# Question
Title: Why is the Cozio defense in the Ruy Lopez not played more often and what's white's best try to defeat it?
The Cozio defense arises after these moves:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7

```

At first, this looks like just another dubious opening, but I found it surprisingly hard to prove an advantage with white.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. O-O g6 5. c3 Bg7 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4 d5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. Re1+ Be6 10. Bg5 Qd6 11. Nbd2 O-O

```

It is not clear how white should proceed. There are many options, but black has several different ideas and can quite easily general counter-play. Going 12. Ne4 Qb4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 seems like the most principled approach, but black is just fine in these lines. He can drum up quite interesting play judging from the grandmaster games I looked at. This line:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. Nc3 g6 5. d4 exd4 6. Nd5 Bg7 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bf6 Bxf6 9. Nxf6+ Kf8 10. O-O

```

is given by some FIDE-Master on YouTube, but I'm also not very convinced. I just fail to see white's advantage in this position. So, I have two questions:

* Why is the Cozio defense played so rarely?
* What is, in your opinion, the best way to secure an advantage against it as white?

# Answer
The major reason is that it is played so rarely is that if white does not comply and take on c6, the Ne7 is poorly placed blocking the Bf8, and if the knight goes to g6, that just does not look like a good square either. In addition, it does not really help get in d5 since white gets there first with d4, or it just loses a pawn. Since that is not possible, the Bf8 must go to g7 where it just seems out of place with what most Spanish players are used to, and prefer. Also, most of the lines are still slightly better for white, even if they are subtle in nature.

There are three moves that are played on move four with a very high frequency: 0-0, c3, and Nc3. Nc3 seems like the best to me since it thinks very prophylactically, and stops d5 for a long time. In addition, the winning percentages for each move are 53.1%, 56.8%, and 62.6% respectively pre the Mega 2020 database.

I tend to like double e-pawn positions that white has more space because black has a d6 pawn. You can then eventually post the Nc3 on d5, cramping black further. I am going to propose that you play 4.Nc3, and aim for such a position since the plans for white are aggressive, and clear. In addition, I like positions with more space, in general, since I think that it makes it harder on your opponent in a practical game.

Despite my recommendation, I am going to add in some of the other lines so you can look at them, and decide if you prefer any of them. The other lines are also quite good, but they are also much more nuanced, and require very patient, and precise, positional play, compared to the main 4.Nc3 line I am proposing, which involves either a direct attack, or bringing the rooks to the center, and slowly advancing the kingside pawns.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. Nc3 (4. c3 g6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. O-O Bg7 9. Re1+ Be6 10. Bg5 Qd6 {Transposes to 4.0-0.}) (4. O-O g6 5. c3 Bg7 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4 d5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. Re1+ Be6 10. Bg5 Qd6 11. Nbd2 O-O 12. Ne4 Qb4 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Qc1 Rfe8 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. Nc5 Bf5 17. b3 {With a very positional game revolving around the control of c5.}) 4... g6 (4... d5 $4 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxe5 Nxc3 7. dxc3 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1 $16) 5. d4 exd4 6. Nxd4 (6. Nd5 {Another main line.} Bg7 (6... Nxd5 $2 7. exd5 Qe7+ 8. Kf1 Ne5 (8... Qb4 $2 9. Qe2+ Ne7 10. Bg5 Bg7 $2 11. Re1 $18) 9. Qxd4 Bg7 10. Bf4 f6 11. Re1 $16) 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bf6 Bxf6 (8... Kf8 9. Bxg7+ Kxg7 10. Bxc6 Nxc6 11. Nxd4 $16) 9. Nxf6+ Kf8 10. Qd2 $14) 6... Bg7 7. Nxc6 $5 (7. Be3 O-O 8. Qd2 d5 9. O-O-O dxe4 10. Bxc6 Nxc6 11. Nxc6 Qxd2+ 12. Bxd2 bxc6 13. Nxe4 Bf5 14. Rhe1 Rfe8 15. Ng3 Be6 16. b3 $14) 7... Nxc6 8. Be3 O-O 9. Qd2 d6 10. O-O-O $14

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
1. Black is blocking his bishop. White has a lead in development and the option of c3 at some point. White should be able to maintain an advantage for some time. Black is going to have to spend at least one tempo playing either Ng6 or g6 to free his bishop and castle.
2. The line is probably inferior to playing Bc5 first or Nf6.
3. The line you gave isn't very good. 4. Nc3 is a mistake because it blocks the c pawn. I would just play 4. 0-0. White furthers his development and keeps all of his options open while black doesn't have anything all that great to play and will be forced to show his cards so to speak.

That being said I think the line is playable below master level. It avoids a lot of theory and most players aren't going to be able to make any use out of the small positional advantage.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone find any redeeming qualities in "The Vulture"?
"The Vulture" is an off-beat line of the Benoni, and while I have seen many off-beat lines over the years, I cannot see any redeeming qualities in this opening if white plays the natural 4.Qc2.

Stefan Bucker wrote a book on it here.

Does anyone see ANYTHING hopeful here for black?

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 Ne4 4. Qc2 Qa5+ 5. Nd2 Nd6 6. e4 g6 7. b4 $1 Qxb4 (7... cxb4 8. Nb3 Qc7 9. Bb2 Rg8 10. Nf3 (10. Bd3 {Or this attempt to keep the N from f5.} b5 11. c5 Nc4 12. Bxc4 bxc4 13. Qxc4 $16) 10... f6 (10... Bg7 11. Bxg7 Rxg7 12. c5 Kf8 13. Rc1 Ne8 14. Bb5 $18) 11. e5 fxe5 12. Bxe5 Bg7 13. Bxg7 Rxg7 14. c5 Nf5 15. Rc1 $18) 8. Rb1 Qa5 9. Bb2 Rg8 10. Bc3 Qc7 11. Bd3 f6 12. e5 fxe5 13. Ngf3 Bg7 14. Ng5 $18 e4 15. Bxe4 $1 $18

```

# Answer
3...Ne4 is kind of pointless. The idea is to play Nd6 controlling e4 and attacking the c4 pawn. The only other options are Nf6 losing a tempo or f5 in a weird Dutch-like position. White is maintaining an advantage after 3...Nd6 4.e4 though.

It avoids theory I guess.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, modern-benoni
---


# Question
Title: A question on psychology / strategy in Chess opening
Is it a good idea to play unusual openings (minus the d&e files), such as c4 played by Bobby Fischer in his “Game of the Century”, to confuse the opponent and stop them from playing their natural opening in the rated tournaments?

# Answer
Absolutely! This is an important component of opening preparation. If you know your opponent is very booked up in e.g. the Sicilian Najdorf, entering the Sicilian Najdorf is suicide unless you also have specialist knowledge. You are liable to be caught in an opening trap or make otherwise inferior moves against which the opponent has memorized the best responses. Game 1 of the World Chess Championship 2010 is illustrative: Anand forgot his preparation and when Topalov responded instantly, Anand knew at once that he was lost. More to the point, he didn't actually lose the game to Topalov's superior chess, he lost to Topalov's computer & memory.

In a similar way, if you know your opponent likes tactical melees, playing for closed positions where slow maneuver is the order of the day can dramatically increase your win rate against him. Directly challenging the opponent in the area of his strength is fine if you're looking to improve, and not so fine if you just want to win.

In case you're wondering, the same principles apply as well in the highest level of play: correspondence chess. To quote from an interview with the then-world correspondence chess champion,

> It is indeed impossible to achieve any significant result in today’s correspondence chess without engines and databases. But we humans play, not the engines, and the input of humans mainly affects two areas: a) the choice of a suitable opening, and b) *steering the engine toward (or away) from certain types of position.*
>
> *If you want to be successful in top correspondence chess you can only play a certain set of openings because you simply cannot afford one single sub-optimal move – if you do, you will sooner or later regret it. That’s as certain as death and taxes.*
>
> ...
>
> I used Rybka for a number of years but around 2012 and 2103 I switched to Stockfish. Of course, I tested other engines as well but these two are my main engines. *I firmly believe that the top CC players must not change their engines too much because you have to understand and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your engines.* Otherwise, you again and again have to choose between two or three moves the engines suggest, however, without understanding the differences these moves.

(Emphasis mine)

If your engine is good at positional play, those are the positions you want to gun for. If you further manage to identify the opponent's engine is not good at positional play, more power to you if you successfully get into such a position.
> 3 votes

# Answer
There are many ways of looking at this depending on one's strength. Super Grandmasters are able to shift between openings with ease and still play them well at a very high level and with deep understanding. As for middling players, it is *good* to stay with one opening line for long and there are several advantages to that;

1. Experience is a very important aspect in the road to mastery and there's no shortcut to acquiring experience. The great martial artist, Bruce Lee once said,

> I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks *(chess openings)* once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick *(chess opening)* 10,000 times.

The same could also be said about chess and sticking with one (or a few) opening lines for long time, acquiring more experience, deepening your understanding in strategic & tactical ideas behind the opening and both the resulting middlegames and endgame positions.

2. Don't play against the player but play against the pieces. Most great masters of the past including Bobby Fischer himself have stayed with one opening repertoire for long and playing fearlessly against all their opponents. Fischer played just a few openings, Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Najdorf, King's Indian Attack & Defense, Grunfeld Defense, and others in between. Some openings and variations have been named after masters simply because they remained loyal for long and built indepth understanding in those lines.
3. The desire to win quickly and the creeping in of last minute doubt in one's opening repertoire is what has led many players to run away from their main weapons, hoping that the new unknown opening will yield better results in their favor. More often than not, it is the same players that end up surprising themselves with their own lack of experience in the new unusual opening than surprising their opponents. The sad is thing is that after the game, there isn't much to analyse or to add to your experience in that *surprise* opening.

For serious tournament games, I would strongly recommend sticking with one's main opening repertoire and using *surprise* openings for blitz and casual chess. As for beginners, I would recommend that they should stay with simple openings that adhere to basic opening principles (develop your pieces quickly, knights first, king safety, etc) like the Italian Game before trying to *surprise* anyone.
> 4 votes

# Answer
First, I'm not convinced Fischer's 1. c4 was the masterstroke some claim. His Bb5 had already been played by Furman against Geller, one of Spassky's seconds, and was nothing special. (As shown the next year when Timman ventured that same line against Geller, who responded with the continuation he himself had shown Spassky during the match prep and won.) I think Spassky had already been rocked back on his heels before Game 6 by the way Fischer responded to being two games down -- drawing even by winning his next two games *as black.* Starting with Game 5 Spassky became uncharacteristically blunder-prone for a fatal stretch. I'm not sure the end result would have changed had Fischer simply stuck to his e4 habit. (See for example, Game 10.)

As for the main question: I've always encouraged my students to experiment with openings, for the simple reason that until both players have reached a basic level of strength (it's an uncertain line but it's somewhere north of USCF1800) specific opening choices really don't matter, and it's a way for them to discover what kinds of positions they like to play and have a natural aptitude for.

The unfortunate truth is for beginning and club-level players, the propensity for making errors in the middlegame and endgame will more than offset any advantage gained by memorizing a list of opening moves.

The question why I wasn't telling them which openings to play came up in a training session with one of my high school teams, so I opened my scorebook and we took a look at all the rated tournament games I had won so far that year (15, I think). We discovered that in all but one of those games I had come out of the opening behind, ranging from standing a little bit worse to being well on my way to losing. (I've long had a propensity for playing oddball lines, just to see how they play out against humans, rather than computers.) Yet I'd won, mainly because once the game shifted gears into the middle game or the endgame, my opponent didn't know what to do.

The first things to work on are calculation/visualization and basic endgames. Basic principles of chess, such as mobility, development, and control of the center. Go ahead and try out different opening lines, with the aim of figuring out whether the resulting positions suit you, not because of some supposed psychological effect on your opponent. Until the rest of your game is good enough to hold on to an early edge, none of that will matter for you. (If you want to play some trappy line and hope your opponent won't find the right path through it, go ahead. But remember, winning via memorized book traps says nothing at all about how good you are at chess, only how good your memory is.)

