or Nf6 followed by g4), but that leaves you with weak h-Pawn which he can attack easily with his King (Kh6-Kh5) or/and his Knight (Nf5).

The best thing to try (after b3 and after your King is a bit activated on e3-d3) is to get your Knight back to e4 (Nf6-Ne4) to defend g3-Pawn so you can proceed with your King to the Queen side:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/p2N1pk1/1pn1p1p1/2p1P2p/5P1P/2P3P1/PP6/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Na5 2. Kf2 Nc4 3. b3 Na5 4. Ke3 Nc6 5. Kd3 Ne7 6. Nf6 Nf5 (6...Nd5 7. Ne8+ Kf8 8. Nd6 Ne7 {Otherwise, you win a Pawn with Nc8} 9. a4 a6 {Black is lost otherwise, he either lets your Knight to c8 or your King inside} 10. a5 bxa5 11. Ne4 Nd5 12. Nxc5 Nc7 13. c4 Ke7 14. Nb7 {And you are a Pawn ahead}) (6...Nc6 7. Kc4 a6 8. Nd7 Ne7 9. Nxb6 Nf5 10. a4 Nxg3 11. Kxc5 f6 12. Nd7 {And now you don't have any trouble promoting on the Queen side on time}) 7. Ne4 Ne7 8. Kc4 a6  9. Nd6 Nc6 10. Nc8 Na5+ 11. Kd3 b5 12. Nb6 Nb7 13. Nd7 a5 14. a3 {Now black has no good moves} Kg8 15. a4 c4+ 16. bxc4 bxa4 17. c5 Nd8 18. Kc2 {You can pick up his a-Pawns and push c-Pawns afterwards} 1-0

```

But note that I didn't perhaps show the best black defense here. Although, to be honest, with his King that limited, he didn't have many options. If he tries to get his Knight to f5 before he provoked your b3, you can play a4-a5 and his defense on the Queen side is ruined. He can only perhaps try to push his Queen side Pawns and pray that he can somehow block you in time, although it's a very hard fight for him:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/p2N1pk1/1pn1p1p1/2p1P2p/5P1P/2P3P1/PP6/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Na5 2. Kf2 Nc4 3. b3 Na5 4. Ke3 c4 5. b4 Nc6 6. Nf6 Kf8 7. Ne4 b5 8. Nd6 a6 9. Ne4 Ke7 10. Nc5 a5 11. bxa5 Nxa5 12. Ne4 Nc6 13. a3 Kd7 14. Nd6 f6 15. Nxb5 fxe5 16. fxe5 Nxe5 17. Kd4 {And now you win a Pawn and have an easy way to victory} 1-0

```

All in all, your advantage was a bit more substantial than just "prettier" position, at least in my opinion.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I put the position into the analysis board on Lichess and ran through what it thought was the best play by both sides. I'm not sure how good the engine is, but it came up with this as being a draw.

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/p2N1pk1/1pn1p1p1/2p1P2p/5P1P/2P3P1/PP6/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Ne7 2. Kf2 Nc6 3. Ke2 Ne7 4. a4 Nf5 5. Kf3 Ne7 6. a5 bxa5 7. Nxc5 Kf8 8. Ne4 Nf5 9. Nd6 Ke7 10. Nb7 a4 11. Nc5 a3 12. bxa3 Kd8 13. Ne4 Kd7 14. Ng5 Nh6 15. Ke3 Nf5+ 16. Kf2 Nh6 17. Ke3 Nf5+ 18. Kf3 Nh6 19. Ne4 Nf5 20. c4 Kc6 21. Ke2 Nh6 22. Kd3 Nf5 23. Ke2 Kd7 24. Kd2 Kc6 25. Kd3 Kd7 26. Kc3 Kc6 27. Kb3 Nd4+ 28. Kb4 Nc2+ 29. Kb3 Nd4+ 30. Kc3 Nf5 31. a4 a5 32. Kd2 Kc7 33. Ke2 Kc6 34. Kf2 Nd4 35. Ke3 Nf5+ 36. Ke2 Kb6 37. Kd3 Kc6 38. Kc3 Kc7 39. Kd3 Kc6 40. Kc3 Kc7 41. Kc2 Kd7 42. Kd2 Kc7 43. Ke2 Kd7 44. Kf2 Kc6 45. Kf3 Nd4+ 46. Ke3 Nf5+ 47. Kf3 Nd4+ 48. Kf2 Nf5 49. Ke2 Nd4+ 50. Kd2 Nf5 51. Kd3 Kd7 52. Kc2 Kc6 53. Kb2 Kd7 54. Ka3 Kc6 55. Kb3 Kd7 56. Ka3 Kc6 57. Kb3 Kd7 58. Kc2 Kc6 59. Kd3 Kd7 60. Ke2 Kc6 61. Kf2 Kb6 62. Kf3 Nd4+ 63. Kg2 Nb3 64. Kf3 Nc5 65. Ke3 Nxa4 66. Kd4 Nb2 67. Ng5 a4 68. Kc3 a3 69. Nxf7 Nxc4 70. Kb3 Kc5 71. Nh8 Kd5 72. Nxg6 Ne3 73. Kxa3 Nf5 74. Kb4 Nxg3 75. Kb5 Ne2 76. Ne7+ Ke4 77. Kc5 Kxf4 78. Nc6 Kg4 79. Nd8 Kf5 80. Kd6 Nd4 81. Nf7 Nb5+ 82. Ke7 Nc3 83. Ng5 Kxe5 84. Nxe6 Kf5 85. Ng7+ Kg4 86. Nxh5 Kxh5 87. Kd6 Kxh4

```

Around move 60, I was starting to think it would be a draw by the 50 move rule, or maybe repetition, but it ended up being insufficient material.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I analyzed the endgame for more than half an hour with Houdini 6.02 d = 42 /91 and then a analyzed again starting with few moves before the end of the line at d =38/74. IT ends in a seven piece endgame (knight and two pawns vs knight and a pawn) that tablebases evaluated as won for White (Mate in 39). It seems winning, even though I didn't take notes.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Soltis's best chess game of the 20th century
In Andrew Soltis's book *The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked*, his number 1 game is a correspondence game between Yakov Estrin and Hans Berliner, from the 1965–1968 World Correspondence Championship. This is of course a provocative choice, and Soltis, when making his selection, evidently believed that Berliner's play was sound. Soltis quotes Berliner as offering to play anyone from the position after Black's 9th move (as Black) for stakes of $1,000, provided he was given draw odds.

I have a rather old engine, but I decided to see what it thought of the game. It says that Estrin could have significantly improved at move 12. This critical position is diagrammed below.

```
[FEN "r3k2r/p1p2ppp/3b4/1p1n4/3Pp1bq/5PN1/PP1P2PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 12"]

```

Here, Estrin played 12.Bxb5+ but my engine prefers 12.Qe2, and gives the main line as 12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3+ 14.Kd1 with an advantage to White.

Is my engine missing something or does this line refute Berliner's play?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The move you gave looks fine. In my correspondence database I have 9 games in the position after 11...Bd6. Eight went for 12.Bxb5+, but one game (featuring a 2397 player from 2010) chose 12.Qe2. Even though the game is old, it gives some backing to 12.Qe2 because of the player's strength. Meanwhile, the strongest evidence in correspondence for 12.Bxb5+ comes from it being chosen in two more recent 2015 games by a 2166 and 2000 rated player. Both moves seem to indicate an advantage for White, given the results in correspondence (even though the latest games were from 2015, engine use was permitted).

At over depth 40, Stockfish 11 gives me around +3.48 for 12.Qe2. Meanwhile, 12.Bxb5+ hovers close to +2. After 12.Qe2 0-0 (12...Be6 13.Qf2 exf3 14.Bxb5+ Kd8 15.gxf3 is winning; meanwhile, 12...Bxg3+ 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5+ Bd7 15.Qxd5 is also extremely good) 13.fxg4 Bxg3+ (or 13...Nf6 14.g5 Ng4 15.Kd1 Bxg3 16.Kc2) 14.Kd1, we've followed your line. Stockfish gives over +3 for White, and that 2010 correspondence game I mentioned also reached this position. White went on to win the game without much trouble.

TLDR: the line looks to be safely refuted for Black after 12.Qe2.

---
Tags: analysis, correspondence-chess, famous-games, two-knights
---


title: Tips on The Greek Gift

text:
# Question
Title: Tips on The Greek Gift
I always have problems in executing The Greek Gift. This a position which I got in a recent game :

```
rn1q1rk1/1b1nbppp/p3p3/1p2P3/3N4/2NB4/PPP1Q1PP/R1B2RK1 w - - 3 13

```

Even though the Knight is not there on f6 square and can't come here safely, I lost after scarifying the Bishop.

Can someone explain when and when not to use the The Greek Gift and give some tips regarding the same?

# Answer
The main tips are:

1) A pawn on e5 helps. Not only does it prevent ...Nf6, but it also takes away the f6-square from Black's king once it comes to g6 (via ...Kxh7-...Kg6).

2) The greek gift is usually followed up with Ng5+. So if the g5-square is defended by Black, or if you don't have a knight on f3, this idea won't work. In some cases perhaps you could make do without the knight, such as Qh5+ followed by bringing a rook to the h-file, but in the position you posted that doesn't look feasible. Rf3 is prevented by the b7-bishop, while Rf4-Rh4 runs into ...Bxh4.

3) Assuming that a Ng5 follow up is possible, calculate the position after: Bxh7+ Kxh7 Ng5+ Kg6. This is usually what happens in the greek gift, since Kg8 runs into Qh5 (with Qh7# threatened). In the position after ...Kg6, how will you follow up? If you play Qg4, can ...f5 be met well (perhaps with exf6 or Qg3)?

4) Make sure that if Black answers Ng5+ with Kg8, Qh5 would truly be winning. For example, can the king escape in any way, or can the h7-square be guarded?

5) Do a force count of the kingside - who has a stronger armada of pieces concentrated there? For example, in your diagram the f1-rook is opened on the f-file and can be a great contributor. But again, since there is no Ng5+ follow up, the idea doesn't work.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tactics, middlegame, greek-gift
---


# Question
Title: About the Alireza Firouzja vs Magnus Carlsen KN-KN endgame
A game between Alireza Firouzj and Magnus Carlsen in chess24’s \[Magnus Carlsen invitational 2020\](https://chess24.com/en/embed tournament/magnus-carlsen-invitational-2020) ended in a draw due to "insufficient material".

Each player had a king and a knight when it ended

```
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. b4 Bb6 10. c3 a6 11. Nxb6 cxb6 12. Bc4 b5 13. Bb3 O-O 14. O-O Qf6 15. Re1 Be6 16. a4 Rac8 17. axb5 axb5 18. Bxe6 Qxe6 19. Qe2 Rfd8 20. h3 d5 21. exd5 Rxd5 22. Rad1 Rcd8 23. Rd2 Qd6 24. Red1 Qg6 25. Ne1 Kh7 26. Nc2 R8d7 27. Ne3 R5d6 28. Nf1 Rd5 29. Qf3 Nd8 30. h4 h5 31. Ng3 Qg4 32. Nxh5 Qxf3 33. gxf3 Ne6 34. Ng3 Nf4 35. Ne4 b6 36. c4 Rd4 37. c5 Rxb4 38. cxb6 Rb7 39. Nd6 Rxb6 40. Nxf7 Ng6 41. h5 Rf4 42. Ng5+ Kh6 43. Ne4 Nh4 44. Kf1 Nxf3 45. Rc2 Kxh5 46. Rc8 b4 47. Ke2 b3 48. Rb1 b2 49. Rc5 Nd4+ 50. Kf1 Nf3 51. Rc2 Rb3 52. Nc5 Nd4 53. Nxb3 Nxc2 54. Rxb2 Ne3+ 55. Ke2 Rxf2+ 56. Kxf2 Nd1+ 57. Kf3 Nxb2 58. Ke4 g5 59. d4 exd4 60. Nxd4 g4 61. Nf3 g3 62. Kf4 g2 63. Kg3 Nd3 64. Kxg2

```

Reading Checkmate with King and Knight vs King and Knight, it says it is possible for either side to win and should not be declared a draw.

What is the difference?

Source: Game commentary at 12:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idw0cgmjWQ8&t=12m

> As it is a draw by insufficient material.

# Answer
The players agreed on a draw because there is no forced mate. Even if one side loses a knight, it is a draw. The weaker side just has to keep the king in the center.

In the following example Black helped White to achieve mate by playing `4...Ng8??`. If Black had played `4...Ng4` it's still an easy draw. Black could have even escaped with `4...Kg8 5.Kxh6 Kf8` and it's easy to draw with Black.

```
4k3/8/7n/4K3/8/6N1/8/8 w - - 0 1

1. Kf6 Kf8 2. Kg6 Kg8 3. Ne4 Kh8 4. Nd6 Ng8?? (4... Ng4=) 5. Nf7#

```

In short, they agreed on a draw because no one expected the other party to help him get mate!
> 5 votes

# Answer
Because they were playing on a chess site, it's dependent on whatever system that site follows. For example, chess.com rules a K+N+N vs K a draw, even though a mate is legally possible.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, knight-endgame
---


title: Problem with a shorter solution

text:
# Question
Title: Problem with a shorter solution
I'm looking at this problem.

```
[Title "White to move. Mate in three"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "5rb1/1p1P1pbr/1p5p/5N/PP2k/1Np3QB/6K/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

It requires white to mate in three. The accepted solution starts with 1. Kf1. But there seems to be a mate in 2 via 1. Ne7 and then 2. Bf5.

Am I missing something? If the mate in 2 is correct, is it common/normal for a problem to request a mate in 3 when a mate in 2 is available?

# Answer
After 1.Ne7 Black has 1...f5, stopping the immediate 2.Bf5#.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


# Question
Title: A book on the Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)
Recently I've been studying **Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)**. Is there a book that gives the story behind the match? Also, I would appreciate the game annotations.

Best wishes and thank you.