Specific opening preparation can wait until you're good enough to hold on to the advantage that preparation might give you.

Anatoly Karpov spoke at one of Scholastic Championships I brought a team to, and one of the coaches there asked him to comment on what US coaches were doing wrong. You could see him think carefully for a while (since his English is quite good, I personally think as a gentleman he was trying to find a way to say it clearly without offending his hosts) "You think too much about the opening. First comes chess. After you play it well, then is the time to think about openings."

You want to play some offbeat lines? Go ahead. Have some fun with them. Experiment. Dance with the wallflowers of chess opening theory. But unless both you and your opponent are dancing with candidate master or better skill, don't do it for any sort of opening advantage, because the odds are you'll give it all back before the game is over.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In chess, in general, you want to avoid the opponent's strengths, however, playing something you totally do not understand is not OK, either. I recently played something that I was not used to against a GM, and got soundly outplayed. In that game, 1.d4 d6, I decided that I would try the Kaprov line of the Pirc, and played 2.e4, even though I am not an e4-player.

If you opponent is a known tactical player, it pays to steer the game to a more positional approach, and vice versa. That said, you still need to play things that you understand.

P.S. "The Game of the Century" was an English after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4, but Fischer was black.

During the 1972 match, Fischer playing 1.c4 was definitely to take Spassky out of his primary preparation, and make them both play mano a mano, but of course, both those players understand virtually all positions so they can get away with such tactics.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The answer is it depends. You're actually asking a couple of different questions though.

First of all, a narrow vs. a broad rep. Most players are probably better off steering their games into a narrow rep where they limit the opponent's responses and steer the game into positions they know. However, because of engines, I don't believe you can be a competitive international player nowadays playing that way. If your goal is 2400+ you really need to be comfortable in all positions and play a broad rep.

The other aspect is whether or not to choose openings based on the opponent. In terms of general opponents I would at least consider the psychology. For example, I recommend the French exchange to a lot of players precisely for the reason that most French players hate playing against it. If you're talking about specific opponents then it really depends on the value of a win vs. the amount of time spent analyzing it and how comfortable you are with the resulting positions. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it to spend X number of hours studying a line and what the potential gain of that knowledge is. ie is 50 hours of study worth it to beat a specific player?
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, tactics, tournament, psychology
---


title: Can the Black still win the game? How?

text:
# Question
Title: Can the Black still win the game? How?
It’s Black to move.

```

[FEN "r3k2r/pppbn2p/4p1p1/8/3PNq2/2PB2P1/PP3P1P/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

Here's a picture of a groovy little portable chess set with the position above

# Answer
> 5 votes
Black is pretty well busted. His minor pieces are inferior to White's. His Queen has few squares and will end up on f7, f8, or h6. He has not yet castled. Plus he's down a pawn and has an isolated e-pawn whose weakness is accentuated by the uncastled King.

White has a grasp on the center, good pawns, a castled King, and a Rook on the best file. I don't care for the fianchetto'd g-pawn with the light-squared Black Bishop and Queen on the board, but if Black can't exploit it then it does not matter.

Stockfish isn't very excited about Black's chances and believes the game to be decisively won by White:

```

[FEN "r3k2r/pppbn2p/4p1p1/8/3PNq2/2PB2P1/PP3P1P/R2QR1K1 b q - 2 2"]

2... Qf7 3.Qb3 O-O-O 4.Ng5 Qf8 5.Nxe6 Bxe6 6.Rxe6 Nc6 7.Ba6 bxa6 8.Rxc6 Rd6 9.Qc4 Rxc6 10.Qxc6 Qe8 11.Qxa6+ Kb8 12.Rd1 Rf8 13.d5 Qe7 14.Qb5+ Kc8 15.Qc4 Qd6 16.Kg2 h6 17.Qe2 Kd8 18.Qe3 Qb6 19.Re1 Qxe3

```

With a score of +4.2. None of those moves look too hard to find, and I'd wager White can find good moves easier than Black.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Black is losing by one pawn but the e6 shall fall as well , so white will lead by 2 pawns. in that case white would be winning by in chess anything is possible, it's difficult for black to win but maybe you can confuse your opponent and get ahead in the game

# Answer
> 2 votes
How much time is remaining for each color? If black has substantially more time than white and white is about to run out of time then black is likely to win.

Assuming this is a person vs person game and time is not part of the equation the answer has got to be yes, black can still win.

Two things are certain. One is that as of yet, there is no forced mate. So the game could go either way depending on what mistakes are made. The second is that if black quits, black cannot win.

How does black win? By not quiting and playing the rest of the game better than white while white makes mistakes. If black is better at the end game than white is and white makes mistakes black can still win.

If this is computer vs computer I think the answer is no. Black won't win.

If this is person vs computer and the computer is strong and playing white I think the answer is no.

Of course there are other possibilities too. The best way to find out is by finishing the game.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Objectively, black is lost but that's not the question you asked. You asked if it was possible that black could someone win the game. Obviously, the answer is yes. Theoretically white could drop his queen on the next move.

I think black's best chances are to consolidate his pieces, castle queenside and use the weak light squares to generate an attack.

---
Tags: analysis, learning, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: How to play against higher rated (much stronger) players
I am about to play a master. This is an important game, and I want to win it. What should I do and how to prepare? Is there something special I can do, such as special openings, sharp lines, etc.?

# Answer
> 19 votes
Unless you have gotten much stronger than your 1542 FIDE rating, you have to realize that your odds of winning are not very good. It is fine to be realistic, but just do not let that overwhelm your emotions.

You want to keep calm, and do not be afraid. I would not be afraid at all if I were playing Magnus Carlsen. Oh sure, I know what the result is likely to be as I am not crazy, but there is no point in having any fear, and I would just try to play the best chess I can.

It helps if you are white, but if possible, I would aim for a position where I can reasonably gambit a pawn, or two, for a wild tactical position. If you play a quiet position where your master opponent's stronger positional skill is not challenged, you are destined to lose. On the other hand, even low-level masters can make tactical errors, and over look something.

If you have a lot of time to prepare for him, like in a one-game-per-week tournament, go over every game of his you can get your hands on with a computer. It is not likely, but you might find some opening move that he has played that is a hidden blunder, and if so, you could aim for that position again.

Although rare, lightening does strike. Here is a game that I still recal reading during my first year of playing. This is from the 1980 U.S. Open, and a 1621 player, W Stanley Davis, beat GM John Fedorowicz, who was rated 2479 at the time, so good luck. Please note that it was an aggressive, tactical game.

This is from the December 1980 issue of Chess Life, and I took it from the free archives the USCF now puts out online.

# Answer
> 17 votes
Objectively speaking there is nothing special you can do.

Just do the regular preparation:

* refresh your opening repertoires or specifically the opening you expect to have on the board
* analyze your opponent's playing style and if possible play so as to avoid their strengths (e.g. play open tactical position if you see that your opponent prefers closed positions)
* do regular tactics training etc.
* eat healthy food, go to bed early, do some sports
* play as good as you can...

If the opponent is much much stronger, don't expect too much. You are not going to do wonders by just a preparation.

If you like to gamble, you could prepare a non-standard side-line opening which might surprise your opponent and if you are lucky, you might get an advantage. Still that's risky as typically those openings are somewhat unsound if your opponent knows what they are doing.

# Answer
> 12 votes
In his book "Chess for Tigers", Simon Webb says that the best thing to do is to drag the elephant into the swamp. In other words, aim for complications, where the stronger player has a chance to make a mistake.

In a similar vein, a local player wrote an article about his rise in rating, and his advice was to make the stronger player beat you.

Both of these methods have worked for me to upset stronger players.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Exactly how you'd play any other game. Adjusting from the strongest elements of your game (that is: the ones that you play normally) will only make you play worse than your rating, reducing your chances of winning.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It depends how good you are.
Are you a near master? Are you much weaker? If the player is much stronger you need to play for the draw and make him take chances which cause him to lose.

If you know the master and he always uses certain openings then for sure brush up on those and what defenses/attacks you might use.

If you know what his style is then you can try for openings that deny him his natural advantage.

If you know his personality you might be able to find a way to throw him off his game with things off the board.

Get a good nights sleep. Do not worry about the game.
Relax and play your best to maximise your chances.

There is no guarantee that you will beat anybody. Just play your best and play solid not taking stupid chances. Go into the game being willing to take a draw.
But *IF* the opportunity arises then be willing to go for the win.

Fischer played to win every game from the first move. For more ordinary players that style is way too risky. Especially if you are playing someone much better than you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
These two general strategies might be effective:

1. Get into a tactical melee. In a slow positional game where the 2nd-best move is only a little worse than the best move, you're practically bound to lose. But if you get into a sharp position where a blunder is fatal, and opponent blunders first, you can still win.
2. Scorched earth policy hoping to get into a very drawish position while exchanging everything. If opponent is much better than you, they might feel pressured to win, and if the position simply doesn't allow for it then they might overpress and lose.

That said, since they are much stronger than you, you should expect to lose.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Play aggressively and in positions you're comfortable with. They expect you to play passively and those are easy wins for them.

In most situations you would steer towards tactics over position. Tactical ability peaks fairly young while positional knowledge tends to grow over time. A master is most likely going to be past his tactical peak and relying more on his positional play. It would be almost unheard of for a player like you to beat a master positionally but it's always possible they could make a tactical mistake.

If you have examples of their games you can prep lines using an engine. However, you should make sure you know what you're doing. Don't play a line just because an engine or book says it's good.

---
Tags: tournament, preparation
---


# Question
Title: In the modern benoni, what should I do if this happens?
Let's say the position looks like this:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN ""]

 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 dxc5

```

I usually do this:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. dxc5 e6 4. b4 a5

```

I have played this position only once, and won, but still this might repeat in a open tournament I might go soon, so I need help to figure this out, because in the videos I have seen for the Benoni, I can't really find this variation anywhere.

# Answer
> In the modern benoni, what should I do if this happens

Your continuation is the strongest in my opinion. I would advise you not to change anything.

> because in the videos I have seen for the Benoni, I can't really find this variation anywhere.

Of course, because it is weak. The best White can do after your move, **in my opinion** is this:

```
[Title "BenOni"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.dxc5 e6 4.b4 a5! 5.b5 Bxc5

```

Here, I would aim for `Bb2 + e3 + Nf3 + Be2` setup as White. Not ideal, but surely playable and the nearest towards equality I can get after that horrible `b4`...

If White tries to be "smart" about keeping the extra pawn, here is how I would play as Black:

```
[Title "BenOni"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.dxc5 e6 4.b4 a5! $40 5.Bd2 ( 5.Qb3 axb4! 6.Qxb4 Na6! ) ( 5.Qa4 Na6! 6.a3? ( 6.Bd2? axb4 7.Bxb4 Nxb4! 8.Qxa8 Nc2+ 9.Kd2 Nxa1 $17 ) 6...axb4! $17 7.axb4?? Nc7! $19 ) 5...axb4! 6.Bxb4 Na6! $32 $40 7.Ba3 Nxc5 8.Bb2!? ( 8.Nf3? Rxa3! 9.Nxa3 Qa5+ 10.Qd2 Qxa3 $17)

```

Your only problem after `b5` will be that you must play `...d5` which turns the game into positional battle. There will be no wild tactical positions anymore ( but still you will stand better ) so you will have to adapt **psychologically** to this fact ( tactical players hate "dry" positions and positional ones hate "wild" positions ). Try not to fall for this psychological trick. That is my last advice and a warning.

Good luck on the tournament!
> 3 votes

# Answer
The line you play is fine.

After 5.b5, Bxc5 the position favors black.

bxa5 leaves white with a crap pawn structure.

5. a3 just loses a pawn for white

White has nothing after 4...a5
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, minor-variations, modern-benoni
---


# Question
Title: How do I increase my chances to win as black in the Ruy Lopez?
The Ruy Lopez is one of the most difficult lines for me to play against. I just can't hold my position when I play as black. If I move `3... Nd4`, I always get a draw at best, and usually take a loss. How can I improve my chances of winning in this situation?

**EDIT :**
After I looked up the answers which were given to me, I found one solid win for black with the Cordel Defence that I found in Shredder Computer Chess if you insert this FEN to it.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Bb6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Nce7 7. d5 Nf6 8. Nc3 O-O

```

Can someone show me, at which point does black take the initiative from white??

Thanks,
Ahmad

# Answer
> 11 votes
The Ruy Lopez is probably one of the most analyzed openings in chess. You can find plenty of resources on the Internet. (Wikipedia's article on the Ruy Lopez is a good point to start).

I would recommend that you not go searching for "winning lines". You first need to understand the principles that lie behind each move of this opening. Once you have that understanding it is easier to examine variations and choose the one that best suits your needs.

For example, if you are an aggressive player and your chess level is average, you might wish to consider the Open Defense and the Marshall Attack.

# Answer
> 6 votes
A "chance to win" with Black against the Ruy Lopez isn't necessary dependent on variation. Yes, there are aggressive lines, the most notable being the Archangel Variation, but having a better understanding of the opening line that you play will result in improved results. I would research other lines by using the Shredder Opening Database and see what other people are playing. Then, I would go online and play a few games in each variation to get a feel of the resulting middlegame positions and see which one is the best fit for me.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Frankly, I don't like my chances of winning with Ruy Lopez as Black. When faced with `1. e4`, I "never" reply with `1... e5` (except as a "surprise" - then I play `2... Nf6`, the Petrov Defense, but mainly to draw, rather than to win.)

I prefer `1... c5` (Sicilian Defense) or `1... e6` (French Defense). These are "double-edged" openings that allow both Black and White to win OR lose.

I like your variation better than most. After your `8... O-O`, White will play `9. O-O`, and you can play `9... Ng6`. That leads to a position somewhat like my French defenses (with White's center pawns on "reversed" colors). It's a tough, but by no means unplayable game that gives White fewer attacking chances than a conventional Ruy.

I've lost a few games with the Ruy Lopez playing White. But that was basically due to my ignorance of the opening more than anything else.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Thanks for all of you who have been give me the answer, and I realized that **Classical Defence** as **Ruy Lopez** variation fits me than the others variation.

From the latest FEN that I have been edited (and based from @**Tom Au** answer), normally White player will choose to castle his king, so it will give Black opportunity to neutralize centre with `9. O-O d6`.

After I analyzed, `7. d5` is just bad idea from White player that give advantages to Black. It means, Black knight in `7. ... Nf6` is in the right place at the right time.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The classical/cordel is a very good choice against the Ruy Lopez. I switched to the sicilian for exactly this reason but this is what I would play if I hadn't .Black avoids the main lines but gets an active position. I think 4...Nf6 is the most natural choice here. Black develops a piece, prepares to castle and attacks the e4 pawn. 4...Bb6 doesn't really accomplish anything.

"Can someone show me, at which point does black take the initiative from white??" It's difficult to take the initiative if white doesn't make a mistake. This line though avoids theory and puts pieces on active squares. You are positioning yourself to pounce on the first white mistake. That's the best you can hope for as black.

# Answer
> -5 votes
After `3. Bb5`, black plays

* `a6`
* `Nf6`

## a6

`a6` puts the question to the bishop. If he takes your knight, recapture with the `d` pawn. Black has a very strong game at this point. Normally you capture toward the center, but in this case, you can play `c6` to `c5` and control the `d4` square. `d4` is very important to control in the Ruy Lopez.

What you see most often after `a6` is the bishop retreating to `a4`. White may play `c3` later in the game to give his bishop a square (`c2`) to back up into. You see the same thing happening on the other side of the board with `f3` in the Queen's Indian, giving white's bishop on g5 the option to back up to `Bh4` and then retreat to `Bf2`.

(White playing `c3` also prepares for the `d4` push, common for white in the Ruy Lopez. `c3` protects the `d4` pawn.)

## Nf6

You're probably going to see `Nf6` eventually. After `Bb5` you might see it right away. Or you'll see it after `3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6`. What does `Nf6` do for black? It attacks the unguarded `e4` pawn with the knight. But white doesn't have to worry here. Instead, white castles `O-O`. Why?

Take a moment to play this out on a board:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6  5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1

```

Black is screwed after `Re1`. Notice that the rook is staring down the king. The pawn/knight are pinned. If black retreats the knight back to `Nf6`, now white takes the knight. Black recaptures the bishop. Now the pawn on `e5` is unguarded. `Nxe5` and you have a deadly discovered check on black's king when the knight moves.

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6  5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 Nf6 7. Bxc6 dxc6 8. Nxe5

```

it's all over for black.

That's how Capablanca describes the Ruy Lopez in his book Chess Fundamentals (if I remember correctly).

---
Tags: opening, strategy, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Is this blocked situation a draw? If not, how can I win as Black?
---

I had a game on chess.com that ended in a draw by agreement. Is this a real draw? If not, what are my best moves as Black?

Computer analysis on chess.com suggested this continuation, “39. Qe2 Rf7 40. Nf3 Qc7 41. Ra2 Bf8 42. Qc2 Rd8,” saying that "Black has a moderate advantage".

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2015.05.06"]
[White "fianwhatto"]
[Black "bigother"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1432"]
[BlackElo "1400"]
[TimeControl "10|0"]
[Termination "Game drawn by agreement"]
[WhiteToggles "0%"]
[BlackToggles "0%"]
[startply "77"]

1.c4 d6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.Be2 b6 6.O-O Bb7 7.d3 Nf6 8.e4 Nc6 9.h3 O-O 10.a3 Nd4
 11.Bg5 Qd7 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Nb5 c5 14.a4 a6 15.Na3 h6 16.Bh4 g5 17.Bg3 Rfe8 18.f4 Nh7 19.f5 f6 20.Bh5 Re7
 21.Bf3 Bc6 22.b3 b5 23.a5 b4 24.Nb1 Qd8 25.Nd2 Qd7 26.Bg4 Qd8 27.Bh2 Qc7 28.g3 Nf8 29.h4 Nd7 30.h5 Ne5
 31.Be2 Qb7 32.g4 Rd7 33.Bxe5 dxe5 34.Bf3 Re7 35.Qe2 Qc7 36.Qf2 Qb7 37.Rfe1 Qc7 38.Bg2 Qb7 39.Qe2 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
This is a dead draw.

There are no sensible piece sacrifices for either side.

There is no plan that isn't easily parried (Black could gang up on the a5-pawn with Qd8 and Bc7, but white just doubles the rooks on a1 and a2. White could try to invade with the knight to b6 and d5, but black would just go Bxa4 when the knight turns up on a4.)

Black isn't better here and black isn't worse. There is just nothing any side can do.

Edit: I think I'll expand on this a bit, because for some reason the concept of a dead draw seems to be hard to grasp.

Positions are usually evaluated based on best play by both sides. That can be tricky because there are positions that should be equal or even favourable for one side, but in practice are more promising for the other side.

But in the given position the level of play needed to hold a draw against best play, is very, very low. To put it differently: A 1500 player would have no trouble holding this position with white against Magnus Carlsen. The fact that a computer engine gives a small plus for black doesn't mean black has any advantage whatsoever. It just means that engines aren't yet able to understand completely blocked positions and other kinds of fortresses very well.

Let's go back to our fictional 1500 player. The only thing he has to do is keep e4 and a5 well protected and there is nothing Magnus Carlsen will ever be able to do. Now e4 is already over-over-overprotected. Let's say Carlsen comes up with the cunning plan to attack a5 via Qd8 and Bc7 and our 1500 player isn't sharp enough to double the rooks quickly. Now the a5 pawn falls …

```
r2q2k1/r7/p1b2p1p/b1p1pPpP/1pPpP1P1/1P1P4/R2NB3/1R1Q2K1 w - - 0 1

1.Rba1 Bc7 2.Ra4 Bxa4 3.Rxa4

```

Black is a pawn and the exchange up. Possibly the computer will give a even better score for black, but the facts haven't changed: This is still A DEAD DRAW.
> 9 votes

# Answer
In reference to Chessbrain's answer. I guess this will also answer your Question.

1. Black's Bishop is not bad as it is the only minor piece that can attack the only vulnerable white pawn on a5, where as white can not defend it with any of its minor pieces. Knight has no square to defend it, And the other minor piece is white bishop. (Although, The rooks are sufficient enough to defend it with proper play)
2. Black's White Bishop is the most favourable minor Black piece that can sacrifice itself to capture pawns and gain a breakthrough.
3. Here you are quite right. Usually in closed positions knights are stronger than bishops. But also in this position what is to be taken into consideration is, if white ever plans to create a breakthrough, then his first sacrifice has to be his knight, and if he does so then the knight is off the board. Note that White Bishop can not sacrifice itself as all the Black pawns are on black square except a6 but obviously there is no way white bishop can attack that. If white wants to breakthrough without giving his knight, then sacrificing a rook is too costly to gain any compensation.

Taking all this into consideration, its black who has more chances of creating a breakthrough if White messes up something for ex: his vulnerable a pawn, or gives 2 of his centre pawns for our bishop. But overall with perfect play its just a draw though Black has an advantage of around half a pawn (-0.6 : computer checked)

**Related Info:** *This videos might help you understand similar positions and how to create a breakthrough.*
> 1 votes

# Answer
In this situation a draw is preferable for black in my opinion, for a few reasons.

1. Black has a bad black bishop
2. Black's second bishop is not as useful as it is also blocked, and most likely will never get a chance to move
3. White has a Knight, which in this position if black ever thought of sacrificing a piece would make that knight an overwhelmingly powerful piece in a closed position game.

If black)you) ever wanted to break this stand, you would have to sacrifice a piece in a position where white has more pawns pushed up your side than his.

As White however, a risky play is possible, which of course against correct play would normally result in a loss. But white is the only one with the option to actually sacrifice a piece for a potential attack (even though I would recommend against it).

So long story short, leave it at a draw, in this game black has a less favorable position than white, so a draw is a good conclusion. And in chess a draw for black is considered much better than a draw for white... Since white usually has the advantage at the start of the game, so a draw as black is not a disaster. It is as white however :P
> 0 votes

# Answer
There are no legal pawn moves The rooks are useless without open files. The dark square bishop could move to d8 but that's easily defended. The only option is to sac the light square bishop for two pawns but that could take some maneuvering.

It's pretty much drawn.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: draw, pawns, pawn-structure
---


title: Render a chessboard from a PGN file

text:
# Question
Title: Render a chessboard from a PGN file
I’d like to render a 2D chessboard image and save it after the last move as a PNG or JPEG from a given PGN file on a Linux console. How can I do this?

I have a PGN file and I want to get a screenshot of the board.

Seems to be a simple task but I can’t find a solution for it which is scriptable on the Linux console.

P.S. The wording "simple task" seems to be annoying for some readers here. Being not a native speaker I have a hard time to understand this nuance but I by no mean want to step on anybody's feet. Coming from a Linux console background I have the feeling that this should be doable on the console with ease. But that I haven't found the tool to do it.

# Answer
You can use the SVG rendering functionalities of python-chess. This will allow you to create a SVG-formatted visualisation of any board position loaded using python-chess.