# Answer
Capablanca's comments about the match can be found in this book.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Kasparov's My Great Predecessors series covers all the world champions before him, including the world championship matches they participated in. The one you're interested in is dealt with in volume 1 of the series.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, capablanca, lasker
---


# Question
Title: Is there any resource where you can look up a board position and read a number of suggested moves?
Is there any resource where you could just plug in the positions of all the pieces on the board and, for example, see an annotated page where different people or computer-generated bots have analyzed the strengths of various possible moves?

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you get ChessBase, there are a number of features that are available when setting up a certain position:

1) With a reference database, you can see the moves chosen in all the games from that position. These moves can be ranked in various ways (e.g., number of games played, rating of players, etc).

2) When turning on an engine to analyze the position, you can see previous engine evaluations of the position (stored from people who analyzed it before). This assumes you're connected to the internet, and that they were as well (so that their engine evaluation could be saved on the cloud).

3) The LiveBook feature allows you to see the number of visits certain moves from that position have had by people who analyzed previously (again, assuming these people were connected to the cloud at the time). This is often a good way to see what the best moves are objectively, as well as the most popular moves played in games (since people could be following a game, which is why they looked at a particular move).

---
Tags: strategy, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Why does Lichess only tell me my "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders", and not e.g. my "brilliancies"?
A computer analysis of a game in Lichess lists your "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders". An example is below:

What I don't understand is why Lichess doesn't point out my good moves. It seems there is some inherent problem identifying strong moves, which is not present when pointing out poor moves.

**Question**: Why does Lichess only tell me my "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders", and not e.g. my "brilliancies"?

# Answer
It's really hard to tell what a brilliancy is. For example, you might try to say that a brilliancy is a move that's much better than any other move on the board. Well, if you offer me a queen exchange and I play queen takes queen, you taking back my queen is probably a much better move than any alternative, but it's definitely not a brilliancy. So maybe a brilliancy is a *non-obvious* move that's much better than any alternative. OK, but what's non-obvious? Maybe you could do something based on the depth you have to go in the search tree to prove that the move is good, but that probably still isn't right because a long sequence of exchanges is usually obvious but, by construction, goes deep into the tree. Or, suppose you trap my queen: by the proof depth metric, that would be a brilliancy if I can insert a long sequence of pointless checks before you take my queen, and a normal move if I can't.

In contrast, bad moves are easy to detect: if a move is suboptimal, you just compare its score against the score of the best move and use a more negative word for bigger differences.

Fundamentally, there's only one best move in any situation. As far as the computer is concerned, you either played it or you didn't. Bad moves are bad moves, but brilliancies are good moves that most players wouldn't have seen, and that's as much a statement about "most players" as it is about "good moves".
> 27 votes

# Answer
Here's why computer analysis (on any platform) can not find brilliant moves.

## They don't exist.

Now, I recognize that this seems *very* counter-intuitive, but bear with me. This has to do with the difference between how *we* (intuitively) view a chess game and how a *computer* (correctly) views a chess game.

When we look at a chess position, we subconsciously view the position on the board as having a certain value, and we look to improve that value.

**Chess computers look at this in a *completely* different way.**

The value that they assess the position is based on perfect play from the position forward - the only way to deviate from the perfect play is to make an error of some sort.

Example: You're losing a game by a bit, and then you find a beautiful, non-obvious tactic that nets your opponent's queen. In our human minds, we just took the game from losing to winning with our brilliancy. According to the computer, **the position was already winning** for you, because the computer saw the brilliancy. Any move other than the brilliancy is likely a mistake of some sort.

## TL;DR

Non-obvious "brilliant" moves do not change the value of the position - they merely fulfill its potential.

---

Now, of course there are moves that we consider "excellent" or "brilliant" for one reason or another (requires a sacrifice, isn't immediately obvious, requires deep calculation, etc.). Don't get me wrong - it feels *very* rewarding to find one of these moves, and some moves are undeniably "!!" moves for human players. However, any analysis (on the part of a spectator *or* a player) that does *not* take into account the "!!" move is incorrect in the first place, and the "!!" move shows that.

Also, creating an objective definition of "brilliancy" is next to impossible - sometimes we "know" a move is brilliant, but we can't consistently explain why.
> 23 votes

# Answer
# You are being compared to perfection

Your every move is being evaluated by a chess engine with super-human playing-strength. The default is to compare your performance to its own super-human performance. Since the engine always makes the move it itself has identified as the highest-valued, perforce it always makes the best move by definition. Hence you can only stray from this path of "perfection".

# Allowing brilliance means comparing to non-perfection

To leave room for brilliant moves, or better than expected performance, it is necessary that your performance be compared to something that is not "perfect" by definition, for example the performance of a weaker engine. Theoretically, given the availability of a whole range of engines with different known ratings, each one of your moves could be categorized into a specific rating bucket.
> 14 votes

# Answer
Almost all (if not all) of your brilliancies were immediately seen by the engine. If the engine always points out your moves that it agrees with, then standard opening moves would be considered brilliancies. So now the problem arises of figuring out moves that are difficult or pleasing for humans specifically, and this is beyond the normal scope of an engine's purpose.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, lichess
---


title: Is this endgame won for white?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this endgame won for white?
With the missing g and e pawns still on the board and a roughly symmetric position, I made a mistake that led to 17 moves of what I think of as quite difficult defense. My opponent walked into the following fork and then resigned.

```
 [Title "Game's Final Position"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/5pp1/7p/1n1R3k/4PP1P/8/8/r3BK2 w - - 6 1"]

```

I know that I definitely would not have resigned in that position.

> Is the above position won for white?

Conceivably, black could play Kg6 and try to put together something like a fortress, or even play `g5` immediately after `Rxb5`. However, I believe the correct continuation would be

`1 ... Kg4 2. Rxb5 Kxf4 3. Rf5+ Kxe4 4. Rxf7 g5 5. h5`, resulting in the position

```
 [Title "End of My Main Line"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/5R2/7p/6pP/4k3/8/8/r3BK2 w - - 6 1"]

```

with black to move.

From tablebases (e.g. this site), I know that if I instead played `5. hxg5` and black responded with `hxg5` then the position would be a draw. In fact, even if all three remaining pawns disappeared and it became my move, the position would still be a draw. Thus, white's strategy at the end of my main line presumably involves threatening/trying to win the pawn on h6, possibly after exchanging rooks.
(I don't know whether or not the "rook endgame" tag is appropriate, since there's also a bishop on the board.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
According to my analysis, it seems like a clear win. Black can't force the exchange of the remaining white pawn, White has the Bishop of the appropriate color, and Black can't prevent White to improve the position of its pieces.

An important tactical finesse:

**1..Ke5 2.Kg2 Rxe1 3. Re7+**, winning the Rook.

Another important idea:

**1..g4 2. Rf6 g3 3. Rg6!** (3. Rxh6 g2+ 4. Kxg2 Rxf1 5. Rf6 =) **3..Ra5 4. Rg4+**

and the g pawn falls.

(Note that 2. Kg2 is also possible, with the same idea as above.)

---

It should be a matter of time for Black to lose its remaining pawns, since the black King is cut off from them. I can't offer any concrete lines, so perhaps I'm wrong here. But what I know is that

W: **Kf1, Be1, Rh6, h5**
B: **Ra1, Kf5**

is a win in the tablebases. It does not seem to be possible to prevent White to play Rh8 and h5-h6, after which the pawn is immune. As soon as it gets attacked by some Rh2, White has Rg8+, repeating the same tactical theme as above, or Bd2, protecting the pawn directly.

I've played some games with an extra Black pawn, and I have yet to save one game against Stockfish. One annoying bug of having a pawn on g4 is that black King can't move on g4.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Stockfish gives your "end of my mainline position" as winning for white(+2.62). I am attaching the whole line below. It does seem that while the rook protects the bishop, the white king can quickly head over to the black pawn chain.

```
Score: 2.62
Best: 1. ... Kg4   Ponder: 2. Rxb5
Time: 31.4s   Depth: 16
Server: srv01   CPU #1: 24%
Engine: Stockfish 1.8 64bit

1. ... Kg4 2. Rxb5 Kxf4 3. Rf5+ Kxe4 4. Rxf7 g5 5. h5 Ra6 6. Kg2 Rc6 7. Kg3 Kd5 8. Kg4 Rc4+ 9. Kf3 Rc1 10. Re7 Rb1 11. Bf2 Rb3+ 12. Be3 Rc3 13. Kg4 Ra3

```

# Answer
> -1 votes
I tried to put up Houdini 6.02 and a tablebase win is reached , albeit it is a mate in 48 !!! According to seven piece tablebases, White is even forced to give up the pawn toward the end but obtain a winning Philidor position! Yes , White wins , but has a lot of work to do. Position WHITE Rook in h6 Bishop in g3, pawn in h6 , King in g2 BLACK Rook in d1 , pawn in g5 King in f5. BLACK to move : White mates in 48 moves.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Is this how to annotate your own chess games properly?
I created a Lichess study of a game I played the game an hour ago and have tried to annotate it. Would anyone care to have a look and see if I'm missing the point of I annotation all together? For example, should write more or, write less and include more variations? Does anyone have any suggestions?

```
[Title "Thylmanoid vs Jack11"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 exd4 {I'm better developed and I want to strike at the center. I also considered O-O but I didn't want Bg4.} 5. Qxd4 {I also considered Nxd4 but this looks more active and I also have some threats of Bxg7 later perhaps. Also this game reminded me of a famous Paul Morphy game in the philidor.} Bd7 {Now Nxd4 is a threat. } 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 {Black now has the pair of the bishops.} 7. Bg5 Nf6 { I thought here for a while because I felt there is something wrong with this move but I couldn't find the solution.} 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 {I took the knight to induce doubled isolated f-pawns but I don't think it was the correct move. Black now has the pair of the bishops and the potential to trade queens into an easy endgame.} 9. Qxf6 gxf6 {I could have considered Nc3 here but the whole plan of Bxf6 was to give Black double isolated pawns and to play against them.} 10. Nbd2 Bh6 {I think this is an inaccuracy because of my opponents move Bh6 preventing me from castling queen-side. And threatening the take the pawn on e4. Nc3 is probably better. But I wanted the chance to play c4 putting a clamp on the d5 square.} 11. O-O-O Bxe4 {Here I tried to be fancy. I thought after Bxe4 I had Re1 pinning the bishop forcing d5 or f5 and then Nxe4 after Kb1.} 12. Rhe1 d5 13. Kb1 O-O-O 14. Nxe4 dxe4 {I took the bishop but I thought before I could take the pawn too. I lost a pawn, at least I took away the bishop pair. Now my plan is to prevent Black from playing f5.} 15. Nh4 Bg5 {He is attacking my knight but my knight wanted to go to f5 anyway. g3 would be an ugly move here. I don't want to play Rxd8 here and give Black the only open file.} 16. Nf5 Rhe8 { He is defending his pawn now. Also defending my threat of Ne7+. I'm wondering if Rxd8+ and then Ne7+ does anything but he could just take with the king.} 17. h4 Rxd1+ { Here I had ideas of trapping his bishop. But I didn't see how they could work after 17...Bf4 18 g3 Bd2 19 Re2 the bishop just gets away on the e1-a5 diagonal.} 18. Rxd1 Bf4 19. c3 {There feels like something stronger here c3 is too slow I feel. Maybe g3 is good here now. The bishop only has e5 or d6.} Re5 {Attacking my knight. But blocking the escape squares for the bishop. I was afraid after g3 he just wins a pawn with 20. g3 Rxf5 {Here I felt the knight was best on d5 in the center of the board} 21. gxf4 Rxf4 and he has a passed pawn.} 20. Nd4 Bh6 21. Ka1 a6 {This was a mouse slip. I wanted to play Kc3.} 22. Kb1 c5 {I'm losing valuable tempos now.} 23. Nb3 f5 {Nc2 could be stronger here with control over the e3 square.} 24.Rd6 Bf8 {I liked this move. tempo on the bishop and finally getting to activate my rook.} 25. Rf6 f4 {Putting pressure on both the pawns g4 and f7.} 26. Rxf4 f5 {This bishop is undefended on f8.} 27. g4 Bh6 {I wanted to take advantage of the undefended bishop.} 28. Rxf5 Rxf5 {This seems very good for me. I have a passed pawn and the pressure of the e pawn for black is gone. I'm also a pawn up. I need to get my king into the center and my knight.} 29. gxf5 b6 30. Kc2 Kd7 {I would love Bxd2. But anyway I need to activate my knight. It was doing nothing on b3.} 31. Nd2 e3 {I didn't see this move. It is kind of annoying actually.} 32. fxe3 Bxe3 33. Kd3 {Getting my king to the center.} Bf2 {Attacking my h pawn.} 34. Nf3 Ke7 {I decided to defend the pawn instead of pushing.} 35. Ke4 Kf6 {I started to worry about my time so I just wanted to get my king to the center.} 36. h5 Bg3 {My knight does a good job of controlling the g4 square. I didn't want the h pawn to be a target. And I didn't want my knight to have the sole responsiblity of defending the pawn.} 37. c4 Bd6 {Now I see that perhaps Kf4 and c4 completely neutralises the bishop. I think kf4 would have been a strong move before. Not the bishop can escape.} 38. a3 Bf8 { Controlling b4.} 39. b3 Bh6 { Here I felt like I didn't really know what to do on the queenside. I just wanted to neutralise the pawns so there was no hope of getting a passed pawn.} 40. a4 { Keeping my pawns on light squares and preventing a passed pawn for black.} Bc1 {I honestly felt like I was close to zugzwang here} 41. Ng1 Bb2 { I thought Kg5 would have been strong there. But perhaps I would have Nf3+ Ne5.} 42. Nf3 Bc1 {I was struggling to find moves here. It seems easier for the bishop to make waiting move.} 43. Ne5 Bd2 {Trying to just think of moves that don't lose on the spot. I was really afraid of time trouble here. Living off the increment. Attacking the bishop.} 44. Nf3 Bc3 45. Kd3 Bb2 { Black can't take the pawn.} 46. Ke4 Ba1 {I thought this was a draw even thought I have an extra pawn.} 47. Kf4 h6 {I didn't like this move for Black. He could always use that as a reverse tempo in the future perhaps.} 48. Nd2 Be5+ 49. Kg4 Bc3 50. Ne4+ {Black blundered a fork.} Ke5 51. Nxc3 Kd4 52. f6 1-0

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
I think you did a great job there of annotating your game. If you have a coach (or an analysis buddy) and you were to show them that then they would get a big head start in identifying problems in your game and helping you to improve.

Chess is a game of challenge. You make your moves on the board but then so does your opponent and his moves challenge yours. When you analyse it is also good if you have somebody to challenge you. I mentioned an analysis buddy in the previous paragraph. It is really good if you have someone like that. You analyse one of their games as well and vice versa and then you sit down and compare and critique each others analyses. The final step would be to put the game into an engine and compare its analysis with yours and your analysis buddy's to see what you have missed and to try and work out why.

Two things stand out from what you've written:

1. You don't do enough calculation before making your moves. Once you've done some calculation then apart from seeing if you've gained or lost material you also need to assess the situation to see if your position has got better or worse. I'm guessing this was a fast time control like blitz so there wasn't much time for calculation. That, by the way, is why blitz is bad for your game. It develops and cements bad habits like not doing enough calculation.
2. There is very little prophylactic thinking. In other words you don't seem to think very much about your opponent's possible moves and plans and how to stop them with the result that they often catch you unawares leading to blunders. Again this might be due to playing too fast.

If you want to see these two ideas in action then Simon Williams, the gingergm, has a YouTube channel where he sometimes puts up rapid games (15+10) where he thinks aloud so you can see the brain of a GM doing this kind of stuff.

---
Tags: learning, annotation
---


title: Attacking moves

text:
# Question
Title: Attacking moves
While playing chess against a computer I am able to analyse what the computer is going to move even at the highest difficulty level but I am not able to place good moves against the computer. Can anyone tell me how can I improve?

# Answer
I can't give exact tips specifically catered to your gameplay as you have not provided information on how you generally open your games, but here are a few general tips.

1) Develop Bishops and Knights (get them out into a more accesable spot)

2) Control the center 4 squares of the board so that the opponent can't move their peices through the center (use the 2 center pawns and knights)

3) "Connect" pieces so that if one is taken, the square can be retaken. The centeral pieces should be protected by multiple pieces.

4) Castle your king (This is often somewhat overrated, this shouldn't be your immediate priority but should be done soon after controlling the center if possible) A king behind 3 pawns that are max 2 rows ahead is generally a strong defense, I find putting the king and 3 pawns in a diamond formation to be the best defense.

5) Avoid moving out your queen to early, keep it protected so you can use it more in the end game.

6) Don't create extensive pawn chains, generally try to just use 2 central pawns and then the one diagonal from the queen then use knights and bishops.

Here's a decent trap for beginner players: Move your bishop infront of your knight, wait for an opening and then take out the rook in the opposing corner.

I hope this helps.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, beginner, attack
---


# Question
Title: How should I improve my chesstempo tactics rating?
I was stuck on a chesstempo tactics rating of around1482-1509 for about 2 days. I reached my current level within 3 days. I want to improve to an 1800+ rating. How can I improve?

# Answer
You should not obsess with ratings let alone tactics rating on some website. (Specifying your rating to the last digit suggests you do.) It is just a number.

* Once you solved a problem. Chesstempo also shows you the **tactical motive** for this particular problem which is quite useful for learning. Make sure that you can recognize each motive in the solution. If not, learn about this particular motive and do more tactics of that type of motive. It is essential that you take the time to understand the problem with the solution at hand.
* Be **patient** when solving tactics. Don't go for the first good move you see. Consider all of your opponent's options.
* Do more tactics, but also mix it with playing regular games and resting time. The goal is to store those motifs subsconsciously and this can only be done by repition.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Your question is not clear if chess tempo tactics rating refers to chess games or chess puzzles so I will include the answer for both.

Chess games:

The only way to improve your rating here is by winning games or drawing players at higher levels than you. The higher rated the players you beat are, the more points you will gain, and the higher rated the players who you lose to, the fewer points you will lose and of course visa versa. This is called the ELO rating system, here's a link that further explain it if you so desire.

Chess Puzzles

Again this uses the ELO system. Each puzzle is given a difficulty rating. The higher this number, the more points you will get by correctly solving it, the fewer points you will lose by incorrectly solving it, and visa versa.

Therefore, for each one, don't expect linear growth. They are exponential, with the relative slope reducing as your rating increases.

All that being said, I can't stress enough how important it is to actually play to get better, not just for points. As someone famous said (idk who) "Don't chase a score when following excellence. Chase excellence and the scores will follow you."
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tactics, online-chess, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Is my improvement decent, and if so how can I keep it up?
This question may seem vain, since I'll talk about my improvement on chess, but I really want to have a measure of my learning curve and a notion of whether it is bad, regular, good or excellent, how to improve it if it's not excellent and how to keep it excellent if it is. So this is all about chess learning.

I know the rules of chess since the age of 4, but never played it often. I probably played around ten games from the time I was four to the time I was 21 (never even had a chessboard at my home), when I really started playing (this was June past year, so ten months ago).

I really started playing as I said on June 2019. I created a Lichess account and was rated 1100 on Classical chess. Ten months later, I am rated above 2200, so I gained over 1100 rating points in less than a year. I'm proud of this improvement, but I don't really have any comparison standards, so maybe it's a regular rate. I don't really know.

On the other hand, my Blitz rating is still quite low in comparison to Classic: a little bit above 1600. So my improvement has not been the same when it comes to thinking fast or mere intuition, since clearly I need to have a fair amount of time to find the right moves.

I'm **really** invested at becoming a CM, so analyzing and understanding my learning-curve and improvement rate is very important for me. I dedicate a lot of time to chess (studying and playing), and I want to know how much that's paying off.

If my improvement is below good (since let's face it, at Blitz I'm still simply weak), how can I accelerate it, specially on fast time formats? If my improvement is decent, how can I keep pushing further? Because now that I'm above 2200 Classic elo I'm beginning to face very strong players (I played my first titled opponent recently) and I want to keep up with them.

Sorry if my question is vague, I hope you can appreciate how important it is to me to understand myself in regards to my chess learning.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Going from a beginner to being rated 2200 on Lichess in a year is a very good rate of improvement. Would you mind elaborating on what you did to get there?

Still, a Lichess rating isn't always an accurate representation of strength, and it's possible you could be somewhere between 1600-1800 ELO over the board. The only way to find out is to play rated games OTB and see. This could be useful in figuring out how to continue your training.

For continuing, it seems like whatever you're doing is working well (I wouldn't worry about trying to *accelerate* your progress, if anything it will start to decelerate soon). If you really are 2000-2200 strength, you could consider getting the GM Preparation books from Quality Chess. The Great Predecessors series by Kasparov is also recommended. In addition, you should put together a solid opening repertoire, perhaps using Chessbase. You can buy opening books to do this, or research on your own (you might need help at first if you've never done it before). A good endgame book would be useful as well. I assume you're already doing this, but solving online tactics is important for sharpening your tactical intuition. You could also consider finding a coach in your area, but this depends on how much you want to spend to reach your goals.

Most titled players took years to get where they are, so I wouldn't give yourself the pressure of reaching their level so quickly. For example, I only got my FM title after playing for roughly 12 years. Building up a good intuition (which helps in blitz) comes from lots of practice, and isn't really something that can be gained very quickly.

---
Tags: learning, training
---


title: Could white have won this game?

text:
# Question
Title: Could white have won this game?
```
[Event "Fritz, 19Ply / 19Ply"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.04.15"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stockfish 6"]
[Black "Houdini 1.5a w32"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B42"]
[PlyCount "292"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Be3 Nge7 7. c4 Nxd4  8.
Bxd4 Nc6 9. Be3 b6 10. O-O Bc5 11. Re1 d6 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Qd2 Bb7 14. Red1 Qc7
15. b3 h6 16. Be2 Rab8 17. a3 Na5 18. Rab1 Bxa3 19. Bxh6 gxh6 20. Qxh6 f5 21.
Rd3 f4 22. b4 Nc6 23. Bg4 Nd8 24. Ne2 e5 25. f3 Qh7 26. Qxh7+ Kxh7 27. Rxa3 Nc6
28. Bd7 a5 29. Bxc6 Bxc6 30. Rd3 Rfd8 31. bxa5 bxa5 32. Rxb8 Rxb8 33. Rxd6 Be8
34. Nc3 a4 35. Ra6 Rc8 36. Nd5 Kg7 37. Ra7+ Kf8 38. g3 fxg3 39. h4 Rxc4 40. Kg2
Rc6 41. Ne3 Bh5 42. Rxa4 Rc3 43. Ng4 Bxg4 44. fxg4 Rc2+ 45. Kxg3 Rc3+ 46. Kf2
Rc2+ 47. Kf1 Rc1+ 48. Ke2 Rc2+ 49. Kd3 Rg2 50. g5 Rg4 51. Ra8+ Kg7 52. Ra7+ Kg8
53. Ra5 Rxh4 54. Rxe5 Kf7 55. Rf5+ Kg6 56. Rf8 Rh1 57. Kd4 Rd1+ 58. Ke5 Re1 59.
Kd5 Ra1 60. Rg8+ Kf7 61. Rc8 Kg6 62. Ke5 Re1 63. Rg8+ Kf7 64. Ra8 Kg6 65. Ra7
Rb1 66. Ra2 Re1 67. Ra8 Rb1 68. Ra7 Re1 69. Rc7 Re2 70. Rc1 Ra2 71. Rb1 Rg2 72.
Ra1 Rb2 73. Kd6 Rb6+ 74. Kc5 Rb8 75. Rg1 Rd8 76. Kc6 Re8 77. Kd5 Rd8+ 78. Ke5
Re8+ 79. Kd4 Rd8+ 80. Ke3 Rb8 81. Rg2 Rd8 82. Rg3 Re8 83. Rg4 Rc8 84. Kd4 Rd8+
85. Kc5 Re8 86. Kd6 Rd8+ 87. Ke7 Rd4 88. Ke6 Rb4 89. Ke5 Rb5+ 90. Kf4 Rb1 91.
Rg2 Rf1+ 92. Ke5 Rb1 93. Rc2 Ra1 94. Rb2 Re1 95. Ra2 Rb1 96. Ra3 Rg1 97. Ke6
Kxg5 98. Ra5+ Kg6 99. Ra2 Kg7 100. e5 Re1 101. Rf2 Ra1 102. Rd2 Re1 103. Rg2+
Kf8 104. Rb2 Ra1 105. Rb6 Ra2 106. Rb8+ Kg7 107. Rd8 Re2 108. Rd7+ Kf8 109.
Rf7+ Ke8 110. Rh7 Kf8 111. Rh8+ Kg7 112. Rh3 Rb2 113. Rc3 Re2 114. Rf3 Ra2 115.
Rd3 Re2 116. Rd8 Re1 117. Rd7+ Kf8 118. Rf7+ Ke8 119. Rb7 Kf8 120. Rb8+ Kg7
121. Rb2 Kf8 122. Rc2 Re3 123. Rc8+ Kg7 124. Rc1 Kf8 125. Rf1+ Ke8 126. Rh1 Kf8
127. Rh8+ Kg7 128. Ra8 Re1 129. Ra7+ Kf8 130. Ra3 Rb1 131. Ra8+ Kg7 132. Rc8
Re1 133. Rc4 Kf8 134. Rc7 Re3 135. Rc2 Re1 136. Rc4 Kg7 137. Rf4 Ra1 138. Rd4
Re1 139. Rd6 Re2 140. Rd1 Kf8 141. Rf1+ Ke8 142. Ra1 Kd8 143. Rg1 Re4 144. Rg8+
Kc7 145. Re8 Rh4 146. Rf8 Kc6 1/2-1/2

```

This fascinating game was played today between Stockfish and Houdini. White (Stockfish) could not realize his two-pawn-advantage. After 54. Te5, the position is theoretically draw and it kept being draw until the last move 146... Kc6 which allows a winning position, but the 50-move-rule ensures the draw because it takes some more moves to move the pawn.

Could white have won, and if so, how?

# Answer
If you ask only about the R+2p vs R endgame then no, it was drawn. In serious engine tournaments the stronger engines usually have access to 6-men tablebases, so they play these endgames perfectly.

If you ask about the whole rook endgame, then 45.Kh3 looks like a good winning attempt, as black has no easy way to transpose to the game, e.g. 45...g2 46.Ra1 Rc3+ 47.Kxg2 Rc2+ 48.Kg1 and there is no counterplay which was possible in the game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
After the move 43... Rc2, White should have played 44. Kh3 instead of 44. Kxg3, and played the below sequence.