## FEN to SVG

For example, given a FEN as input (say we save our python script as `boardtosvg.py`)

*Using python3 and the python-chess library version `0.30.1`*

```
import chess
import chess.svg
import sys

arguments = sys.argv
fen = str(arguments[1])

board = chess.Board(fen)
boardsvg = chess.svg.board(board=board)
f = open("BoardVisualisedFromFEN.SVG", "w")
f.write(boardsvg)
f.close()

```
* Example, FEN: `'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq e3 0 1'`
* Command to run your script from the terminal:

`python boardtosvg.py 'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq e3 0 1'`

Saved file *(in case you cannot open SVGs, you can at least use a browser such as chrome to view the file)*:

## Position from a PGN to SVG

Similarly, if the input is a PGN file, then here's how you'd for istance save the SVG of the last position of the game (you can extend this to saving the position at any move):

```
import chess
import chess.svg
import chess.pgn
import sys

arguments = sys.argv
pgnfilename = str(arguments[1])

#Read pgn file:
with open(pgnfilename) as f:
    game = chess.pgn.read_game(f)
#Go to the end of the game and create a chess.Board() from it:
game = game.end()
board = game.board()
boardsvg = chess.svg.board(board=board)
f = open("BoardVisualisedFromPGN.SVG", "w")
f.write(boardsvg)
f.close()

```
* Example, PGN of Adams vs Kasparov 2005: `adams_kasparov_2005.pgn`
* `python boardtosvg.py 'adams_kasparov_2005.pgn'`

Saved file:

Now all that is left to do is to convert the so-created SVG files to PNG, which you can also do in python, see the solutions in the link below:
> 22 votes

# Answer
Yes, of course it's possible. I've done it a lot professionally. However, there is no tool that just takes a PGN chess game and convert it into images. You will need to do some programming, not very hard.

Here is a link on how one can generate machine learning data set on chess. You should be able to reuse the code. I highlighted the part that will relate to your problem.

https://github.com/Elucidation/tensorflow\_chessbot has an example:

General steps:

* Parse your PGN file with Python python-chess. Very easy, trust me.
* Use your parsed FENs. Follow the workflow above.
> 8 votes

# Answer
I don't think calling it a "simple task" in order for someone to give you the code for free is very polite imo.

On top of that, is surely doable, but its not a simple task. It requires implementing a class to handle the graphic representation, and another class to do the "translation". Also there are quite a couple of factors to take into consideration. If you don't have the knowledge to even start to do it, you should hire someone to do it for you then. Afaik, this forum is for helping coders who are actually doing the work, and are stuck in a specific part of their project; its not a codewish fountain for everyone to ask for free implementations.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, pgn, chessboards
---


# Question
Title: Understanding Carlsen's resignation in the rook and pawn endgame vs MVL
Why did Carlsen resign in the position shown below? (blitz game played in the London Chess Classic GCT Finals)

Can't white help the pawn queen after `Ke3` and `Kd3` then `Kd4`? I must be missing something.

```
[Title "Magnus Carlsen-Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, London Chess Classic GCT Finals, London England 12/02/2019"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "108"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nbd2 d5 4. b3 Bg7 5. Bb2 a5 6. a4 O-O 7. e3 Bf5 8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O Nb4 10. Ne1 Ne4 11. c3 Nxd2 12. Qxd2 Nc6 13. Nd3 e5 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. dxe5 Bxe5 16. Rfd1 Qd6 17. Ba3 c5 18. Qxd5 Qxd5 19. Rxd5 Bxc3 20. Rad1 Bb4 21. Bxb4 cxb4 22. Bc4 Be6 23. Rb5 Rfd8 24. Rd4 Rac8 25. Rxd8+ Rxd8 26. Kf1 Bxc4+ 27. bxc4 Rd2 28. Rxb7 Ra2 29. c5 Rxa4 30. Ke2 Ra3 31. c6 Rc3 32. c7 Kg7 33. Ra7 b3 34. Rxa5 Rxc7 35. Rb5 Rc2+ 36. Kf3 b2 37. Rb6 h5 38. h3 Kf8 39. g4 h4 40. g5 Ke7 41. e4 Kd7 42. Ke3 Kc7 43. Rb5 Kc6 44. Rb8 Kc5 45. f4 Kc4 46. f5 Kc3 47. Kf4 Rg2 48. fxg6 fxg6 49. e5 Re2 50. Rb6 Kc2 51. Rc6+ Kd1 52. Rd6+ Kc1 53. Rc6+ Rc2 54. Rb6 Rc4+

```

# Answer
> 13 votes
## Intuitive plan

Notice that black's last check is pushing the white king one row away from their passed `e-pawn.` Once black promotes the `b-pawn,` white will have to give up the rook for it. After which white's king is simply not in position to cover the advance of the `e-pawn` and therefore additional tempi will have to be spent with king moves to try and reach the pawn, during which the rook can first simply capture white's `h-pawn` and only then sacrifice itself for the `e-pawn.` Then black's `h-pawn` promotes and wins trivially. Now let's see how all this pans out concretely *(no matter how strong the intuition might be, in endgames one must always primarily rely on concrete calculations in order to realise whether our ideas or plans can actually be optimally implemented).*

## Annotated diagram

```
 [title "A simple continuation showcasing why white is lost here"]
 [fen "8/8/1R4p1/4P1P1/2r2K1p/7P/1p6/2k5 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Ke3 b1=Q 2. Rxb1+ Kxb1 3. Kd3 (3. e6 {blunders the e pawn away} Rc6 4. e7 Re6+) Ra4 4. Ke3 {again, the pawn advance would simply leave it hanging, so white has to make king moves while not allowing black to get behind the pawn} Ra3+ 5. Kd4 Rxh3 6. e6 Rh1 7. Kd5 h3 8. e7 Re1 9. Kd6 Rxe7 {though black doesn't even have to sacrifice the rook here, but it's simply a practical way of going about it, and in-line with our original plan} (9...h2 {much more accurate continuation as we can in fact keep our rook since white's tactically losing their queen immediately upon promotion, in fact you might find this line easier to calculate} 10. Kd7 h1=Q 11. e8=Q Qd5+ 12. Kc8 Rxe8+) 10. Kxe7 h2 {and it's easy to judge that black's winning here since the promoted queen is well in time to get to white's promotion square g8 and then simply bring the king over. I'll include this sequence} 11. Kf6 h1=Q 12. Kxg6 Qb7 {cutting off the king from accessing the 7th row} 13. Kf6 (13. Kh6 Qf7 14. g6 Qg8) Qh7 14. g6 Qg8 {and now black simply brings the king and wins the pawn}

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
In short, the plan you proposed is possible, but it is just too slow, even if black allows it, which is not mandatory. If black permits it, here is a simple win that, although I checked it with a computer, I could see it in my head fairly easily, which means those two could see it that much more easily.

```
 [FEN "8/8/1R4p1/4P1P1/2r2K1p/7P/1p6/2k5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke3 b1=Q 2. Rxb1+ Kxb1 3. Kd3 Rc8 $1 4. Kd4 Kc2 5. Kd5 Kd3 6. e6 Ke3 7. Kd6 (7. Ke5 Re8 8. Kf6 Kf4 9. Kf7 (9.Kxg6 Rxe6+ 10. Kh5 Kg3-+) Ra8 10. Kxg6 Rg8+ 11.Kf7 Rxg5 {and Re5 next.}) Kf4 8. e7 Kxg5 9. Kd7 Ra8 10. e8=Q Rxe8 11. Kxe8 Kf4 12. Kf7 Kg3 13. Kxg6 Kxh3 14. Kf5 Kg3 15. Ke4 h3 16. Ke3 h2 17. Ke2 h1=Q $19

```

As I was checking my line with a computer, another line it suggested contained a common valuable theme in some rook endings where the king is cut off on a rank, but the pawn is not advanced enough: If the pawn moves forward, you can attack it with the rook, it advances, and then you can get behind it, and take it the next move.

After 3...Ra4!, there are only two plans: To move the king around until black gets close to g2 with the king, or to advance the pawn, which shows the common theme I mentioned.

```
 [FEN "8/8/1R4p1/4P1P1/2r2K1p/7P/1p6/2k5 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Ke3 b1=Q 2. Rxb1+ Kxb1 3. Kd3 Ra4 {What can white do here? There are only two plans: Move the king back and forth until black brings the king to g2, or to advance the pawn eventually.} 4. e6 (4. Ke3 Kc1 5. Kf3 (5. Kf2 Re4 $19) 5... Kd1 6. Ke3 Ke1 7. Kf3 Kf1 8. Ke3 Kg2 $19) 4... Ra6 5. e7 Re6 $19

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
While it may appear that White can whisk around Black's rook and promote, there is a indeed problem that you have missed: Black can promote first!

White's king is currently in check from Black's rook, so the monarch must be moved to either the f3 or e3, cutting the king off from half of the board.

Since White lost a tempo moving their king, Black now promotes their passed b-pawn to a queen, threatening a variety of mating sequences. White must give up their rook for the newly born queen, a practically forced move. After Black recaptures, they are a full rook up. White has a passed pawn, but it will be soon be taken down by Black's superior firepower, cementing a total loss for White and a victory for Black.

Here is a sample game, Stockfish generated at Depth 53, that shows how Black will be able to systematically suppress and restrict the White king to eventually win.

```
[FEN "8/8/1R4p1/4P1P1/2r2K1p/7P/1p6/2k5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf3 b1=Q 2. Rxb1+ Kxb1 3. e6 Rc6 4. Kg4 Rxe6 5. Kxh4 Re4+ 6. Kg3 Kc2 7. Kf2 Kd2 8. Kf3 Kd3 9. Kg2 Ke3 10. Kg3 Ke2 11. Kg2 Re3 12. h4 Re4 13. Kg3 Ke3 14. h5 gxh5 15. Kg2 Rg4+ 16. Kh3 Rxg5 17. Kh4 Kf4 18. Kh3 Rg4 19. Kh2 Ke3 20. Kh1 Kf2 21. Kh2 Rh4#

```

I hope that this helps you understand the endgame better!

# Answer
> 2 votes
Imagine there'd be no other pawns on the board, except for the b2 pawn and the e5 pawn. Then ask yourself the question: is black's position won? If the answer is yes, there is no need for calculation, right?

The answer is yes, because of an elementary (yet crucial) manoeuvre: keeping the black rook on the fourth rank, thereby cutting off the enemy king. This is seen very often in rook vs. pawn endings and important to bear in mind.

**Explanation**

So black promotes the pawn and white plays Kd3 after. Then black goes Ra4. After e6 black plays Ra6 and white can not defend the pawn and thus loses it.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, pawn-promotion, carlsen, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Why is the f7-g6-h5 pawn complex so important for black in rook endgames?
I was watching the chess24.com video on endgames with Mark Dvoretsky, and the video “Plus-equal mode | Part 1” covered the game Tony Miles-Simon Webb, Birmingham 1975, and we quickly get to the double-rook endgame.

```
 [Event "Birmingham Zetters"]
 [Site "Birmingham"]
 [Date "1975.04.08"]
 [Round "11"]
 [White "Miles, Anthony John"]
 [Black "Webb, Simon"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "A05"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "2r5/p4rkp/5pp1/5q2/3Q4/6P1/P4PKP/1R1R4 b - - 0 23"]
 [PlyCount "82"]
 [EventDate "1975.03.27"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "15"]
 [EventCountry "ENG"]
 [EventCategory "6"]

 1... Rc2 2. a3 Qc5 3. Rb3 Qxd4 4. Rxd4 Re7 5. Ra4 Kf7 6. Ra6 Rce2 7. Rb4 Rd7 8. Rba4 Ree7 9. g4 h5 10. gxh5 gxh5 11. R4a5 Kg6 12. h4 Rc7 13. Rg5+ Kf7 14. Rxh5 Kg7 15. Rf5 Rf7 16. Kg3 Rc3+ 17. f3 Rc1 18. Rfa5 Rcc7 19. Kg4 Rc4+ 20. f4 Rcc7 21. Kf5 Rb7 22. a4 Rbc7 23. h5 Rb7 24. h6+ Kxh6 25. Rxf6+ Kg7 26. Rxf7+ Kxf7 27. Ra6 Rc7 28. Kg5 Kg7 29. f5 Rd7 30. a5 Rc7 31. Rd6 Kf8 32. Rd8+ Ke7 33. Rh8 Kd6 34. Kg6 Rc1 35. Ra8 Ke5 36. Re8+ Kf4 37. f6 Rg1+ 38. Kf7 Ra1 39. Kg7 Kf5 40. f7 Rg1+ 41. Kf8 Kg6 42. Re6+ 1-0

```

Although Webb had the pawn on f6 already, GM Jan Gustafsson mentioned at one point that he wanted to play h5 several times, somewhat setting up the desirable formation. Black hesitated, and white played the common stopping move to that setup, g4! This led to black getting impatient, and playing h5 himself, which led to creating another weakness.

So just why is that f7-g6-h5 setup so important?

P.S. I should have added that the point of this question is "how to draw the 4-3 rook endgame on the kingside, and how that pawn setup is so important." It is also important that it is before the pawns have net and passed each other, as this is very typical in OTB play.

# Answer
> 7 votes
> So just why is that f7-g6-h5 setup so important?

Compare the two pawn structures below, one on the kingside where Black has achieved the f7-g6-h5 structure and one on the queenside where White has achieved an advanced equivalent pawn structure.

\[FEN "8/p4p2/Pp3Pp1/1Pp3Pp/2P4P/8/8/8 b - - 0 23"\]

```
[FEN "8/p4p2/Pp3Pp1/1Pp3Pp/2P4P/8/8/8 b - - 0 23"]

```

Now imagine kings on the board and one minor piece, say a knight for each side. White has more space, Black less so White is attacking. How could White win? How could Black defend?

Well, on the queenside Black has to guard against a sacrifice on b6. If White sacrifices on b6 then Black needs to be in the square of the White pawn on a6. That means no closer to the center than c7 or c8. Otherwise the piece capturing on b6 can't be taken.

Now look on the kingside and ask the same question. This time the equivalent sacrifice is on g6 and the Black king has to be no further away from the action than e6 or d6. Note that f5, taking the sacrificed piece with the king, is also possible.

e6, d6 and f5 are much closer to the center of the board than c7 and c8. Clearly if Black faces a situation on one side of the board like that on the kingside with pawns and rooks elsewhere on the board his king will be able to both defend and be much better placed for action, much more active, than if he faces the same situation but with pawns arranged as on the queenside.

# Answer
> 5 votes
This is a very common rook endgame at higher levels, and it is considered very important to know how to defend it at the 2000-rating level and above, and maybe even a little lower.

The answer as to why the f7-g6-h5 formation is so important is that it combines a relatively safe pawn structure for hiding the black king, and it makes it almost impossible with best play for white to obtain a passed pawn without trading down to the last pawn, which is a draw. Sometimes, white is allowed to create a passed h-pawn, but it is still an easy draw. Lastly, with a pawn on f7, in some lines of defense, it provides a black rook with the solid e6 square, keeping the white king from wandering to d7 and then e8 attacking f7.

Consider these classic 4 versus 3 pawns rook endgames as the primary reason.

Here are a couple of rook endgames at the highest level that show the proper classical defense.

```
 [Event "Moscow Chess for TV"]
 [Site "Moscow"]
 [Date "2019.06.14"]
 [Round "3.2"]
 [White "Dubov, Daniil"]
 [Black "Radjabov, Teimour"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [ECO "E12"]
 [WhiteElo "2700"]
 [BlackElo "2759"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/5pkp/6p1/4P3/1r3P2/R5PP/6K1/8 b - - 0 38"]
 [PlyCount "85"]
 [EventDate "2019.06.10"]
 [EventType "k.o."]
 [EventRounds "6"]
 [EventCountry "RUS"]

 1... h5 2. Kf3 (2. Kh1) 2... Rc4 3. Rb3 Ra4 4. Rc3 Rb4 5. Ra3 Rc4 6. g4 hxg4+ 7. hxg4 Rc1 8. Ra7 Rf1+ 9. Ke4 Rg1 10. Kf3 Rf1+ 11. Kg3 Rg1+ 12. Kh4 Re1 13. Kg5 Re2 14. Re7 Re4 15. Ra7 Re1 16. Ra6 Re2 17. Ra1 Re3 18. Ra5 Re1 19. Ra7 Re2 20. Ra5 Re1 21. Rb5 Re2 22. Kh4 Re1 23. f5 gxf5 24. gxf5 Rf1 25. Kg5 Rg1+ 26. Kf4 Rf1+ 27. Ke4 Re1+ 28. Kd5 Rf1 29. f6+ Kg6 30. Kd6 Ra1 31. Rb7 Ra6+ 32. Kd5 Ra5+ 33. Ke4 Ra4+ 34. Kd5 Ra5+ 35. Kd4 Ra4+ 36. Kc5 Ra5+ 37. Kd6 Ra6+ 38. Ke7 Re6+ 39. Kf8 Rxe5 40. Rxf7 Re6 41. Kg8 Re8+ 42. Rf8 Rxf8+ 43.  Kxf8 Kxf6 1/2-1/2

```

And a second game.

```
 [Event "ESP-chT Div Honor"]
 [Site "Monzon"]
 [Date "2016.10.02"]
 [Round "7.4"]
 [White "Bacrot, Etienne"]
 [Black "Anton Guijarro, David"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [ECO "E17"]
 [WhiteElo "2692"]
 [BlackElo "2630"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "2r3k1/5p2/6p1/3R3p/8/2N1P1P1/5P1P/5K2 b - - 0 34"]
 [PlyCount "84"]
 [EventDate "2016.09.26"]
 [EventType "team-tourn"]
 [EventRounds "7"]
 [EventCountry "ESP"]

 1... Rxc3 2. Ke2 Kg7 3. f3 Ra3 4. e4 Kf6 5. Rd3 Ra2+ 6. Rd2 Ra3 7. Kf2 Rb3 8. f4 Ra3 9. Rb2 Kg7 10. e5 h4 11. gxh4 Rh3 12. Kg2 Rxh4 13. Kg3 Rh8 14. Rb7 Re8 15. Kg4 Re6 16. h4 Ra6 17. h5 gxh5+ 18. Kxh5 Rh6+ 19. Kg5 Rg6+ 20. Kf5 Ra6 21. Kg4 Ra1 22. Kg5 Rg1+ 23. Kf5 Rg6 24. Ke4 Rg1 25. f5 Re1+ 26. Kd5 Rf1 27. f6+ Kg6 28. Rb3 Ra1 29. Rg3+ Kf5 30. Kd6 Ra6+ 31. Ke7 Ra7+ 32. Kf8 Kxe5 33. Kg7 Kf5 34. Rf3+ Ke6 35. Rf1 Rb7 36. Rh1 Ra7 37. Re1+ Kf5 38. Re7 Ra6 39. Rb7 Rc6 40. Rxf7 Kg5 41. Rf8 Ra6 42. Rf7 Rc6 43. Rf8 1/2-1/2

```

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


# Question
Title: Is there a better winning plan from move 37?
From move 37-43 my plan was to convince my opponent to open the position for me with f4. This worked. If they did not oblige then I was going to walk my king to c7 to free up my rook from defense of the b-pawn and start pushing kingside pawns.

Often I feel that winning is natural and I only have questions about games I lose. Here I kept feeling there may be simpler plan that I didn't find. Can you suggest alternate plans?

Happy to receive feedback on any part of the game.

```
[White "NN"]
[Black "Michael West"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B07"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 a6 5.a4 Nf6 6.h3 O-O 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 Ne7 10.Be2 Bd7
11.a5 c6 12.Bb6 Qb8 13.O-O c5 14.Rab1 Nc8 15.Rfe1 Nxb6 16.axb6 a5 17.Qe3 Qd8 18.Nb5 Qxb6
19.c4 Bxb5 20.cxb5 Qd8 21.Bc4 Nh5 22.g3 b6 23.Kg2 Ra7 24.b3 Qe7 25.Re2 Re8 26.Ne1 Qf8
27.Nd3 f6 28.Rf1 Bh6 29.Qf3 Rf7 30.Nb2 Ng7 31.Na4 Rb8 32.Qd3 f5 33.f3 fxe4 34.Qxe4 Nf5
35.Ref2 Ne3+ 36.Kh2 Nxf1+ 37.Rxf1 Qe7 38.Kg2 Kf8 39.Nc3 Bd2 40.Nd1 Ra8 41.Nb2 Qg5 42.Kh2 Rb8
43.Na4 Ke7 44.f4 Qf5 45.Qe2 Bb4 46.fxe5 Qxf1 47.exd6+ Kd8 48.Qxf1 Rxf1 49.Bxf1 Kd7
50.Kg2 Kxd6 51.Bc4 Bd2 52.Kf3 Bg5 53.Nc3 Rf8+ 54.Ke2 Ke5 55.Na4 Rf6 56.Nb2 Kd4
57.Nd3 a4 58.Ne1 Kc3 59.Nf3 Rxf3 60.Kxf3 a3 61.b4 Kxc4 62.bxc5 Kxc5 63.Ke4 a2
64.Ke5 a1=Q+ 65.Ke6 Qf6+ 66.Kd7 Qd8+ 67.Ke6 Qe7# 0-1

```

# Answer
I annotated the whole game, and a few things stuck out.

The first is a lesson for all players, and that is in this game, white was supposed to be playing on the queenside, and black had play on the kingside. White allowed the play on the queenside to be blocked, and thus had to just wait for the axe to fall on the other side of the board. You can never let the side where your play is to become blocked. The only exception is when you have a good piece sacrifice that you see coming to break up the locked pawns.

The second is that you really should have had a better feel for f5 in that position. It was screaming to be played, and had white not locked the queenside, your play may have been too slow. I do not know that you would not have played it differently, but f5 was screaming to be played.

Lastly, and this is probably something that you have seen in print before, and that is I think that maybe you cashed in a little too early taking the exchange. Sure, it was winning, but I might have just kept up the pressure for a while longer. In the line that I give to move 38, which plays out the plan below, but with stronger moves for white (in particular, repositioning the N to the kingside, and then to e4), you can see that while winning, it is still a bit of a tough nut to crack. Had you kept that strong knight and that passive Rf1, something easier might have popped up since defending that would not be fun.

As far as plans go after taking the exchange, I definitely would have looked at bishop moves that kept that knight on a4, like Be4-d4 if given the opportunity, and moved the king to c7 defending everything over there. You might have had to put a rook on e7 first to stop f4 in some cases. Then move all the major pieces to the kingside, and work on opening it up.