```
[FEN "5k2/8/8/4p3/R3P1PP/6p1/2r3K1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kh3 g2 2. Ra1 Re2 3. Rg1 Rxe4 4. h5 Re3+ 5.     Kxg2

```

There is a mate in 39 moves afterward according to the Lomonosov tablebases.
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you take Nalimov's endgame tables (from Knowledge4IT) and put the position after 54.Rxe5, when the material is down to 6 pieces, you can see that it is a draw, and you can check for the different variations. If it was White to play, then Rf5 would have been the only winning move, and the table gives a win in 45.

One would need to check with the new 7-pieces tables to check for an earlier win.

Hope this helps.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, draw, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: List of numerous possible reasons to promote to a knight
While this asks for **a** reason/any reason in general, I wish to make a list of **numerous** posssible unique reasons.

I already have an exhaustive list of my own. Are there any more possible reasons out there? Can any of these be generalized further? If you can come up with another reason, please give an example.

---

My List-Practical Game Examples Are Used If Possible

To give checkmate

```
[Title "William Strum-John McManus, Eastern Open, Washington, District hof Columbia USA, 12/29/1997"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "78"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. Kf1 Nh6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. d4 Ng4 8. Nxh4 Qxh4 9. Qe2 Nc6 10. Bxf4 Nxd4 11. Qd2 Qf6 12. Nd5 Qd8 13. Qxd4 d6 14. h3 c6 15. hxg4 cxd5 16. Qxd5 Be6 17. Qh5 Bxc4+ 18. Kf2 h6 19. g5 Qb6+ 20. Be3 Qxb2 21. Rac1 Kh7 22. gxh6 g6 23. Qd1 Qf6+ 24. Qf3 Qxf3+ 25. gxf3 Rfe8 26. a3 d5 27. exd5 Bxd5 28. Rcd1 Be6 29. c3 b6 30. Rh4 Rac8 31. Rf1 f6 32. f4 Rf8 33. Kg3 Rc4 34. Bd4 g5 35. fxg5 fxg5 36. Re1 Bg4 37. Re7+ Kg6 38. h7 Rf3+ 39. Kxg4 Rfxc3 40. h8=N#

```

To avoid checkmate

```
[Title "Kaan Kucuksari-Alexander Betaneli, Rilton Cup 2016/17, Stockholm Sweden, 1/4/2017"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "142"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. g3 dxc4 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Qc2 Nc6 9.  Qxc4 Qd5 10. Qd3 Qf5 11. Qxf5 exf5 12. a3 Bxd2 13. Nbxd2 Be6 14. e3 Bd5 15. Rac1 Rfd8 16. Rfd1 a4 17. Ne5 Bxg2 18. Kxg2 Nxe5 19. dxe5 Nd5 20. e4 fxe4 21. Nxe4 Kf8 22. Kf3 c6 23. Nd6 Rd7 24. Ke4 Rad8 25. Rd4 Nf6+ 26. Ke3 Ne8 27. Nf5 g6 28. Rxd7 Rxd7 29. Nd4 Re7 30. f4 f6 31. Nf3 Nd6 32. Kd4 Nf5+ 33. Kc5 Rd7 34. exf6 Rd5+ 35. Kb6 Rb5+ 36. Kc7 Ne3 37. Re1 Nd5+ 38. Kd6 Nxf6 39. Re6 Ne8+ 40. Kd7 Rd5+ 41. Kc8 Nd6+ 42. Kc7 Nf7 43. Re2 Rd3 44. Ne5 Nxe5 45. fxe5 Rb3 46. Kd7 Rd3+ 47. Ke6 b5 48. Rf2+ Kg8 49. Rc2 Rb3 50. Kd6 b4 51. axb4 Rxb4 52. e6 Kf8 53. Rxc6 Rd4+ 54. Ke5 Rd2 55. Rc8+ Ke7 56. Rc7+ Ke8 57. Rxh7 Rxb2 58. Kf6 Rf2+ 59. Kxg6 a3 60. h4 Rf3 61. g4 Rf4 62. g5 Ra4 63. Rd7 a2 64. Rd1 a1=Q 65. Rxa1 Rxa1 66. h5 Ke7 67. h6 Kxe6 68. h7 Ra8 69. Kh6 Kf5 70. g6 Kf6 71. g7 Ra1 72. g8=N+ Kf7 73. h8=N+ Kxg8 74. Ng6 Rg1 75. Ne5 Kf8 76. Kh5 Ke7 77. Ng4 Ke6 78. Kg5 Rf1 79. Kg6 Rf8 80. Nh6 Ke5 81. Kg5 Ke4 82. Kg4 Rf1 83. Kg5 Rh1 84. Nf7 Kd5 85. Kf6 Rf1+ 86. Kg6 Ke6 87. Ng5+ Ke7 88. Kh5 Kf6 89. Ne4+ Ke5 90. Ng3 Rf4 91. Kg5 Rf8 92. Kg4 Rf4+ 93. Kg5 Rf7 94. Kg4 Rf8 95. Nh5 Rh8 96. Ng3 Rb8 97. Nh5 Rb4+ 98. Kg5 Ra4 99. Ng3 Rc4 100. Nh5 Rc8 101. Kg4 Rg8+ 102. Kf3 Rg6 103. Ng3 Rg5 104. Ne2 Rf5+ 105. Ke3 Rh5 106. Kf3 Rh2 107. Ng3 Ra2 108. Ne2 Ra3+ 109. Kg4 Rb3 110. Ng3 Re3 111. Nf5 Re4+ 112. Kg5 Rf4 113. Ng3 Rb4 114. Nf5 Rb8 115. Nh6 Ke4 116. Nf7 Rb5+ 117. Kf6 Kf4 118. Nd6 Re5 119. Nf7 Rd5 120. Ke6

```

To create a potential/have a mating threat

```
[Title "Vladimir Eduardovich Akopia-Sergey Karjakin, 4th FIDE Grand Prix, Nalchik Russia, 4/21/2009 "]
[FEN ""]
[startply "140"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 10. h3 Nf6 11. Qf3 Qb6 12. O-O-O Nc6 13. Nxc6 Qxc6 14. Be2 Nd7 15. Nd5 Ne5 16. Qa3 b5 17. h4 Be6 18. hxg5 Rc8 19. Rd2 hxg5 20. Rxh8+ Bxh8 21. Qe3 Nc4 22. Bxc4 bxc4 23. c3 f6 24. Qa7 Bd7 25. f3 Bg7 26. Nb6 Rd8 27. Qxa6 Be6 28. Qa7 Kf7 29. Nd5 Bxd5 30. exd5 Qa8 31. Qc7 Rc8 32. Qd7 Rh8 33. Qe6+ Kf8 34. a3 Rh1+ 35. Rd1 Rxd1+ 36. Kxd1 Qa4+ 37. Kd2 Qb3 38. Kc1 Qb6 39. Be1 Qg1 40. g4 Qf1 41. Qe4 Ke8 42. Kd2 Kd8 43. Qe2 Qh1 44. Kc2 f5 45. gxf5 Qh3 46. Qxc4 Qxf3 47. Qd3 Qg2+ 48. Kb3 g4 49. a4 Be5 50. a5 Qg1 51. Qb5 Qxe1 52. a6 Qa1 53. Qb8+ Kd7 54. Qb5+ Kd8 55. Qb6+ Kc8 56. Qc6+ Kd8 57. Qa8+ Kd7 58. Qc6+ Kd8 59. Qa8+ Kd7 60. Qb7+ Kd8 61. Qb8+ Kd7 62. a7 Qd1+ 63. Kb4 Bxc3+ 64. Kxc3 Qc1+ 65. Kb3 Qd1+ 66. Kb4 Qe1+ 67. Kb5 Qf1+ 68. Kb6 Qg1+ 69. Ka6 Qa1+ 70. Kb7 Qc1 71. a8=N

```

To give a double check/checkmate that wouldn’t work otherwise due to the discovered attacker being attacked.

```
[Title "Avetik Grigoryan-Tigran L. Petrosian, Lake Sevan GM, Martuni Armenia, 7/11/19"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "99"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c6 3. c4 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bd3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2 dxc4 7. Nxc4 c5 8. O-O Be7 9. e4 cxd4 10. e5 Nd5 11. Nxd4 Nc5 12. Bc2 O-O 13. a3 a5 14. Qg4 f5 15. Qg3 Qe8 16. Bg5 a4 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. Rfd1 Ne4 19. Bxe4 fxe4  20. Nd6 e3 21. fxe3 Bd7 22. Rac1 Bc6 23. h3 h6 24. Kh2 Kh7 25. Rf1 Nb6 26. Nxc6 bxc6 27. Rxf8 Rxf8 28. Rxc6 Nd5 29. Qg4 Nxe3 30. Qe4+ Nf5 31. g4 Qh4 32. gxf5 Qf2+ 33. Qg2 Qf4+ 34. Kh1 exf5 35. e6 Qe5 36.Nc4 Qe1+ 37.Kh2 Rf6 38.Qg1 Qe4 39.Qg2 Qf4+ 40.Qg3 Qe4 41.Rc5 Rxe6 42.Qf2 f4 43. h4 f3 44.h5 Qg4 45.Qc2+ Re4 46.Nd6 f2 47. Rf5 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qg4+ 49. Kh2 Re2 50. Qd3 f1=N+

```

To give a check and gain a tempo

```
[Title "Hikaru Nakamura-Vladimir Kramnik, Chess Olympiad, Istanbul Turkey, 9/6/19"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "122"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. c4 c6 5. d4 d5 6. cxd5 cxd5 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Qb3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 O-O 10. Nd2 e6 11. e4 Nc6 12. O-O Na5 13.  Qd1 Qc7 14. Qf3 b6 15. Ba3 Rd8 16. e5 Ba6 17. Rfe1 Rac8 18. Bb4 Bh6 19. Qd1 Nc6 20. Ba3 Na5 21. Bb4 Nc6 22. Ba3 Na5 23. Nb1 b5 24. h4 Nc6 25. Bc5 Qb8 26. Qe2 Na5 27. Nd2 Rxc5 28. dxc5 Qc8 29. Nf3 Qxc5 30. Nh2 Bg7 31. h5 g5 32. h6 Bxh6 33. Qh5 Bg7 34. Qxg5 Nc6 35. Ng4 Qe7 36. Qxe7 Nxe7n37. a4 d4 38. axb5 Bxb5 39. Rxa7 d3 40. Rxe7 d2 41. Rd1 Be2 42. Ne3 Bxe5 43. c4 h5 44. Ra7 h4 45. Ra2 Bxd1 46. Nxd1 hxg3 47. fxg3 Bxg3 48. c5 f5 49. Ra7 e5 50. c6 e4 51. Bh3 Rc8 52. Ra6 Rf8 53. Ra5 f4 54. Kf1 e3 55. Ke2 Rf6 56. Ra8+ Kg7 57. Ra7+ Rf7 58. Rb7 Kf6 59. Kf3 Re7 60. Rxe7 Kxe7 61. c7 e2 62. c8=N+ Kf6 63. Kxe2 Ke5 64. Nb6 Kd4 65. Bg2 Be1 66. Nd5 Ke5 67. Nb4 Bh4 68. Nd3+ Kf5 69. Kxd2 Kg4 70. Ke2 Bf6 71. N1f2+ Kg3 72. Bf3 Bd8 73. Ne4+ Kh4 74. Ne5 Bc7 75. Ng6+ Kh3 76. Ne7 Bd8 77. Nf5 Bb6 78. Kf1 Kh2 79. Bg4 f3 80. Nh4

```

To gain a perputual check

```
[Title "Niclas Huschenbeth-Robin Swinkels, Bundesliga 2007/08, Godesberg Germany, 2/9/2008"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "64"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O Bd7 9. f3 Be7 10. Be3 h5 11. Kb1 Qc7 12. Nxc6 Bxc6 13. Ne2 d5 14. e5 Nd7 15. f4 Bb5 16. g3 g6 17. Bg2 Bxe2 18. Qxe2 b5 19. h3 Bc5 20. Bxc5 Qxc5 21. g4 Nb6 22. b3 Rb8 23. Qd2 Nc4 24. bxc4 bxc4+ 25. Ka1 c3 26. Qd4 Qa3 27. Rb1 Rb2 28. Bxd5 exd5 29. Qxd5 O-O 30. e6 Rfb8 31. exf7+ Kg7 32. Qe5+ Kh7 33. f8=N+ Rxf8 34. Qc7+ Kh8 35. Qe5+ Kh7 36. Qc7+

```

To stop a perputual check

```
[Title "Anatoly Karpov-Jan Timman, SWIFT Tournament 1st, Brussels Belgium, 3/24/1986"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "172"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 b6 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. O-O g6 6. d4 Bg7 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Nxe4 Bxe4 9. d5 e5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Bh3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 f5 13. e4 f4 14. Qd1 d6 15. Bd2 a5 16. Qa4 Bh6 17. Rac1 Bg5 18. Rc2 Kh8 19. a3 Ra7 20. Be1 Qe8 21. Qxe8 Rxe8 22. Bd2 Na6 23. Rb1 Rf8 24. Rc3 Kg7 25. Bg4 Raf7 26. Rb3 Rb8 27. Bd1 h5 28. h4 Bh6 29. g4 hxg4 30. Bxg4 Kf6 31. Kf1 Rfb7 32. Ke1 Bf8 33. Rh3 Rh7 34. Ke2 Be7 35. h5 gxh5 36. Rxh5 Rxh5 37. Bxh5 Rg8 38. Bf3 Rh8 39. Bg4 Nc7 40. Bd7 Kf7 41. Ra1 Bg5 42. Bc3 Ke7 43. Bf5 Bf6 44. Rd1 Ra8 45. Kd3 Rh8 46. Be1 Ra8 47. Bd2 Rh8 48. Rc1 Ra8 49. Rc3 Rh8 50. Rb3 Na8 51. Ke2 Bg5 52. Be1 Rh1 53. Bc8 Bh4 54. Bd2 Rh2 55. Be1 Rh1 56. Bb7 Nc7 57. Bc6 Kd8 58. Bd2 Rh2 59. Be1 Rh1 60. Ba4 Kc8 61. Bc3 Rh2 62. Rxb6 Rxf2+ 63. Kd3 Rf3+ 64. Kc2 Rg3 65. Rxd6 f3 66. Rh6 f2 67. Rh8+ Kb7 68. Bc6+ Ka6 69. Rf8 Rg8 70. Rf3 Rg3 71. Rf5 Rg5 72. Rf7 Rg7 73. Rf3 Rg3 74. Rf5 Rg5 75. Rf8 Rg8 76. Rf7 Rg7 77. Rxg7 f1=Q 78. Rxc7 Qxc4 79. a4 Qxe4+ 80. Kb3 Be1 81. d6 Qh4 82. Bb5+ Kb6 83. Rc6+ Kb7 84. d7 Bxc3 85. bxc3 c4+ 86. Rxc4 Qe1 87. d8=N+ Ka7 88. Rc7+ Kb8 89. Rd7 Qb1+ 90. Kc4 Qf1+ 91. Kd5 Qf3+ 92. Kd6 Qf8+ 93. Ke6 Qh6+ 94. Kxe5 Qe3+ 95. Kd6 Qf4+ 96. Kc5 Qe3+ 97. Kc4 Kc8 98. Nf7 Qe4+ 99. Kc5 Qe3+ 100. Kc6 Qxc3+ 101. Kb6 Qe3+ 102. Ka6 Qe6+ 103. Nd6+ Kb8 104. Rd8+ Kc7 105. Rc8+

```

To guard an otherwise unguardable square (whether to protect a piece, stop a checkmate threat, or to take away a flight square away from the enemy king)