There are very extensive written notes in the lines below.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 a6 5. a4 Nf6 6. h3 O-O 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. Qd2 e5 9. d5 Ne7 10. Be2 Bd7 11. a5 c6 (11... Nh5 $5 {This seems more in line with the spirit of the black's kingside play.} 12. g4 Nf4 13. Bxf4 exf4 14. Qxf4 Rb8 $1 {Only now that the Bg7 exerts incredible influence over the white queenside is this opening over there justified.} 15. Qd2 b5 16. axb6 Rxb6 17. Ra2 f5 $1 $11 {With play all over the board.}) 12. Bb6 Qb8 (12... Qe8 {This is very in the spirit of a fianchetto defense, and is often seen in the King's Indian. From e8, the queen will defend the Nh5 after Nh5 and f5.} 13. dxc6 $2 Bxc6 {And there is no time to win d6.}) 13. O-O (13. b4 $2 cxd5 14. exd5 e4 $19) 13... c5 14. Rab1 $2 {A mistake, but already in a tough position after letting the Bb6 get shut in.} (14. Ra3 $1 Nc8 15. Rb3) 14... Nc8 15. Rfe1 $2 {As often happens, one mistake follows another.} (15. Qe3 Nxb6 16. axb6 Qd8 17. Nd2 Qxb6 18. b4 {With good counterplay.}) 15... Nxb6 16. axb6 a5 {I do not understand this. First, not going after the free pawn, and second, it gives up the b5 square for no reason.} 17. Qe3 Qd8 18. Nb5 $2 (18. Nd2 {Seems much more natural.}) 18... Qxb6 19. c4 Bxb5 20. cxb5 Qd8 $1 $19 {This is now already positionally won for black beyond just the pawn. black can always seal the queenside, and continue the attack on the kingside where white has nothing to do but wait for the execution. The only plan for white might be if black gets careless, and allows a timely b4, but as long as black is careful, b4 axb4 is just the loss of a second pawn.} 21. Bc4 Nh5 22. g3 b6 {There is no real need for this yet. Bring the Qd8 out, and prepare f5.} 23. Kg2 Ra7 24. b3 Qe7 $2 {This does not spoil things, but you want the rooks on the f-file, or maybe g-file, and this puts the queen in the way.} (24... f5 {Or Kh8 first.} 25. exf5 gxf5 {And that the computer wants to trade queens here for white is a very good sign for you. You have a killer bishop compared to the pathetic piece on c4, an extra pawn, and most of white's pawns are weak.} 26. Qg5 Qxg5 27. Nxg5 Kh8 28. Ne6 Rg8 {As good as this bishop is, you do should not mind leaving just that Nh5 versus that Bc4.} 29. Nxg7 $2 Raxg7 {And Nf6, and h5 winning.}) 25. Re2 Re8 $2 {The clear plan is f5 soon, so why does the rook move from the potential open file? I see your plan with Qf8 and Bh6, which is admirable, but after f5, and the almost forced ef gf, the Bg7 will come to life and get to d4 soon. See my recent question about the "Gufeld Bishop", and if it gets to d4, it will be a knockout.} 26. Ne1 Qf8 27. Nd3 f6 (27... f5 {Again, is almost winning.}) 28. Rf1 Bh6 29. Qf3 Rf7 30. Nb2 Ng7 31. Na4 Rb8 32. Qd3 f5 33. f3 fxe4 {This does not feel right giving up the e4 square. I would have looked for a more patient move that gradually built up the attack on the kingside.} (33... Nh5 $1 {Bringing the N back into play with tempo. The threat is Bf4 winning.} 34. Qd1 Qe7 {Idea Qg5 with ominous threats.}) 34. Qxe4 Nf5 35. Ref2 Ne3+ (35... Be3 $1 36. Re2 Bd4 {And the troublesome knight is stuck. Now, you can bring your king to c7, and have what is almost an extra minor piece on the kingside.}) 36. Kh2 Nxf1+ $6 {Cashing in too early in my opinion. Your position is so strong, that an exchange is not enough.} 37. Rxf1 Qe7 38. Kg2 (38. Nb2 Kf8 39. Kg2 Ke8 40. h4 Kd7 41. Nd1 Kc7 42. Nf2 Rbf8 43. Nh3 (43. Ng4 Bf4 $1 $19 44. gxf4 Rxf4 45. Qe1 e4 46. Nh2 Rxh4 {And wins easily.}) 43... Qf6 (43... Qd7 44. Be2 Qf5 45. Nf2 Qxe4 46. Nxe4 Be3 47. Rd1 h6 48. Rd3 Bd4 49. Rd2 Rg7 50. Rd3 g5 51. h5 {And you still need to break through.}) 44. Bd3 Bd2 45. Rd1 {And it is still hard to breakthrough.}) 38... Kf8 39. Nc3 Bd2 (39... Qg5 40. Rf2 Qe3 41. Qxe3 Bxe3 42. Re2 Bd4 43. Ne4 Ke7 44. h4 Ra8 45. Ng5 Rg7 46. Ne6 Rgg8 47. Ra2 {And white is still hanging on by a thread.}) 40. Nd1 Ra8 41. Nb2 Qg5 42. Kh2 Rb8 (42... Bc3 $1 {Idea Bd4 so if the Na4 moves, you can trade it off leaving an extra piece to attack the kingside.} 43. Na4 (43. Nd3 a4 $19) 43... Bd4) 43. Na4 Ke7 (43...Be3 {Again, this plan.}) 44. f4 $2 {This makes it easy for black,and is the final mistake. Here, it was white, who lost patience.} Qf5 45. Qe2 Bb4 {And this is now out of play really.} 46. fxe5 Qxf1 47. exd6+ Kd8 48. Qxf1 Rxf1 49. Bxf1 Kd7 50. Kg2 Kxd6 51. Bc4 Bd2 52. Kf3 Bg5 53. Nc3 Rf8+ 54. Ke2 Ke5 55. Na4 Rf6 56. Nb2 Kd4 57. Nd3 a4 58. Ne1 Kc3 59. Nf3 Rxf3 60. Kxf3 a3 61. b4 Kxc4 62. bxc5 Kxc5 63. Ke4 a2 64. Ke5 a1=Q+ 65. Ke6 Qf6+ 66. Kd7 Qd8+ 67. Ke6 Qe7#

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, planning
---


# Question
Title: Improving your chess without access to OTB tournaments
Due to the Coronavirus, all chess tournaments and activities have been canceled in my area. At the same time, I've got a lot of time on my hands right now and would like to work on my chess. I have got access to a lot of training material, which includes a vast library of chess books on tactics, openings, endgames, and positional play. I'm rated about 2050 FIDE. Here are my main questions:

* What do you think is the best time control to play online to improve? I have found that rapid games (10 minutes each) don't leave a lasting impression, meaning I quickly forget what happened and probably also don't learn much from it.
* Have you tried improving mainly via online chess and can share your experiences? If not, do you know anyone who has done that?
* Should I set up a real board while playing online to recreate the OTB experience?
* How much training per day do you recommend? I plan on working between 1-2h every day on chess and playing long games regularly.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Overall, I like your plan. Addressing them, not in order though, and adding some thoughts along the way:

> How much training per day do you recommend? I plan on working between 1-2h every day on chess and playing long games regularly.

Let's face it, the more time, the better in terms of really getting better. Spending two hours per day is a lot for a non-professional, and is a great commitment.

> Should I set up a real board while playing online to recreate the OTB experience?

I love this idea because I think that playing online, even at slower controls, leads to the click-first-then-think mentality. I see this mentality a lot with the chess.com daily puzzle and many weak players saying "easy" when they "solve" a super-hard study. They got through it, but they clicked until the puzzle accepted the move, rather than truly seeing the solution and then clicking it in.

> Have you tried improving mainly via online chess and can share your experiences? If not, do you know anyone who has done that?
>
> What do you think is the best time control to play online to improve?

I really cannot say that I have because most of my improvement took place long before the advent of the Internet, but I did use an old standby: Face-to-face training games with a friend, who was rated similarly at the time. I do not see why you cannot find a player online, who is interested in doing this with you.

As part of this, I want suggest that you use a long time control (like 40/2 60/1) so you have time to really train your thought process. You should even use notes regarding things that you want to make sure you want to address in your thought-process training. I am not talking about notes regarding specific moves, but notes about the things you want to train as part of your practice.

For example, as I have been getting back into OTB play, here is a list of things that I want to look for. My list might help you, but you should add your own items to it.

1. Pay more attention to leads in development, and open the position when I am ahead in development. Pay attention to tempi, and not just in the opening.
2. Every few moves, or after a major change, look at every move for both sides.
3. Think more about the pluses and minuses of each piece, and how well they are, or are not, placed. What squares do they deny the opponent’s pieces?
4. What square do I want for my piece, and how do I conquer it?
5. When beginning to calculate, ask “what is hanging?” Also ask if there are any double attacks or pieces that can be drawn into a double attack by a sac.
6. When I find a good move, just look at the other moves to make sure there is not a better one.
7. Look for pieces in a line so a pin might win.
8. When calculating a tactical sequence, make sure that you properly evaluate the final position, and that there is no extra counterplay left. Before making the final move, think about all his possible moves as in number one above.
9. Think more about going after the opponent’s King.
10. Think more about how to gain space by pushing pawns on either flank, that is play on both sides of the board, if possible.
11. Ask what is my worst piece, and where is its best square, and move it there.
12. Ask what pieces should I trade? What is my weak piece and what is his strong piece?
13. When lacking space, think more about trading.
14. Ask myself, “what is his moving trying to accomplish?” and “what can he do after I move? (look at all his possible moves as in the mate-in-two problems)” “What is his plan if I were he?”
15. What structure am I playing for?
16. When accepting or changing a structure, see if the pieces are misplaced on either side with regards to helping the structure, and enforcing or containing pawn breaks.
17. When the opponent’s pieces are misplaced, open the position.
18. Look more at opening the position when I have the two Bs.
19. In conjunction with asking “where is my pawn break?”, look more at pushing my pawn majorities when I have them.
20. Think more about dynamic play when I have static deficiencies, or am worse.
21. Think more about resulting endgames.

# Answer
> 6 votes
## What do you think is the best time control to play online to improve?

Whichever time control is enough such that you'll be happy to **spend at least 15 minutes analyzing the game afterwards**. For most of us, that rules out blitz because such games begin to feel "disposable." I find 2+30 or 15+15 to be good enough here.

## Have you tried improving mainly via online chess and can share your experiences?

**Limit your activity. Pick one thing to study/work on for each month.** Maybe this month is tactics? In which case only study tactics this month. Find books on it and read them. If you find something else that interests you, make a note about it *for a future month* and return your tactics study. **This gives you time to actually invest in a subject, get to grips with it and, importantly, make progress.**

Too often we spend one evening doing this, then the next day we look at that, etc. and the overall pattern is a mess. There's no long-term structure and we never spend enough time on something to actually surpass our current level and develop mastery.

## Should I set up a real board while playing online to recreate the OTB experience?

No, it's not worth it, and you'll quickly find yourself ignoring the real board and looking at the digital on - that is, after all, how you find out whether it's your turn. I setup a board for some books and that appears to be enough to keep me "used" to looking at one.

## How much training per day do you recommend? I plan on working between 1-2h every day on chess and playing long games regularly.

I recommend that you first start small. The important thing not studying 1-2 hours, but studying every day. Dedicating yourself to 1-2 hours a day is too much unless you already have that habit. **Start with 30 minutes, but do that 30 minutes *every day*.** If you want to study longer, that's fine, do so, but only commit to the 30 minutes and *actually do it every day*.

**Once you have the habit** of studying every day then, and only then, **gradually increase the time you commit to.**

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


# Question
Title: In a online game, is it considered good etiquette to offer a draw when the opponent obviously misclicked?
For example, instead of capturing (and therefore exchanging) the queen on d8, white moved his queen from d1 to d7, and black can capture this queen for free. This is very likely the result of a misclick by white. Another example is moving the king for no reason in the opening stage. In this case, is it considered good etiquette for black to offer the draw, instead of taking advantage of white's misclick?

Some possible exceptions:

1. My position is already winning before my opponent's misclick.
2. My position is still losing even after my opponent's misclick.
3. My opponent made a blunder which does not seem to be a misclick.
4. My opponent demonstrated bad sportsmanship before misclicking.

In all above four cases, I will not offer draw.

# Answer
I like to enjoy my chess. Equally so, I like my opponent to enjoy their chess too. If I feel like a misclick has spoiled the fun or if I'm winning *because* of a misclick, then I'll offer the draw.

There's a simple test for this. After that misclick, will you feel bad about winning the game? Check in with yourself about it. Your conscience is perfectly capable of determining the correct course of action *for you* at any given moment. Generalizing this is only going to cause suffering!
> 5 votes

# Answer
Just to offer a different answer:

No. No takebacks, no draw offers. In short time controls this is part of the game. It's the same as a blunder under pressure. I pressured the opponent on either time or position, and the person cracked and made a mistake.

Or your other example, of moving the king instead of castling in the beginning: That's what one get for trying to blitz out moves. Might save you a second here and there, but the risk is these mis-clicks. That's a price my opponent will have to pay, can't have the cake and eat it too.