```
[Title "Michael Adams-Anthony Miles, Tilburg, Tilburg Netherlands, 11/17/1993"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "179"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Nb3 a6 10.Re1 b5 11.Bf1 h6 12.Bh4 e6 13.Qd2 Qc7 14.Rad1 Rd8 15.f4 Bb7 16.a3 Rac8 17.f5 Ne5 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Nd4 Qe7 20.Nf3 g5 21.Bf2 Nxf3+ 22.gxf3 Nh5 23.Bd4 Bxd4+ 24.Qxd4 Qf8 25.Qe3 Rc7 26.Ne2 Rf7 27.Bh3 Bc8 28.Rf1 Kh8 29.Bg4 Nf4 30.Nxf4 Rxf4 31.Rd2 Qf7 32.Bh3 Rf8 33.Bg2 Bb7 34.Rfd1 d5 35.h3 Kg8 36.c3 Qg7 37.Qb6 Qf7 38.Qe3 Rf6 39.e5 Rf5 40.Rd4 Qg7 41.Re1 Bc6 42.h4 Be8 43.Rg4 Bh5 44.Rg3 g4 45.Qd4 Kh8 46.fxg4 Rf4 47.Qe3 Rxg4 48.Rxg4 Bxg4 49.Rf1 Bf5 50.Kh2 Kh7 51.Qg3. Qxg3+ 52.Kxg3 Rg8+ 53.Kf2 Rg4 54.h5 Rg5 55.Bf3 Bc2 56.Re1 Kh8 57.Re3 Bh7 58.Ke2 Kg7 59.Kd2 Kf8 60.Re2 Ke8 61.Rg2 Rxe5 62.Rg7 Be4 63.Bxe4 Rxe4 64.Rh7 Rh4 65.Rxh6 Ke7 66.Rh8 Kf6 67.h6 Ke5 68.h7 a5 69.Rb8 Rxh7 70.Rxb5 Ke4 71.Rxa5 Rh2+ 72.Kc1 Kd3 73.Kb1 Rh1+ 74.Ka2 Kc2 75.a4 Rh8 76.Ra6 e5 77.Re6 e4 78.Ka3 Rb8 79.b4 Kxc3 80.b5 Rd8 81.b6 d4 82.Rxe4 d3 83.Re1 d2 84.Rd1 Rd3 85.b7 Kc2+ 86.Ka2 Rd8 87.Rxd2+ Kxd2 88.a5 Kc2 89.a6 Rd6 90.b8=N Rd5 91.Ka3 Kc3 92.Ka4 Kc4 93.Nc6 Rd1 94.Na5+ Kc5 95.Nb3+ Kb6 96.a7 Kxa7 97.Kb4 Kb6 98.Kc3 Rh1 99.Nd4 Rh4 100.Nb3 Kc6 101.Nd4+ Kd5 102.Nb3 Rc4+ 103.Kd3 Ra4 104.Kc3 Ra8v105.Kd3 Rh8 106.Kc3 Rh7 107.Kb4 Rh3 108.Na5 Rh4+ 109.Kb5 Kd4 110.Nc6+ Kd5 111.Nb4+ Kd6 112.Na6 Rh5+ 113.Kb6 Rd5 114.Nc7 Rd1 115.Nb5+ Kd5 116.Nc7+ Ke5 117.Nb5 Rc1 118.Nc7 Kd4 119.Nb5+ Kd5 120.Nc7+ Kd6 121.Nb5+ Kd7 122.Nd4

```

To give a fork

```
[Title "George Alcock MacDonnell-Henry Edward Bird, London England, 1874"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "43"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 h5 6. Bc4 Nh6 7. d4 d6 8. Nd3 f3 9. g3 f5 10. Nc3 fxe4 11. Nxe4 Nf5 12. Kf2 Be7 13. Nf4 Rh7 14. Ng6 d5 15. Nxe7 dxe4 16. Nd5 Be6 17. Bg5 Bxd5 18. Bxd8 e3+ 19. Kg1 Bxc4 20. Bg5 f2+ 21. Kh2 e2 22. Qd2 f1=N+ 23. Rhxf1 exf1=N+ 24. Rxf1 Bxf1 25. Qe1+ Ne7 26. Qxf1 Nbc6 27. d5 Rf7 28. Qc4 Ne5 29. Qxc7 Nf3+ 30. Kg2 Rc8 31. Qa5 Rxc2+ 32. Kf1 Nxg5+ 33. Ke1 Nf3+ 34. Kd1 Rd2+ 35. Kc1 Nxd5 36. a3 Rc7+ 37.Kb1 Nc3+ 38.bxc3 Re7

```

To avoid a fork

```
[Title "Vladlen Yakovlevich Zurakhov-Alexander Koblents, URS-ch sf, Tbilisi USSR, 1956"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "112"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nf3 b6 8. Bc4 Bb7 9.Qe2 c6 10.O-O Nd7 11.a4 f5 12.Ng3 Kf8 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Qxe6 Nf6 15.Nxf5 Bc8 16.Qe5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 Qd5. 18.Qf4 Rg8 19.Rae1 Rg4 20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.Rxe7 Qxf3 22.g3 Rg6 23.Qh3 Qg4 24.Qxg4 Rxg4 25.c3 Re4 26.Rxe4 Nxe4 27. Re1 Re8 28.f3 Nd6 29.Rxe8+ Nxe8 30.Kf2 Nd6 31.b3 b5 32.Ke3 bxa4 33.bxa4 Nc4+ 34.Ke4 Kf7 35.d5 c5 36.f4 a5 37.f5 Nb6 38.d6 Ke8 39.f6 Kf7 40.Ke5 Nd7+ 41.Kd5 Kxf6 42.g4 c4 43.Kc6 Ke6. 44.g5 Nf8 45.h4 Nd7 46.h5 Ne5+ 47. Kc7 Kf5 48.Kb6 Ke6 49.Kxa5 Kxd6 50.Kb6 Nd7+ 51.Kb5 Kc7 52.Kxc4 Ne5+ 53. Kd5 Nf3 54.g6 hxg6 55.hxg6 Nh4 56.g7 Nf5 57.g8=N Kb6 58.Kc4 Ne3+ 59.Kb3 Nd5 60.c4 Nc7 61.Nf6 Ne6 62.Ne4 Nc7 63.Nf2 Ne6 64.Nd3 Nd4+ 65.Kc3 Ne2+ 66.Kb4 Nd4 67.c5+ Ka6 68.Kc4 Nf5 69.Kd5 Kb7 70.Nb4 Ne3+ 71.Kd4 Nf5+ 72. Kc4 Ne3+ 73.Kb5 Kc7 74.a5 Nf5 75.Nd5+ Kb7 76.c6+ Ka7 77.c7 Kb7 78.a6+ Ka7 79.c8=N+ Kb8 80.Kb6

```

To avoid a discovered attack on the newly born piece

```
[Title "Vladimir Antoshin-Vladimir Simagin, Moscow USSR, 1952"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "88"]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 g6 3.Bb2 Bg7 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 a5 6.O-O d6 7.d4 a4 8.c4 Nbd7 9.Qc2 c5 10.e4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Qb6 12.Nb5 axb3 13.axb3 Rxa1 14.Bxa1 Nc5 15.Bd4 e5 16.Be3 Ng4 17.Bg5 f6 18.Bc1 f5 19.h3 Nf6 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Qd1 Bxb1 22.Be3 Ba2 23.Qc2 Bxb3 24.Qxb3 Nxb3 25.Bxb6 Nd2 26.Rc1 Bh6 27.Rc2 Nfe4 28.Nc3 Nxc3 29.Rxc3 e4 30.Bc7 Rc8 31.Bxd6 b5 32.c5 b4 33.Rc2 b3 34.Rb2 Kf7 35.h4 Ra8 36.c6 Nc4 37.Bxe4 Ra1+ 38.Kg2 Nxb2 39.Bd5+ Ke8 40.Bxb3 Rc1 41.Bd5 Nc4 42.Bb8 Na5 43.c7 Ke7 44.Bf3 Nc4 45.c8=N+ Kf8 46.Nd6 Ne5 47.Ne4 Nxf3 48.Kxf3 Bg7 49.Bf4 Rc2 50.Ng5 Kg8 51.Be3 Bf6 52.Kg2 Be7 53.Kf3 Bc5 54.Bxc5 Rxc5m55.Kg2 Rc3 56.Nh3 Ra3 57.Ng1 Kg7m58.Nf3 Kf6 59.Ng5 h6 60.Nh3 Kf5 61.Nf4 Rb3 62.Nh3 Ke4 63.Nf4 Rb6 64.Nh3 Rf6 65.Ng1 Kd3 66.Nf3 Rd6 67.Ne5+ Ke2 68.Nf3 Rd5 69.Ng1+ Kd3 70.Nh3 Ke4 71.Nf4 Rd6 72.Nh3 Rb6 73.Nf4 g5 74.hxg5 hxg5 75.Nh3 g4 76. Nf4 Rb1 77. Ng6 Re1 78.Nf4 Rd1 79.Ng6 Ra1 80.Nf4 Ra2 81.Ng6 Kd4m82.Nf4 Ra6 83.Ne2+ Kd3 84.Nf4+ Kc3 85.Nd5+ Kd2 86.f3 Rd6 87.Nf4 Ke3 88.fxg4 Rd2+ 89.Kh3 Kf3

```

To create a discovered attack

```
 [Title "Frank James Marshall-William Ewart Napier, Brooklyn, 1898"]
 [FEN ""]
 [startply "98"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bc5 6.e3 Bxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 8.Be3 Nf6 9.Nc3 Qa5 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.O-O O-O 12.a3 Ne4 13.Nxe4 Qxb5 14.Nc5 Rad8 15.Qd2 Bc8 16.Rac1 b6 17.Ne4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 c5 19.Qg5 Rxd4 20.Nf6+ Kh8 21.f4 Qxb2 22.Rce1 Rd2 23.Ne4 f6 24.Qg3 Qd4+ 25.Nf2 Qd8 26.Re3 Bf5 27.Rfe1 Rd7 28.Qf3 Rg8 29.g4 Bg6 30.f5 Bf7 31.h4 c4 32.Qh3 Re8 33.Rxe8+ Bxe8 34.Qe3 Bf7 35.g5 Rd5 36.Ng4 fxg5 37.Ne5 Bg8 38.hxg5 Rd2 39.g6 h6 40.Nf7+ Bxf7 41.gxf7 Kh7 42.Qg3 Rd6 43.Qg4 c3 44.Re8 Rd1+ 45.Kf2 Rd2+ 46.Ke1 Rd1+ 47.Qxd1. Qh4+ 48.Kf1 Qh1+ 49.Kf2 Qxd1 50.f8=N+ Kg8 51.Ng6+ Kf7 52.Rf8#

```

To win a piece without a fork

```
[Title "Suat Atalik-Anthony Miles, Iraklion Greece, 1993"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "59"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.Qd2 e6 9.Rd1 b6 10.Bg5 Ba6 11.d5 Ne5 12.b3 h6 13.Be3 exd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 b5 16.cxb5 Bxb5 17.Nc1 Bc6 18.Qd2 f5 19.Qxd6 Qe8 20.Qxc5 fxe4 21.f4 Nd3+ 22.Nxd3 exd3 23.Kf2 Rc8 24.Qc4+ Kh8 25.Qxd3 g5 26.Rc1 Rd8 27.Qe2 gxf4 28.Bc5 f3 29.Qxe8 fxg2+ 30.Bxf8 gxh1=N+

```

To gain a skewer

```
[FEN "5Q2/8/8/4p3/p1k1P3/B1p1K3/2PpP3/4r3 b - - 0 1"]

1. d1=N+ Kf3 2. Rf1+ Kg4 3. Rxf8

```

To avoid a skewer (pretending that the example doesn’t end in mate)

```
[Title "Gawain Jones-Danny Raznikov, Isle of Man Masters, Douglas Isle of Man, 10/12/2014"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "136"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 10. Be2 h5 11. h4 gxh4 12. Bxh4 Nc6 13. Nb3 Be6 14. Qd2 Qb6 15. Nd5 Bxd5 16. exd5 Nce5 17. c3 Ng6 18. Bf3 Rc8 19. Bg5 N6e5 20. Bxg4 hxg4 21. Rxh8+ Bxh8 22. O-O-O Kd7 23. Qc2 Rg8 24. Qf5+ Kd8 25. Be3 Qb5 26. Bd4 Qd7 27. Qh7 Rf8 28. f4 gxf3 29. gxf3 Bf6 30. Qe4 Rh8 31. f4 Qg4 32. Nc5 dxc5 33. Bxe5 Bxe5 34. Qxe5 Rh4 35. Rf1 f6 36. Qe4 Qd7 37. Qg2 Kc7 38. Qf2 Qb5 39. Re1 Rh7 40. Qg3 Kb6 41. b3 Ka7 42. Qf2 Ka8 43. Qc2 Rg7 44. Kb2 Qd7 45. Qe4 Qg4 46. Ka3 Qd7 47. Rh1 Ka7 48. Rh2 Qd6 49. Re2 Rg4 50. Qxe7 Qxe7 51. Rxe7 Rxf4 52. Rc7 Kb6 53. Rc8 Rf3 54. Kb2 Rd3 55. c4 f5 56. Kc2 Rh3 57. b4 cxb4 58. d6 Rh7 59. Kb3 Ka5 60. Rc7 Rh3+ 61. Kc2 Rh2+ 62. Kd3 Kb6 63. c5+ Kb5 64. d7 Rh1 65. Ke2 Rh2+ 66. Ke3 Rh3+ 67. Kd4 Rh1 68. Rxb7+ Kc6 69. d8=N#

```

To gain a waiting move

```
[Title "Mate in 4, T. Siers and H. Wittwer, British Chess Federation, 1935/36"]
[FEN "1R6/Pn6/K6p/7P/8/4NNp1/6P1/7k w - - 0 1"]