(For longer time controls (1h+) I might think trying to salvage the game is the right choice, but I only really play 5min and below)
> 33 votes

# Answer
It is perfectly good etiquette.

Something similar happened in an Amber blindfold Gelfand - Kramnik:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bg4 5. h3 Bxf3 6. Qxf3 e6
7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. Bd2 Bb4 9. Bd3 O-O 10. a3 Ba5 11. O-O Re8
12. b4 Bc7 13. cxd5 exd5 14. b5 Nf8 15. bxc6 bxc6 16. Qd1 Ne6
17. Qa4 c5 18. Nb5 Bb6 19. dxc5 Nxc5 20. Qc2 Nfe4 21. Bb4 Nxd3
22. Qxd3 Qd7 23. Nc3 Qe6 24. Qxe4 1/2-1/2

```

> "In case you wonder if the final move of the blindfold game between Boris Gelfand and Vladimir Kramnik was really 24.Qxe4 and if the result was nevertheless a draw despite White blundering his queen, we can tell you that in both cases the answer is affirmative. In the position after his 23rd move, Kramnik was expecting Gelfand to play 24.Nxe4 and after this move he intended to offer a draw. However, due to a ‘fingerfehler’, Gelfand didn’t move the knight to e4 but his queen. Kramnik understood what had happened and having no wish to win in such a manner he offered a draw anyhow. As Gelfand put it after the game: ‘He is a gentleman."
> 28 votes

# Answer
The most common term for that is actually a "mouse-slip".

Mouse-slips are dealt with differently by different players. There is no right or wrong answer since it is a personal decision. Some players on the Internet Chess Club used to put in their notes "no takebacks", meaning that if you had a mouse-slip, it was too bad for you.

For me, when I played blitz online, I played for fun, and I liked to be nice, but it would depend on the position. If the person were already dead lost, and maybe should already resign, I might just keep that queen, but otherwise, I would offer a takeback on ICC. You are also correct that if the opponent already had a bad reputation with me, I also might not be as inclined to give a takeback.

Since chess.com does not have takebacks, as for what I would do today, you can substitute a draw offer instead.

How you handle it is really up to you, and how you feel about the exact circumstances of the game.
> 12 votes

# Answer
An alternative if you want to be nice when your opponent misclicks is to make a waiting move. You might still benefit a bit from the tempo, but certainly not as much as if you had taken advantage of the blunder. For example, if White played Qd7 when the intent was clearly Qxd8, Black might play a relatively innocent move such as ...a6, so White can then play the intended Qxd8.

\[Note: the above specific example might not be possible if the black king is in e8, as is likely the case! :-)\]
> 4 votes

# Answer
First of all, if an opponent misclicks, you should also misclick to even the score. second. If the game is very important, then you should win.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I consider that managing your mouse is one of the skills of online chess. I'll take the win.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: How can I use stockfish to find good moves, instead of just bad moves?
After playing on lichess.org I have been reviewing my games as follows:

1. Ask for a computer evaluation (Stockfish)
2. Look at the graph and investigate any wild swings in computer analysis
3. Try to understand why a particular move was a blunder

While this seems to work, it's a very negative approach as it doesn't seem to find any *good* moves that I've made. For example, at my level (Blitz ~1230) I might win a game because I laid a trap which my opponent failed to see. Stockfish of course sees through the trap and the evaluation shows I made a suboptimal move even though against this particular opponent it resulted in me winning a piece.

Is there any way to find good moves that I made, rather than just non-mistakes?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Sorry, computer engines are not designed to think like a human. It's a machine, it's written to play strong chess. There is no intelligence in there to think like that.

The "good moves" you mentioned were actually bad moves at Stockfish's level.

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Is there any way to find good moves that I made, rather than just non-mistakes?

Actually, in most cases, it's doing this already. The reason your moves aren't showing up is probably that they're not actually good moves!

> the evaluation shows I made a suboptimal move even though against this particular opponent it resulted in me winning a piece

The computer doesn't care about the "narrative" of the game. It looks at the position and evaluates the moves that are available.

**I recommend picking one move per game that the computer shows as "non-optimal" and asking yourself: *What factors in this position do I need to notice before I'd make this move?***

To answer this question is usually very difficult. There is something about the position that you've missed or misunderstood, and it may take you a few minutes (probably more than 5, it has sometimes taken me more than an hour) of investigation before you figure it out. **That is how you use Chess computers.** They're a tool that can help you evaluate a position. They're not a tool to reassure you that a sub-optimal, albeit romantic, move was actually good.

# Answer
> 2 votes
```
it doesn't seem to find any good moves that I've made

```

You are expecting too much is the real issue here, so don't be so hard on yourself. First, and I do not say this to be mean, but your level of play is going to contain mostly bad moves, but they look that much worse because you are being evaluated by a silicon beast. Keep in mind that Stockfish is FAR superior to the World Champion, so it is going to find better moves on almost every move.

Please try not to take the evaluations so hard. Look at them, but stop beating yourself up over them. I have been a USCF Master for well over 30 years, and Stockfish thinks I am an idiot too. :)

That said, focus on more tactics problems. I was at the high school club I run today, and a few are probably about the same strength as you are, and even one that is better, but the amount of tactical errors is astounding, so keep working on those.

I recommend trying to do 50 per day all within one topic, like pins, skewers, or deflection, for example. Spend no more than two minutes per problem. If you are going to do them online, REALLY try to avoid the mouse until you have really solved it in your head, and are not just moving a piece, and hoping that the computer confirms your "guess". The key is solving not guessing.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If after making a move the engine’s score for the position is virtually unchanged - it’s good move!

# Answer
> 0 votes
Run Stockfish in multi-PV mode. This makes Stockfish suggest multiple moves. If the move you chose is preferred by Stockfish to others, then it's a "good move".

---
Tags: engines, analysis, learning, stockfish, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: In this YouTube video, the author says that 10...f6 "leads to disaster"...Why?
Why is that at 10:44 of the video, 10...f6 leads to a disaster?

https://youtu.be/BrbChWI89ek

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bxd5 Qxd5 8. Nc3 Qa5 9. Nxe4 Be7 10. Bg5 f6?

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
The video's author might be overstating it by calling it a "disaster" as there is no clear knockout blow.

Nevertheless, white is clearly better, and the attack will continue with best play, but it requires accuracy or the extra piece may tell the final tale. White will remain down a piece for two pawns, and will probably win a third in the near future due to the indefensible black king. Here is a couple of sample lines, but since neither side is forced, there are many other possibilities.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bxd5 Qxd5 8. Nc3 Qa5 9. Nxe4 Be7 10. Bg5 f6 11. Nxf6+ gxf6 (11... Kf7 12. Ne4 {And white is not down any material, and the attack will continue. The black king is just too open.} Re8 13. Bxe7 (13. Nxd4 {Or this.} Bd7 14. Bd2 Qb6 15. Qh5+ Kg8 16. Nf3 {Idea Qd5+ and taking the Bd7.} Nb4 17. Neg5 Qg6 18. Qxg6 hxg6 19. Rxe7 Rxe7 20. Bxb4 $18) 13... Rxe7 14. Neg5+ Kg8 (14... Kf8 15. Rxe7 Nxe7 16. Nxh7+ Kg8 17. Nhg5 Bg4 18. Qxd4 Bxf3 19. Nxf3 Qd5 20. Qg4 $18) 15. Qd3 g6 16. Qc4+ Kf8 17. Rxe7 Kxe7 18. Qf7+ Kd8 19. Re1) 12. Bxf6 Rf8 13. Bxe7 Nxe7 14. Qxd4 Qb6 15. Qc3 Bf5 16. Rad1 Rd8 {This is clearly the best move here.} 17. Rxe7+ $1 Kxe7 18. Qe5+ Qe6 19. Qxc7+ Rd7 20. Qc5+ Rd6 21. Re1 Be4 22. Ng5 Qd5 23. Qe3 Qd4 24. Qxe4+ Qxe4 25. Nxe4 {And the position has finally clarified.}

```

---
Tags: opening, analysis, tactics, two-knights
---


title: How can white force a quick win here?

text:
# Question
Title: How can white force a quick win here?
This is from a tactics puzzle I encountered today. The given solution was 1. Qxf6 gxf6 2. Bxf6#,” but to me 1... Ne6 seems to halt white in his tracks, even if it does give up a rook.

My moves as white were clearly not optimal, as it "feels" like there should be a better way for white to bring this game to a checkmate

After 1... Ne6, how should white continue?

```
[FEN "3rrn1k/pp4pb/2pQ1n1p/q3B3/3P3P/1BP3N1/PP3P2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxf6 gxf6 (1... Ne6 2. Bxe6 Rg8 3. Bxg8 Rxg8 4. Qxh6) 2. Bxf6#

```

# Answer
Yes, Ne6 staves off mate, but it does not stave off the loss for long, but more importantly, **it does not demonstrate the main point of the tactic**, which is why they continue with the "worse" gxf6 in the solution.

Technically speaking, the computer thinks that after 1.Qxf6, that 1...Qc7 is the "best" move, in which case, black should just resign anyway after 2.Qxf8+ Rxf8 3.Bxc7.

There was an error in your analysis that lengthens the game also. 3. Bxg8 allows black to take the queen, and win back some of the material, but does not change the outcome.

P.S. This is a common phenomenon, but sometimes in reverse too. You will see site do this, which I believe is correct since you are trying to teach the main point of a tactic; but I have also seen sites use the computer moves as the main line, and thus, miss the point of the tactic from a human perspective.

```
  [FEN "3rrn1k/pp4pb/2pQ1n1p/q3B3/3P3P/1BP3N1/PP3P2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

  1. Qxf6 Ne6 2. Bxe6 Rg8 3. Qf7 {But you are up two pieces, and the attack continues with Nh5 next.} (3. Bxg8 $4 gxf6 4. Bxf6+ Kxg8 5. Bxd8)

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, puzzles, winning, queen-sacrifice
---


title: Contemporary Alekhine Defence Players

text:
# Question
Title: Contemporary Alekhine Defence Players
Recently I started playing Alekhine's Defense and I really like, especially the Scandinavian Variation (the line with strong centralized queen and an annoying knight to kick it around).

I want to know if any current day top players play this opening so that I can study their games for improvement. If they play the Scandinavian variation, then it will be the icing on the cake.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 {The Scandinavian variation.}

```

# Answer
Ivanchuk has played several games in the Scandinavian variation of the Alekhine. You can find the games for example here, if you sort by black Elo.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I searched the Mega 2020 database, and then ordered the results by black's ELO rating, and as you might imagine, there are not many games at the highest levels since so few strong players play the Alekhine's Defense. There are only 5 games where black was rated above 2700 so you are not going to have a lot of high-level study material.

It is also hard to make any real determination about the opening since most of the games were in blitz, and in the two that were not, there was a great disparity in the levels of the players, so take that into account when deciding on your repertoire.

Wesley So played it once by transposition in blitz: 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.e4 d5. Other than that, Ivanchuk played it three times, but two games were in blitz, and Giri once OTB. Nakamura (also in blitz) and Kortchnoi (draw vs. Hug) both played it once as 2600-players.

```
 [Event "chess.com Speed"]
 [Site "chess.com INT"]
 [Date "2019.10.03"]
 [Round "1.21"]
 [White "Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar"]
 [Black "So, Wesley"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "B02"]
 [WhiteElo "2767"]
 [BlackElo "2767"]
 [PlyCount "50"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. Nc3 Nf6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 d4 4. Nce2 Nfd7 5. e6 Nf6 6. exf7+ Kxf7 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. Nf4 e5 9. Bc4+ Ke8 10. Ne6 Bxe6 11. Bxe6 Qe7 12. Bb3 e4 13. Ng5 d3 14. O-O Nd4 15. cxd3 exd3 16. Bf7+ Kd8 17. Bc4 Qc5 18. Nf7+ Ke8 19. Re1+ Be7 20. b3 Rf8 21. Re5 Ne2+ 22. Kf1 Qd4 23. Ba3 Ng8 24. Bxd3 Rxf7 25. Qxe2 Qxa1+ 0-1

```

And the Giri game.

```
 [Event "EU-Cup 28th"]
 [Site "Eilat"]
 [Date "2012.10.14"]
 [Round "4.2"]
 [White "Galego, Luis"]
 [Black "Giri, Anish"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "B02"]
 [WhiteElo "2485"]
 [BlackElo "2730"]
 [PlyCount "52"]
 [EventDate "2012.10.11"]
 [EventType "team-swiss"]
 [EventRounds "7"]
 [EventCountry "ISR"]
 [WhiteTeam "Jutes of Kent"]
 [BlackTeam "SHSM-64"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "ENG"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "RUS"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 c6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 7. d3 e6 8. Ne4 Nd7 9. Ng3 Bb4+ 10. Kf1 Bg6 11. Qe2 Be7 12. Bd2 a5 13. h4 h6 14. Bxd5 cxd5 15. Bc3 O-O 16. a4 Rc8 17. h5 Bh7 18. Nd4 Bf6 19. Nb5 e5 20. Nd6 Rc6 21. Ndf5 d4 22. Be1 Kh8 23. Kg1 Re8 24. Kh2 Bg5 25. Bd2 Bxd2 26. Qxd2 Qf6 0-1