1. a8=N Nc5+ 2. Ka7 Nb7 3. Nc7 Nc5 4. Rb1#

```

To block another piece

```
[Title "Luke McShane-Levon Aronian, London Chess Classic, 12/4/2012"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "136"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4 Bd7 9.c3 O-O 10.Nbd2 Na5 11.Bc2 c5 12.Re1 Re8 13.Nf1 Nc6 14.Ne3 b4 15.h3 Rb8 16.Nc4 Be6 17.Bb3 h6 18.Be3 bxc3. 19.bxc3 d5 20.exd5 Nxd5 21.Qc2 e4 22.dxe4 Nxe3 23.Rxe3 Rxb3 24.Qxb3 Na5 25.Nxa5 Bxb3 26.Nxb3 Qb6 27.Nbd2 Qb2 28.Rae1 Rd8 29.Nf1 c4 30.Ne5 Bc5 31.Rf3 Qb3 32.a5 Rd6 33.Nxf7 Rf6 34.Rxf6 gxf6 35.Nxh6+ Kf8 36.Ng4 Qxc3 37.Rd1 Qb4 38.Nxf6 Kf7 39.Nd5 Qb2 40.Nde3 c3 41.Rd5 Be7 42.Rf5+ Ke8 43.g4 c2 44.Nxc2 Qxc2 45.Ng3 Qc7 46.Nh5 Bd8 47.Kg2 Qc6 48.Re5+ Kf7 49.g5 Qa4 50.h4 Bxa5 51.Rf5+ Ke6 52.Nf4+ Kd7 53.f3 Qc2+ 54.Kh3 Qf2 55.Kg4 Be1 56.Ng6 a5 57.Rf7+ Kd8 58.e5 a4 59.e6 Bb4 60.e7+ Bxe7 61.Nxe7 Qc5 62.Kh5 a3 63.Kh6 a2 64.g6 Qc4 65.Nf5 a1=Q 66.Rf8+ Kc7 67.g7 Qc6+ 68.Kh7 Qxf3 69.g8=N Qh5+ 70.Ngh6 Qe5 71.Ng7 Qxh4 72.Rf7+ Kb6 73.Nf5 Qee4 74.Kg6 Qe6+ 75.Kg7 Qg5+ 76.Kf8 Qc8#

```

To avoid stalemate

```
[Title "Iroda Khamrakulova-Ekaterina Ubiennykh, WJun Women, Athens Greecd, 8/24/2001"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "154"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. c4 Nb6 9. Nd2 Bb7 10. b3 O-O-O 11. Bb2 g5 12. O-O-O Bg7 13. h4 h6 14. g3 c5 15. Rh2 Rde8 16. f4 d6 17. Re1 Kb8 18. Bg2 Bxg2 19. Qxg2 gxf4 20. gxf4 Rhg8 21. Qe4 dxe5 22. fxe5 Qe6 23. Rhe2 Bh8 24. Nf3 Rg4 25. Qd3 Kc8 26. Re3 Bg7 27. Kb1 Rd8 28. Qc2 Bf8 29. Re4 Rg3 30. Rf4 Be7 31. Qf5 Rf8 32. Rf1 Kd7 33. Bc1 a5 34. Rd1+ Kc8 35. a4 Rh3 36. Rf1 Kd7 37. Bd2 Rb8 38. Ka2 Rg3 39. Bxa5 Rg2+ 40. Ka3 Ke8 41. Ne1 Rg3 42. R1f3 Qxf5 43. Rxf5 Bxh4 44. Rxf7 Rxf3 45. Rxf3 Bg5 46. Nd3 Be7 47. Nf4 Kd7 48. Rd3+ Kc6 49. Ng6 Bg5 50. Bd2 Rg8 51. Bxg5 Rxg6 52. Bf6 Nd7 53. Rf3 h5 54. Rf5 Rh6 55. Bg5 Re6 56. Bf4 h4 57. Rh5 Nf8 58. Bh2 Nd7 59. a5 Kb7 60. Rxh4 Ra6 61. b4 cxb4+ 62. Kxb4 Re6 63. Rh5 Ka6 64. c5 c6 65. Bf4 Re8 66. Rh6 Nxe5 67. Bxe5 Rxe5 68. Rxc6+ Kb7 69. Rb6+ Ka7 70. Kb5 Rh5 71. Rg6 Rh7 72. a6 Rf7 73. Rg5 Re7 74. Rd5 Rg7 75. c6 Rg1 76. c7 Rg8 77. Rd8 Rxd8 78. cxd8=N Kb8 79. Kb6 Ka8 80. Ne6

```

To get stalemated

```
[FEN "r4b2/4pPpP/4P1Pp/6pK/6P1/8/1k6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. h8=N Ra1

```

It is simply the strongest move in the position.

```
[Title "Schweber-Wexler, Buenos Aires Argentina, 1964"]
[FEN " "]
[startply "90"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Qc7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Qe2 d6 8. f4 Nbd7 9. Kh1 Be7 10. c4 b6 11. Nc3 Bb7 12. Bd2 O-O 13. Rae1 Rad8 14. Bb1 Rfe8 15. f5 exf5 16. Nxf5 Bf8 17. Bg5 Rc8 18. Nh6+ gxh6 19. Bxf6 Nxf6 20. Rxf6 Bg7 21. Qg4 Re5 22. Rxh6 Qe7 23. Nd5 Qg5 24. Qxg5 Rxg5 25. Ne7+ Kf8 26. Nxc8 Bxh6 27. Nxd6 Bc6 28. Rf1 Be8 29. Nf5 Bg7 30. Nxg7 Kxg7 31. Kg1 Rc5 32. Bd3 Bd7 33. Kf2 Be6 34. b4 Rc7 35. Rc1 Kf6 36. Ke3 Ke5 37. a3 f6 38. c5 b5 39. a4 bxa4 40. Bxa6 a3 41. b5 a2 42. b6 Rg7 43. b7 Rg8 44. c6 Kd6 45. c7 a1=Q 46. c8=N+ Rxc8 47. bxc8=N+

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
It can be a useful under promotion in opening traps. For instance there is a known trap line in the Albin Counter Gambit with a winning knight promotion. It's called the Lasker trap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albin\_Countergambit

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. e3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 dxe3 6. Bxb4 exf2+ 7. Ke2 fxg1=N+

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Often engines will promote to a knight if the promoted piece is going to be immediately captured. This is just because the promotions are equally good and thus it's chosen randomly. Sometimes it just.. doesn't matter, so why not promote to a knight?

Plus, it's nice to say you promoted to a knight in a chess game.

---
Tags: knights, pawn-promotion
---


title: What makes a move “weird”?

text:
# Question
Title: What makes a move “weird”?
I am not sure if this question has been asked before, but I recently had a friend, who is a NM, play a blitz match against stockfish (level 12 I believe) and commentate its playing style. What struck me was the fact that he kept mentioning that it was making “weird moves”; moves that a human player would likely never play. I asked him to explain further, and as an example he mentioned the fact about pushing pawns only one square instead of two when it could have clearly pushed two (maybe losing tempo on purpose?). I have played against it many times, and the fact that I have an ELO of about 1750, does not really help me in finding these “weird moves”. I would probably categorize them as “very strong moves” that have some deeper/intricate scope that I would probably not be able to grasp in a blitz match. My question is, how can higher rated players notice this non-human playing style? What makes a move weird? I am not sure if “weird move” is subjective to the player (here of course I am referring primarily to +2300 ELO) or if it’s something more on the objective side? Meaning that it is agreed amongst *most* that a certain move is weird.

# Answer
Spotting "weird" computer moves is not difficult. Let me give you an example which you will agree is very clear. It is taken from the last round of the Boeblingen open in December 1999. The white player, Allwermann, was a 55 year-old German player who had been about 1900 strength (according to his German rating. FIDE ratings didn't go that low in 1999) for the previous 20 years. Going into the last round he was on 6.5/8 with the prospect of a first prize of DM 1,660 if he beat his grandmaster opponent. After 30 moves Allwermann was already winning and was to move in this position. See if you can guess his next move. Here are some candidates: Rd7, Rxb7, Rxf6, Qa7. Which one would you choose? Which one would be the last one you would choose?

```
[title "Allwermann,Clemens - Kalinitschev,Sergey (2505)"]
[fen "r6k/1p3Rpp/p2p1bq1/3N4/2P5/1P6/P1b2QPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxf6 (1. Qa7 Rg8 2. Qxb7 Be4) gxf6 2. Qxf6 Qxf6 3. Rxf6

```

In the Qa7 line Black's last move, Be4, threatens mate. The only move to stop it is Nf4.

Allwermann played the Qa7 line.

Fritz 5.32 evaluated Rd7 as +2.78 and Qa7 as +2.88.

This was written up in a Chessbase article in 2011. This is what the article said of this move:

> If you switch on multiple-variation mode you will see that Fritz thinks 31.Qa7 is a tenth of a pawn better than the other alternatives. A computer program simply doesn't understand the difference between cast-iron moves that cannot fail, and a tight-rope walk on the edge of the precipice. I venture no human would undertake the latter course in the given tournament situation.

That sums up the difference between normal human moves and weird computer moves. At least it did up until AlphaZero came along.

Here is the full game. See how many obvious computer moves you can spot.

```
[title "Allwermann,Clemens - Kalinitschev,Sergey (2505)"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Be7 7.Be2 a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 9.O-O Be6 10.Be3 O-O 11.Na3 Nd7 12.Qd2 Nc5 13.Nc2 f5 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Bf3 Kh8 16.Bd5 Qe8 17.Rad1 Qg6 18.Na3 e4 19.f3 exf3 20.Bxf3 Ne5 21.Nd5 Bh4 22.Nf4 Nxf3+ 23.Rxf3 Qe8 24.Nd5 Ne6 25.Rdf1 Qg6 26.b3 Rf7 27.Nc2 Ng5 28.Bxg5 Bxg5 29.Qf2 Bxc2 30.Rxf7 Bf6 31.Qa7 Rg8 32.Qxb7 Be4 33.Nf4 Qf5 34.Qd7 Qe5 35.Kh1 g5 36.Nh3 g4 37.Nf2 Bf5 38.Nxg4 Be4 39.R7xf6 Bxg2+ 40.Kxg2 Qe4+ 41.Kh3

```

In the final position after his GM opponent had resigned Allwermann couldn't resist telling his opponent that it was mate in 8. Of course he was right.
> 5 votes

# Answer
A classical example is the first game between Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov in 1996. This game is famous because it was the first time a machine had beaten the world champion in a classical time control game.

The 29th move by Deep Blue was a shocking and "weird" computer move. Deep Blue took in `b7`.

***Why is it a weird move?***

Deep Blue grabs a pawn far from the action. A human will consider this move as **a loss of time while his king is under attack**. The action is going to be in the kingside. The computer took in `b7` because it had **calculated deeply** enough to get away with it!

***What's the human move?***

The "human move" is `Qd5`, centralizing the Queen, covering the kingside and threatening to take in f7 and b7.

```
[title "Deep Blue - Garry Kasparov, 1996 (m/1)"]
[fen "6rk/1p3p1p/2nN1q2/2Q5/3p1p2/PP5P/5PP1/2R3K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nxb7!! {the "computer move"} (1. Qd5! {is the "human move" covering the kingside and threatening to take in f7 and b7} 1... f3? (1... Rg6) {is more solid} 2.Nxf7 Kg7 3.Ng5+-) 1... Ne5 2.Qd5 f3 3.g3 (3...Qf4!? {with a double attack on g3 and c1} 4.Rc8!!+- {the key move behind this computer variation}) Nd3 4.Rc7 Re8 5.Nd6 Re1+ 6.Kh2 Nxf2 {Kasparov is close to mate but...} 7.Nxf7+ Kg7 8.Ng5+ Kh6 9.Rxh7+ {1–0}

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: Endgame technique: How to win with rook + g and h pawn vs rook?
The tablebase suggests it's a win for White, but I struggle to beat my phone. Black's rook seems to always be able to harass the white king to stop white make any progress.

What's the technique to win this endgame?

```
[fen "8/8/6k1/6r1/8/8/6PP/5RK1 w - - 1 61"]

```

# Answer
I remember drawing a rook and two pawns vs. rook position with g- and h- pawns. I was the losing side. Basically, 1) prevent king mobility, 2) win the rook pawn and 3) play the first rank defense on the g-pawn.

> In rook endings, there are many positions where two pawns are not enough to win. Only opposite-coloured bishop endings present a higher drawish trend.
>
> Excerpt From: "100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player Improved and Expanded" by Jesus de la Villa.

But what if the opponent plays accurately, and doesn't drop pawns?

The idea is as follows: set a blockade on the seventh rank by playing Rb7 and Kh7. If the king approaches, check him with your king on g6. If the rook attacks your king on h8, White has no time to move his King forward on the next move because of ...Kxg8.

To win, prevent the opponent from enacting this blockading strategy. Judging by the original poster's position, Black plays 1...Ra5 (or 1.Ra1 Rb5) and blockades.

Draw.

**EDIT** It is a draw only if the pawns are pushed without thought as another poster suggested. The strategy is to push slowly, one at a time and to avoid drawing positions as listed.

> A two pawn advantage in most cases guarantees the win. But there are quite a few drawn positions, particularly when one of the pawns is a RP (as in OP).
>
> Excerpt from Rook Endings. Smyslov and Levenfish.

This book is a great reference on such positions. There are eight pages devoted to it. Here is an excerpt:
> 4 votes

# Answer
As we can see from the other answers, there are two things you should avoid: 1) The pawns getting blockaded. 2) Your king getting cut off from the pawns.

It is not the only way to win, but as a matter of technique it is a good thing to advance the `h`-pawn before the `g`-pawn. In this way your king can use the `g`-pawn to hide both from checks from the side and checks form behind. But first use the rook to chase the opponent king as far back as possible.

Example:

```
[FEN "8/8/7k/R7/6PP/6K1/8/1r6 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1. Ra6+ Kg7 2. h5 Rb3+ (2... Rg1+ 3. Kh4 Rh1+ 4. Kg5) 3. Kh4

```

The checks will stop and you can think of the next step.

```
[FEN "8/6k1/R7/7P/6PK/8/8/1r6 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1. Ra7+ Kg8 (1... Kh6?? 2. g5#)  (1... Kf6 2. g5+ Kf5 3. Rf7+ Ke6 4. Rf6+ Ke7 5. h6) 2. h6 Rb5 3. g5 Rb1 4. Kh5

```

Here I would again chase the king away before advancing the `h`-pawn another step.

If the `g`-pawn is pinned there is no point in giving a check first.

```
[FEN "8/7k/R7/7P/1r4PK/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1. h6 (1.Ra7+ Kh6) Rb1 (1... Rb5 2. g5 Rb1 3. Ra7+ Kg8 (3... Kg6 4. Rg7+ Kf5 5. h7))2. Kh5 Rb5+ (2... Rh1+ 3. Kg5) 3. g5

```

In this way you can advance slowly rank by rank. Towards the end black will have to defend passively to avoid mate at the back rank. Just for the fun of it I would try to end the game with a knight or bishop promotion like in my answer to this question.

```
[FEN "r6k/8/6PP/5RK1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1.Rf8+ Rxf8 2.g7+ Kh7 (2...Kg8 3.Kg6) 3.gxf8=N+!(3.gxf8=B!)(3.gxf8=Q??)(3.gxf8=R??)

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
Seems trivial, push pawns and use rook to block. I'm not sure what part you would have trouble at. There isn't even a general technique for this because it's a clear cut win for white.

You need to post the position where you have trouble winning in, such as avoiding stalemate traps. It is hard to give a solution from this position.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The following process can be used:

1) Push the h-pawn and put your king on the h-file. The g-pawn is used as a shield from the black rook's horizontal checks.

2) Put your rook on the queenside, on either the rank the g-pawn is on right now, or on the rank above.

3) Push your g-pawn one, followed by advancing your king up one square. The picture on the kingisde looks something like Kh3, pawn on g3, and pawn on h4.

4) If Black's king is directly opposing you (say on the h5-square), check it with your rook. If Black's rook is preventing this (e.g., by being on the a5-square), then nothing is stopping you from advancing your g-pawn with g4+.

5) Then, advance the h4-pawn to h5. Now your king has a place to hide on h4 (since your g-pawn is either ready to blockade on g4, or it's about to advance to g4).

Repeat this general process. Essentially, before advancing a pawn, make sure your king can either move up and get new shelter, or that your rook is already on the same rank to prevent the king from being checked in the first place.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: "A knight on a rim is dim", but a knight on a corner is ... excellent?
Can someone provide a collection of GM games (I'll define a collection as 5 or more games played by a GM against a GM, to be specific), where the winning side featured, at some point in the game, a knight (of the winning side) on one of the corners (a8, h8, a1, h1).

Weird request? Yes. I've seen all pieces but the knight go to a corner square. But I've heard of top level games where it has happened for some brilliant purpose, and am interested to actually see some examples.

# Answer
Here is another famous game: Piket - Kasparov, Tilburg 1989. Kasparov used the exact size of the chess board, combining Qa8-a7 with Ng3-h1 to win.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Tilburg <Treppner>"]
[Site "Tilburg <Treppner>"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Jeroen Piket"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E99"]
[PlyCount "56"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O
Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.b4 Nf6
14.c5 Ng6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Rc1 Rf7 17.a4 Bf8 18.a5 Bd7 19.Nb5
g4 20.Nc7 g3 21.Nxa8 Nh5 22.Kh1 gxf2 23.Rxf2 Ng3+ 24.Kg1 Qxa8
25.Bc4 a6 26.Qd3 Qa7 27.b5 axb5 28.Bxb5 Nh1 0-1

```
> 13 votes

# Answer
Here is a nice one for you actually titled "Knight in the Corner": Magnus Carlsen vs Michael Adams

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. Qxc3 dxc4 7. Qxc4 b6 8. Bf4 Ba6 9. Qxc7 Qxc7 10. Bxc7 O-O 11. Nf3 Rc8 12. Bf4 Nbd7 13. Nd2 Rc2 14. Rb1 Rac8 15. Nb3 Bc4 16. Na1 Ba2 17. Nxc2 Bxb1 18. Na1 Nd5 19. Bd2 e5 20. e3 exd4 21. exd4 Nb8 22. f3 Nc6 23. Bc4 Rd8 24. Kf2 Bf5 25. Nb3 Be6 26. Rc1 f6 27. a4 a5 28. Bc3 Bf7 29. Nd2 Nde7 30. Bf1 Nxd4 31. Re1 Ndc6 32. Nc4 Nd5 33. Rb1 Kf8 34. Be1 Ke7 35. Kg1 Nb8 36. Bf2 Nd7 37. Re1 Kf8 38. Rd1 Ke7 39. Re1 Kf8 40. Nd6 Ne5 41. Nxf7 Kxf7 42. Rd1 Ke7 43. f4 Ng4 44. Re1 Kf8 45. Bd4 Rd6 46. h3 Nh6 47. Rd1 Nf5 48. Bf2 Ke7 49. g4 Nh6 50. f5 Nf7 51. Bg2 Nf4 52. Rxd6 Nxd6 53. Bxb6 Nc4 54. Bc5 Kd7 55. Bf1 Nxb2 56. Bb5 Kd8 57. Bb6 Ke7 58. Kh2 Nd5 59. Bxa5 Kd6 60. Bd2 Kc5 61. Kg3 Nc7 62. Be3 Kb4 63. Bd2 Kc5 64. Bc1 Nc4 65. Bxc4 Kxc4 66. Bd2 Na6 67. a5 Kb5 68. Kf3 Nc5 69. Bc3 h6 70. Ke3 Kc4 71. Bd4 Na6 72. Ke4 Nb4 73. h4 Kb5 74. Bc3 Na6 75. Kd5 Nc5 76. Bd4 Nd3 77. Ke6

```
> 15 votes

# Answer
Here’s another game that uses a similar tatic to the Kasparov gamen in @RemcoGerlich‘s answer. The knight move also resulted in resignation.

```
[Title "Luka Leni-Le Quang Liem, Aeroflot Open, Moscow Russia, 2/10/2011"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "83"]

1. Nf3 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 c5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nc6 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Be2 d6 9. O-O Bd7 10. Rc1 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Bc6 12. f3 Nd7 13. Be3 a5 14. b3 Nc5 15. Qd2 Qb6 16. Nb5 Rfc8 17. Kh1 Qd8 18. Nd4 Bd7 19. Rfd1 h5 20. Bf1 Kh7 21. Ne2 Bc6 22. Nf4 Bh6 23. Qf2 Qh8 24. Rc2 Qf6 25. Nd5 Bxd5 26. Rxd5 Bxe3 27. Qxe3 Qa1 28. Kg1 Nd7 29. Qg5 Nf6 30. Rxa5 Qd4+ 31. Rf2 Rc5 32. Qxc5 dxc5 33. Rxa8 h4 34. b4 cxb4 35. Ra5 Nh5 36. Rd5 Qe3 37. Rd3 Qa7 38. Rd5 Ng3 39. c5 e6 40. Rd7 Qxc5 41. Rxf7+ Kh6 42. Rxb7 Nh1

```

Sometimes something bad can be a “win” if it becomes a novelty. Here’s an example of such an “excellent” corner knight.

```
[Title "Samuel Reshevsky-George Nelson Treysman, Championship of America, New York 1938, ‘The Treysman Horse’"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. Nf3 d5 7. Qc2 Ne4 8. O-O Nxd2 9. Nbxd2 c6 10. e4 Bxd2 11. Nxd2 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nd7 13. c5 e5 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Rfe1 Ng6 16. Nd6 Qc7 17. f4 Bd7 18. f5 Nh8 19. Re7 b6 20. b4 bxc5 21. Qxc5 Rad8 22. b5 Qb8 23. a4 cxb5 24. axb5 Bc8 25. Rc7 Qb6 26. Qxb6 axb6 27. Rc6 g6 28. g4 h5 29. h3 hxg4 30. hxg4 Kg7 31. Kf2 Bd7 32. Rxb6 Rb8 33. f6+ Kh6 34. Kg3 Kh7 35. Rxb8 Rxb8 36. g5 Rb6 37. Ra6 Rb8 38. Bc6 Bf5 39. Ra8 Rxa8 40. Bxa8 Bd3 41. b6 Ba6 42. Bb7

```

Lastly, take a look at this funky, informal game taken from Tim Krabbe’s Diary Entry #128 in which each knight visits a corner!

```
[Title "Lewis-D'Aloisio, High School Tournament, San Rafael, 1975 "]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 Nc6 5. Nf3 d5 6. Bg5 dxc4 7. Qxc4 Qd5 8. e3 Ne4 9. Qxb4 Nxb4 10. Nxd5 Nc2+ 11. Kd1 Nxa1 12. Nxc7+ Kd7 13. Nxa8 Nxf2+ 14. Kc1 Nxh1 15. Ne5+ Ke8 16. Bb5+ Kf8 17. Nc4 f6 18. Bh4 g5 19. Be1 Ke7 20. Bb4+ Kd8 21. Nd6 Bd7 22. Nf7+ Ke8 23. Nxh8

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Nimzovich is usually the go to guy for weird requests, so I'm surprised nobody posted

```
[Event "Dresden"]
[Site "Dresden GER"]
[Date "1926.04.09"]
[EventDate "1926.04.04"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Black "Akiba Rubinstein"]
[ECO "A34"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[FEN ""]

1. c4 { Notes by Raymond Keene. Awarded the prize for the
best-played game.} c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nb4 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O N8c6 8. d3 Nd4 9. Nxd4 cxd4 10. Ne2 a6
11. Ng3 Bd6 12. f4 O-O 13. Qf3 Kh8 14. Bd2 f5 15. Rae1 Nc6
16. Re2 Qc7 17. exf5 exf5 18. Nh1 {!! A wonderful idea. White
has in mind the manoeuvre Nh1-f2-h3-g5, in conjunction with
Qh5, as a method of assaulting the position of Black's
king. When I first read My System I was so impressed by this
game that I deliberately created situations in my next few
games where the move Ng3-h1 was possible, in the belief that
this mystical retreat would somehow result in a miraculous
increase of energy in my position, irrespective of whatever
else may have been happening on the board at the time.}
18...Bd7 19. Nf2 Rae8 20. Rfe1 Rxe2 21. Rxe2 Nd8 22. Nh3 Bc6
23. Qh5 g6 24. Qh4 Kg7 25. Qf2 {Another brilliant idea. The
threat to the d-pawn forces Black to withdraw either his queen
or his king's bishop from the defence of his kingside. }
25...Bc5 26. b4 Bb6 27. Qh4 {Back again and with redoubled
strength. } 27...Re8 {Or 27...Rf6 28 Ng5 h6 29 Nh7 +- }
28. Re5 {!} Nf7 {If 28...Rxe5 29 fxe5 Qxe5 30 Qh6+ or 28...h6
29 g4 hxg4 30 f5 Qxe5 31 f6+ Qxf6 32 Qxh6 mate. These
beautiful variations are just an indication of what
Nimzowitsch saw. } 29. Bxf7 Qxf7 30. Ng5 Qg8 31. Rxe8 Bxe8
32. Qe1 {! A decisive change of front. } 32...Bc6 33. Qe7+ Kh8
34. b5 {!! Who would expect the death-blow to come from this
quarter? If Black plays 34..axb5 he is mated as follows: 35
Ne6 h5 36 Qf6+ Kh7 37 Ng5+ Kh6 38 Bb4! In view of this,
Rubinstein elects to surrender a piece but that too is
obviously without hope.} 34...Qg7 35. Qxg7+ Kxg7 36. bxc6
36...bxc6 37. Nf3 c5 38. Ne5 Bc7 39. Nc4 Kf7 40. g3 Bd8
41. Ba5 Be7 42. Bc7 Ke6 43. Nb6 h6 44. h4 g5 45. h5 g4 46. Be5

```

Taken from http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007481 \- I have no idea where the annotations are originally from
> 1 votes

# Answer
I thought this one was interesting. White sacrifices the exchange and recaptures with a knight to a1. And the knight plays a critical role a few moves later when it, too, is sacrificed.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "66. ch-RUS 2013"]
[Site "Nizhny Novgorod RUS"]
[Date "2013.10.05"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Shomoev, Anton"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2796"]
[BlackElo "2579"]
[ECO "A05"]
[EventDate "2013.10.05"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[Opening "Reti opening"]
[Startply "20"]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b6 3.Bg2 Bb7 4.O-O e6 5.d3 d5 6.Nbd2 g6 7.c4 Bg7 8.b4 Ne4
9.cxd5 exd5 10.Nb3 Bxa1 11.Nxa1 Nd6 12.Bg5 f6 13.Bf4 a5 14.bxa5 Rxa5 15.
Qc2 c5 16.Nb3 Ra7 17.Nxc5 bxc5 18.Qxc5 Ra6 19.Rb1 Nd7 20.Qe3+ Kf7 21.Bxd6
Ba8 22.Qf4 Re8 23.Nd4 Rxa2 24.Bh3 Raxe2 25.Nxe2 Rxe2 26.Qh6 1-0

```

I liked this one because Black puts a knight in the corner before any of his other pieces have even moved. Who needs development?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "XXIII SuperGM"]
[Site "Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP"]
[Date "2006.03.05"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Vallejo Pons, Francisco"]
[Black "Bacrot, Etienne"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2650"]
[BlackElo "2717"]
[ECO "D24m"]
[EventDate "2006.02.18"]
[Startply "21"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Nc3 a6 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 e6 8.axb5 Nb6
9.Ng5 h6 10.Nge4 axb5 11.Rxa8 Nxa8 12.Nxb5 Nb6 13.Be3 Nc6 14.Be2 Bb4+ 15.
Nbc3 O-O 16.g4 Bb7 17.O-O Ne7 18.Nd2 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Ned5 20.Qc1 Nxe3 21.fxe3
Qg5 22.Rf4 Nd5 23.Re4 Ne7 24.Rf4 Ng6 25.Rf2 Qxe3 26.Nb3 Qxc1+ 27.Nxc1 c5
28.Bxc4 cxd4 29.Rb2 Bf3 30.cxd4 Rc8 31.Rc2 Be4 32.Nd3 Nf4 33.Rd2 Nh3+ 0-1