```

The most recent Ivanchuk game.

```
 [Event "EU-Cup 32nd"]
 [Site "Novi Sad"]
 [Date "2016.11.09"]
 [Round "4.1"]
 [White "Petenyi, Tamas"]
 [Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "B02"]
 [WhiteElo "2443"]
 [BlackElo "2733"]
 [PlyCount "68"]
 [EventDate "2016.11.06"]
 [EventType "team-swiss"]
 [EventRounds "7"]
 [EventCountry "SRB"]
 [WhiteTeam "Dunajska Streda"]
 [BlackTeam "Ashdod"]
 [WhiteTeamCountry "SVK"]
 [BlackTeamCountry "ISR"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 Nfd7 4. e6 fxe6 5. d4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 g6 8. h4 Bg7 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Ng5 Nf6 11. h5 gxh5 12. Bf4 O-O 13. Be5 Qe8 14. Nf3 cxd4 15. Bxd4 e5 16. Bxe5 Qg6 17. Qe2 Bg4 18. O-O-O Bh6+ 19. Kb1 Nd7 20. Bg3 e5 21. Qa6 Bf5 22. Nh4 Bxc2+ 23. Ka1 Qf6 24. Rde1 e4 25. Qe2 Bd3 26. Qxh5 Bg7 27. Qg4 Ne5 28. Bxe5 Qxe5 29. Rh3 Rf4 30. Qg3 Raf8 31. Ng6 hxg6 32. Qxg6 Qf6 33. Qh7+ Kf7 34. Qh5+ Qg6 0-1

```

And a couple of games from 2016 by Ivanchuk.

```
 [Event "Beijing Sportaccord blitz"]
 [Site "Beijing"]
 [Date "2014.12.13"]
 [Round "30"]
 [White "Harikrishna, Pentala"]
 [Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "B02"]
 [WhiteElo "2727"]
 [BlackElo "2704"]
 [PlyCount "92"]
 [EventDate "2014.12.13"]
 [EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
 [EventRounds "30"]
 [EventCountry "CHN"]
 [EventCategory "20"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Nf3 g6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 Nb6 7. O-O Nc6 8. a4 a5 9. Nb5 O-O 10. d4 Be6 11. Re1 Bd5 12. Bf4 Rc8 13. c3 Qd7 14. b3 Rfd8 15. Qc2 e6 16. Rad1 Ne7 17. Bg5 c6 18. Na3 h6 19. Bf4 Nf5 20. h4 Qe7 21. Qb2 c5 22. dxc5 Qxc5 23. Nb5 Bxc3 24. Nxc3 Qxc3 25. Qe2 Qxb3 26. Rb1 Bxf3 27. Bxf3 Qa3 28. Bxb7 Nd5 29. Be5 Nc3 30. Qc2 Nxb1 31. Bxc8 Nd2 32. Bb7 Qb4 33. Rd1 Qxb7 34. Rxd2 Rxd2 35. Qxd2 Qb6 36. Bc3 e5 37. Bxe5 Qc5 38. Bc3 Kh7 39. Bxa5 Nxg3 40. Qe3 Qxa5 41. Qxg3 Qxa4 42. Kg2 Qe4+ 43. Kh2 h5 44. Kg1 Qg4 45. Qxg4 hxg4 46. Kg2 Kh6 0-1

```

And the only loss in the group.

```
 [Event "Beijing Sportaccord blitz"]
 [Site "Beijing"]
 [Date "2014.12.13"]
 [Round "2"]
 [White "Radjabov, Teimour"]
 [Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B02"]
 [WhiteElo "2734"]
 [BlackElo "2704"]
 [PlyCount "56"]
 [EventDate "2014.12.13"]
 [EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
 [EventRounds "30"]
 [EventCountry "CHN"]
 [EventCategory "20"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Nf3 g6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 Nb6 7. O-O Nc6 8. a4 a5 9. d4 O-O 10. Be3 Bf5 11. Qe2 Nb4 12. Rac1 c6 13. Ne5 N6d5 14. Nxd5 Nxd5 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. Bc3 Rad8 17. Rfe1 Rfe8 18. h3 h5 19. Rcd1 Qc7 20. Rc1 c5 21. dxc5 Nxc3 22. bxc3 Qxc5 23. c4 b6 24. Qe3 Qxe3 25. Rxe3 Rd2 26. Nc6 Kf8 27. Rb3 Bd7 28. c3 Bxc6 1-0

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, famous-players, alekhines-defense
---


title: Can Black reach full equality?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black reach full equality?
```
[FEN "r3kb1r/ppqn1ppp/2p1pn2/4Nb2/2BP4/2N5/PPPBQPPP/2KR3R b kq - 0 10"]

```

This position is taken from super GM game, so I am fully aware that Black might be busted here and that this question might remain unanswered. Please try to post only relevant comments and answers, i.e. ones that demonstrate a path to equality for Black.

# Answer
> 7 votes
First, black is hardly busted here, and Stockfish 11 confirms this with both 10...Be7 and 10...b5 being 0.00 at a depth of 30. 10...Bb4 is also reasonable. That said, as I force in the moves it believes are best, it eventually sometimes thinks white has a slight pull, which is not surprising given the clear space advantage. At the same time, in practice, per the Mega 2020 database, the white wins 72.3% of the time from this position, so unless you play like a computer, you still may lose, and there are a virtually infinite set of possibilities for white to play while black is walking a fine line all the way. This is a line I would try to avoid in practice, and keep out of my repertoire as a matter of course.

I do not play the Scandinavian, but I have played the Caro-Kann for a long time, and this is very similar to one of the main lines, and what I can say about both is that white has more space, and that is not going away for a while, and thus this is always a little uncomfortable for black...a typical plus-equals position. In both, black must finish development, especially securing the king here since it is vulnerable to tactics, and then eventually break back with c5. Other times, it ends up an opposite-side attack.

Most players here have played 10...Nxe5, which is horrible from both a Stockfish perspective at +1.3, and a winning percentage perspective at 82.2% for white. It is not a good move in a practical game as it solidifies white's space advantage with tempo, and puts the Bf5 at risk immediately to 10...Nxe5 11. dxe5 Nd5 12. g4 Bg6 13. f4 with a solid advantage.

You cannot get a 100% answer to your question as it is too early in the opening to say as it is with virtually every reasonable opening where white has a small space advantage. It will always feel like white has a small advantage until it eventually levels out...or doesn't. That is chess.

This is very close to equal, and super GMs would hold it, so the way I would play it is the solid 10...Be7. After that, there are basically two plans for white. To move the Bc4 to b3, playing prophylactically, or to play Rhe1, and eventually expand on the kingside.

There are an incredible amount of possibilities here, but this will give you a place to start.

P.S. In a position like this, and this one is not unique, there are so many reasonable lines that it is unclear which is best for the stronger side, and thus, there are literally millions of possibilities from the moment you play 10...Be7 in just the next few moves. In cases like this, now that you have a place to start, you will need to spend a lot of time on your own with a computer not just to get a few more specific lines, but also to get a feel for the plans and move orders that may occur. Since you cannot possibly memorize every possibility, you are almost certainly going to end up on your own sooner than later, and what you need to develop is a sense of HOW to play the position correctly.

```
 [FEN ""]

  1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd2 Nbd7 8. Qe2 Qc7 9. O-O-O e6 10. Ne5 Be7 11. Bb3 {Prophylactically avoiding b5.} (11. Rhe1 O-O 12. Bf4 Bd6 13. Kb1 Nd5 {And this is equal but for the one move I cannot imagine anyone playing.} 14. Bxd5 exd5 15. Nxd7 Bxd7 16. Bxd6 Qxd6 17. Qe7 Qc7 $14 {But it is the smallest of edges as rooks will soon be traded.}) 11... h5 $1 {Securing the Bf5 from g4.} 12. Bf4 Bd6 13. Rhe1 a5 {Equal per the computer, and with good counterplay.}

```

Here are some lines based on your supplemental questions in the comments.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd2 Nbd7 8. Qe2 Qc7 9. O-O-O e6 10. Ne5 Be7 11. f3 (11. f4 $6 {This is just too slow, and leads to black being better.} b5 12. Bd3 (12. Bb3 h5 13. Rde1 {And if the computer thinks that this is best, something has definitely gone wrong for white.} Nb6 $17) (12. g4 Nxe5 13. fxe5 Nxg4 14. Bd3 (14. Bb3 a5 $17) 14...Bxd3 15. cxd3 h5 $15) 12... Bxd3 13. Nxd3 b4 $15) (11. h4 {Again, too slow.} b5 12. Bd3 Bxd3 13. Nxd3 a5=) (11. h3 b5 12. Bb3 (12. g4 Bxc2 13. Bxe6 Bxd1 14. Bxf7+ Kf8 15. Rxd1 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Kxf7 17. exf6 Bxf6= {Up an exchange, but white has activity. It is dynamically equal.} 18. Qf3 (18. g5 Be5 19. Qf3+ Kg8 20. Qe4 {Transposes.}) 18... Kg8 19. g5 Be5 20. Qe4 Rd8 21. Kc2 Qe7 22. f4 Bd6) 12... a5 13. g4 Bg6 14. g5 (14. Nxg6 hxg6 15. a4 b4 16. Ne4 Nxe4 17. Qxe4 Nf6 $14 {White has maybe the tiniest of edges here. The Bb3 is not really well-placed.}) 14... Nd5 15. Bxd5 $1 (15. Nxd5 exd5 16. Nxg6 hxg6 17. Rde1 Nb6 18. a3 a4 19. Ba2 Kd8 20. h4 Bd6=) 15... exd5 16. Bf4 Qb7 17. Rhe1 (17. Nd3 Bxd3 18. Rxd3 Nf8 19. Be5 Ng6 20. Bxg7 Nf4 21. Qd2 Nxd3+ 22. Qxd3 Rg8 23. Qxh7 Bxg5+ 24. f4 $3 {To lure the B to a square that Qf5+ is a threat later.} (24. Kb1 $2 O-O-O 25. Qf5+ Qd7 26. Qxg5 f6 27. Qxf6 Rxg7 $17) 24... Bxf4+ 25. Kb1 O-O-O 26. Bf6 Bd6 27. Bxd8 Rxd8 28. Rf1 Rf8 $14 {But almost equal.}) 17... O-O $1 18. Nxg6 fxg6 19. Qxe7 Rxf4 $14 {But black has good counterplay against the weak pawns.}) 11... h5 12. Bf4 (12. Bd3 {The computer likes this move, but I cannot imagine that it gives white a lot.} Bxd3 13. Nxd3 b5=) 12... b5 13. Bb3 (13. Ng6 Bd6 14. Bxd6 Qxd6 15. Nxh8 bxc4 {And Ke7 next.}) 13... Bd6 14. Kb1 a5 {With complicated play for both sides that the computer says it equal.}

```

---
Tags: opening, analysis, scandinavian-defense
---


title: Moving f6 pawn in Max Lange Attack

text:
# Question
Title: Moving f6 pawn in Max Lange Attack
In the position at 14:28 of this video, why can't black just make the move f6? I wish to know as it was stated in the video that black will lose the other rook.

```
[FEN "2k3r1/ppp1qpPp/2n1b3/2b3B1/2ppN1P1/8/PPP2P1P/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
After `f6` White takes with the bishop and Black loses a piece (bishop on `c5` since `d6` square is attacked by the white knight and `f8` is attacked by the white pawn; no other piece is protecting the bishop).
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, italian-game
---