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
Maybe it's too late to answer, but both this one (Kotov vs Keres, Budapest 1950, featuring 18. Ng6-h8) and this (also Kotov vs Keres, and also in 1950, **and also featuring 22. Nf7-h8**) are not uninteresting.

```
[Event "Budapest Candidates"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "1950.05.07"]
[EventDate "1950.??.??"]
[Round "14"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Alexander Kotov"]
[Black "Paul Keres"]
[ECO "E24"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "65"]

    1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 Nc6 6.f3 b6 7.e4 Ba6 8.e5 Ng8 9.Nh3 Na5 10.Qa4 Ne7 11.Bd3 O-O 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4
d5 14.Bb1 g5 15.Qc2 Ng6 16.Nf4 gxh4 17.Nxg6 Re8 18.Nh8 Re7 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.f4 Nxc4 21.f5 exf5 22.O-O Bc8 23.Bxf5 Bxf5 24.Rxf5 Ke8 25.Rxf7 Kd7 26.Qf5+ Kc6 27.Qf6+ Kd7 28.e6+ Kc6 29.Rxe7 Qxh8 30.Rxc7+ Kb5 31.Qe7 a5 32.Qd7+ Ka6 33.Rb1 1-0

*********

[Event "USRR"]
[Site "USRR"]
[Date "1950.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Alexander Kotov"]
[Black "Paul Keres"]
[ECO "C78"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "43"]

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 Bb6 9.d4 d6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 O-O 12.a4 exd4 13.cxd4 Re8 14.axb5 axb5 15.Rxa8 Bxa8 16.Nc3 g5 17.Bxg5 hxg5 18.Nxg5 Kg7 19.Nxf7 Qd7 20.Qd2 Ng4 21.Qg5+ Kf8 22.Nh8 1-0

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: knights
---


# Question
Title: How did I overperform in this rapid tournament?
My bullet rating is currently 1400 and it's pretty much the only time format I play as it is quick. I figured that I wanted to think my moves more thoroughly so I played some rapid games in a Lichess tournament. My rapid rating was around 1100, still having the "?," so you can imagine I wasn't playing much rapid.

I was amazed that I was able to beat 1800 players if I did not rush the moves. I even berzerked and won having 5 minutes to think. As black, usual features of the games were play on the kingside, opposite side castling, me having a bishop queen battery aiming at h3, and a rook on g8. Usually there is a white knight on f3 and a pawn on h3 and I gain initiative by playing g4 to force him to take with the pawn. They usually never make space to run with the king. Here is an example game.

Additionally, here is a different type of game in which my opponent blundered. Another game is also interesting even though my opponent’s rating wasn't high. I would definitely like you to take a look at it.

Was this just luck or I would be able to climb up someowhere around 1600-1700 if I played longed time formats?

# Answer
> 5 votes
There is a game theory of why 1st round NFL drafts don't perform as well as expected. The reasoning is that the player had an above average couple of games and returned to his average performance. By the same logic, there are later round drafts who have stellar careers.

I'm not going to make a judgement based on three games, or even your archive on lichess.org, as this would be as effective as making a prediction based upon your avatar. I would say that guess that this tournament was lucky for you (assuming that your not a teenager who just improved naturally), but that, just by experience alone, you could achieve an 1800 rating on lichess.org at any time control.

EDIT: Stacia Pugh (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn2k14U03rNRHApDIloxOkA) is a chess example. She started off well and achieved a peak rating of 1791. This can be considered a fluke as she quickly dropped to her floor rating. She's still a good player and is trying to improve.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Yes, it was luck or you are stronger in longer time controls. No one can really say which is the case for you personally, considering you only played a few longer games. To find out you just have to play more and see.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In wild games with opposite side castling, etc anything is possible. Chances to win for the underdog increase. With your attacking style you are more likely to see much above average (but also much below average) performance than if you played quiet positional chess.

That being said, you have a decent understanding on where to put the pieces. Still plenty of things to learn, particularly when it comes to positional play. I don't see anything preventing you from reaching 1600-1700, I believe most people with enough determination could.

I would highly recommend to play longer time formats and to take the time to think in rapid games. In one game you could have taken a free knight at move 4 and in another you should have mated much earlier.

---
Tags: rating, online-chess, lichess, performance
---


title: Chess challenge #1: Mate in one

text:
# Question
Title: Chess challenge #1: Mate in one
This is the first of a series of challenges I'll be posting regularly. In this case it is just a *simple* mate in one. This is the position:

```
 [Title "White to mate in one"]
 [FEN "1Bb3BN/R2Pk1pr/1Q5B/4q2R/2bN/4Q1BK/1p/1bq1R1rb w - - 0 1"]

```

White plays and gives mate. It seems very easy but there are a lot of pieces in the board. I'll be increasing or reducing the level of the challenges based on the answers.

# Answer
> 9 votes
It seems that

> Qa3

is mate in one. It is indeed harder than it looks at first sight, because there are so many pins.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Nice puzzle, this took me a few minutes.

> The answer is 1.Qa3#.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Moving

> D7 to D8

ending up with 3 Queens

# Answer
> 0 votes
The only escape sqare that isn't currently covered by White is f8.
1. Ng6 is the only move which gives check, while also defending f8, without also opening up another escape square.
1. Qc5 comes close, but it allows 1… Kd8.

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


title: When should you stop chasing a piece?

text:
# Question
Title: When should you stop chasing a piece?
I'm only a beginner, and I've found that sometimes a piece of mine (esp Queen) will just get chased around relentlessly causing problems, so I've started trying to do the same, but I seem to sometimes overextend and it feels like I am "following" not chasing. Any advice on when to stop chasing? What should I be looking for when deciding to chase or not?

Particularly bad example (playing Black)

```
[FEN ""]

1. f4 d5 2. d4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Qe3 d4 6. Qb3 Be6 7. Qxb7 Na5 8. Qb5+

```

# Answer
> 12 votes
If you chase an enemy piece, you should probably consider three aspects:

* Basic tactical considerations.
* Do you improve the position of the piece you use to chase the enemy piece?
* Do you force the enemy piece on a worse or a better square?

In your example this means if you don't see that you are blundering pawns and pieces, all considerations of chasing or not chasing are pretty moot i.e. you have to think about whether you blunder something (like your b-pawn), whether your opponent blundered something (i.e. maybe you can already use his disorganised pieces for a tactical blow).

4…Nc6 was good, because you improve your knight and you chase the white queen away from a central square.

5…d4 is already somewhat more ambiguous because the queen is pretty bad on e3 (blocks the e-pawn) and probably better on b3 (attacks b7).

6…Be6 blunders the b7 pawn, but maybe you could have continued Bd5 to set up even more attacks on the queen, like Rb8 or a knight move. This starts to look dangerous for white, because you are building up a big development lead.

7…Na5 puts your knight on a worse square (knights on the rim...), so you'd need a good reason to do so and apparently you didn't have one.

# Answer
> 6 votes
This issue arises when you don't know the openings well enough.

First off your objective in the opening is to occupy the center and gain an advantage using that. Chasing after pieces will most likely end up getting you in trouble especially if you're the type of player who prefers not to give away the queen.

So for starters you need to actually check out some openings and how they go, preferably don't start with complicated openings that have a lot of lines and have a certain objective... Rather take simple openings (and by simple that doesn't mean they are bad, in fact they are very good). I usually advise beginners with the Italian Game opening for white and French Defense for black.

However, no one can really tell you when to stop going after a piece... It is completely situational, you have to know whether or not you will get cornered if you go after the piece or if you will win it... And in the end, the most important question, is it even worth it? There might be other moves that make your position better and that don't involve taking a piece.

---

**^^That was the main answer, if you're interested in more, please do keep reading :)**

f4 (Bird's Opening) is definitely not an opening a beginner should play. There are main disadvantages to pushing an early f4 in the game that literally make holes in your defense but at the same time improves your offense. So try to avoid Bird's Opening for now if you can.

Now for the most important part, try not to be a materialist... There are many type of players and Materialist is one of them. It's the type of player that values pieces and doesn't want to let them go (like Queens Knights etc...) Being a materialist will hinder your development later on. Ignore the queen, and see the beauty of the other pieces. The queen alone will never win you the game, there's a reason you have knights, bishops and rooks on the board.

For the most part you will most likely have trouble knowing when to exchange a good piece for a bad piece and vise versa... But you'll learn that as you play.

Also, sacrificing pieces in chess is one of the classical ways of attacking an opponent... Never overlook a sacrifice, don't limit your imagination and keep thinking ahead! That's how you improve in chess... Don't even ignore a stupid sacrifice, you might see it as a stupid one, but it might actually be a good one... And the only way you will know whether or not it **is**, is to actually try it.

Hope I helped and if you have anymore questions feel free to ask I'll answer to the best of my abilities :)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Opening theory is NOT the answer to this. Beginner and novice players should NOT be studying opening theory for any reason whatsoever.

This is just simple chess strategy. There is no reason to chase a piece unless you get something out of it, either improving the position of your own pieces or degrading the position of the opponent's pieces. Just chasing a piece for no reason is pointless.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In this case ...d4 might be overextending. The answer might not be "when do I stop" but "when can/should I make my threats subtler." I remember I used to like to attack the opponent's queen a lot. I felt active. But the thing is, ...Nf6 instead of ...d4 is a good idea as Nd5 and Ng4 may both be threats.

Similarly, ...Qc7 before ...Be6 might be a good idea, too, as you can hold on to the pawn.

I remember telling myself you don't get hustle points for attacking pieces for its own sake. But if you can do so with gain of time, it's pretty wonderful.

One example of this may be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nxd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. Qxd4 Ne7 to attack the queen...but you're taking two moves to make the queen move once.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The best strategy is to feel out your opponent. If he/she is the type of player that tends to sacrifice or maybe tends to defend and doesn't take risks. Whatever the case play each game to your advantage and adjust your game for different players. I swear chess is 90% mental 10% logic reasoning. It may be difficult as a new player but start looking at your best options and planning ahead, forcing plays. You'll start progressing well if you pay attention and scan the board. Don't chase pieces, instead find the best moves that will force your opponent into making rash decisions. Good luck.

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How can I prevent games from dragging on?
How can I prevent a game from dragging on, taking 60+ moves to get anywhere near finishing?

I mainly encounter this when playing people at or below my level (~1400). This never happens when playing someone better.

I recall reading somewhere that most games should ideally be finished in about 30 moves or so. That seems reasonable.

What can I do to prevent a game from dragging on without giving myself a disadvantage?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Seriously, by checkmating your opponent. If every game is going on for 60 moves, the bad news is that you don't know how to score the win. The good news is neither does your opponent.

But by merely recognizing something is amiss, you have gained a **huge** advantage.

Now, you have to sharpen your game. The next step is for you to figure out why you can't win sooner. The moves are there - you know that a GM could win either side of the board pretty much up to the bitter end. The moves are there.

I don't know if it is appropriate for this site, but post a game (you DO keep notation of your games, don't you??) and we'll look at it. Post a typical game, regardless if you won it or not. And don't worry about the quality of the game. There's always a bigger fish.

Edit - I'm like a broken record on this, but another way is to run your games through a chess engine. Every move, both sides. Set the engine's strength such that it can beat you every game. See the moves it suggests instead, and when it finds a move markedly better than the one you chose, find out why it made that choice. Figuring this out is a lot of work, but getting better at chess is not often easy.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Get a chess clock and start using it. Amateur games usually drag on because of lack of time controls. If you set a maximum of 30 minutes per side, the game *will* be over in a hour. Because there is no time to waste, both players will be concentrating on the board instead of twiddling their thumbs while the other player thinks.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Try to keep the pieces on the table. Don't do exchanges if you are not forced to. This will lead to more double-edged positions and positions where you could pick from a lot of different plans (more pieces ~~ more things to do ^^). Also as other have said sharpen your game but this usually happens if you keep the pieces on the table.

P.S. Try not to fall into a position where you could exchange the pieces easily (e.g. your opponent doubles his rooks and you double in front of him).

# Answer
> 4 votes
There is nothing wrong in ending games at 60+ moves unless this happens with frequency, in that case it usually mean you aren't very efficient at the endgame.

Consider:

* Using more aggressive openings
* Study endgame theory

Also remember that long games are not a problem if you know how to play them, so the question is, *are you obtaining good results on these games?*, if the answer is 'yes', I wouldn't be worried on modifying my style of play (unless these are friendly games and are turning boring).

# Answer
> 3 votes
The 30 move "rule" means that in most games, it is clear by that time, who has the advantage, or whether the game is likely headed for a draw. It doesn't necessarily mean that the game will end by that time.

So study the game as of about the 30th move. Then figure out the best way, perhaps with the help of chess engines, the quickest ay to resolve it from there.

There is one scenario where long games might be to your advantage. That is you are usually at a DISADVANTAGE after move 30, but your opponents can't beat you even after 60.

In these cases, use the methods above to find out how YOU can be beaten.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is kind of like asking how can I get better at chess, because if you are good, then you can deliver short, sweet mates.

* Try to find weaknesses in lower rated opponents' games and exploit them. (do tactics puzzles)
* Learn all kinds of mating patterns (thus, you never miss that mate on move 28)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I basically agree with the other answers, saying that 60 moves is not too long and that you can do various things to improve your play. As for 30 moves being the optimum, for some of the best players that's where the game starts, after they finished playing memorized moves.

Still one additional thought based on your statement:

*I mainly encounter this when playing people at or below my level (~1400).*

Lower level players tend to play on in completely lost positions, which could be part of the problem. A better player would typically resign a piece down (in otherwise equal position), while beginners would play on and on.

There are many positions in chess that are obviously won and not hard to win, but still require many moves to mate.

---
Tags: strategy
---