# Question
Title: Shortest stalemate in serious tournament game
I am looking for the shortest stalemate that has occurred in a serious chess game (there were no agreements between the players). So far, I have found only compositions, but is there a real game where stalemate has happened within the first 30 moves?

# Answer
Yes, there has been a stalemate in a serious game that is under 30 moves long. According to Tim Krabbe's "Chess Records," the fastest such game happened in 27 moves.

```
[Title "Sibilio-Mariotti, Ravenna, 1982"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e5 c5 4. b4 cxb4 5. d4 Nh6 6. a3 bxa3 7. c3 Nf5 8. Nxa3 Nc6 9. Nb5 a6 10. g4 Bd7 11. Bg5 Be7 12. gxf5 axb5 13. fxe6 fxe6 14. Rxa8 Qxa8 15. Rg1 Qa3 16. Bxb5 Bxg5 17. Rxg5 Qxc3+ 18. Kf1 O-O 19. Bxc6 Bxc6 20. Kg2 Ba4 21. Qe2 Bc2 22. Ne1 Bxe4+ 23. f3 Rxf3 24. Nxf3 Bxf3 25. Qxf3 Qd2+ 26. Kh3 Qxg5 27. Qf8+ Kxf8

```
> 41 votes

---
Tags: famous-players, stalemate, records, famous-games
---


title: What's the origin of chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What's the origin of chess?
I have heard numerous times that stated that India was the inventors of the original chess. I have also heard that the origin was in the Middle East. Sometimes I heard that the origin was in Arabia. As I have heard many things I wanted to know the right answer. If there is no right answer, please give the closest guess.

# Answer
I agree with the comment that the question is too broad.

However, in the spirit of helpfulness, these pages:

https://www.chess.com/blog/jim\_ostler/history-of-chess12

http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Chess.htm

http://www.chessmaniac.com/the-etymology-of-chess/

https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-chess-and-how

http://www.chessdryad.com/articles/wcc/transcribed/origin.htm

may be useful in addition to Wikipedia.
> 2 votes

# Answer
agree..broad ?..info for fun. There are 13 different claims to the origin of chess. No proof. Earliest documentation--600 A.D. Chaturanga - 4 sided game in what is now India. In this authors opinion chess was originally a 2 player game changed to a 4 player game then back to a 2 sided game. Trivia-the one peice that has not changed apperance or move pattern-knight..last major rule changes....Q & O-O..France 1400s. Source "A Short History of Chess" by Henry A. Davidson m.d.1949
> 3 votes

# Answer
There is no definite answer, but the most likely place was the Middle East.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: history
---


title: Script for finding undefended pieces

text:
# Question
Title: Script for finding undefended pieces
I am looking for a script/code/CQL that searches for undefended pieces in a given position. I know that is possible to do it in the python chess library, but that is too complicated for me.

Is there any easy way?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Shouldn't something like the folowing be good enough? (\* stands for however you check that `potentialDefendingPiece`can move to `piece`'s square)

```
for (piece in WhitePieces) {
  defended = false;
  for (potentialDefendingPiece in WhitePieces) {
    if(*)
     defended = true
  }
}

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can use "Chess Query Language" for coding this, as it will be quicker to work with and easier to understand.

---
Tags: programming, cql
---


# Question
Title: Should a chess engine be aware of opposite-side castling?
I often hear chess experts and chess articles say that when opposite side castling occurs on the board that it is important to launch an attack on the enemy player as fast as possible. Up to the point where giving up a couple pawns or a piece could be justified.

In other words, it seems like castling opposite sides changes the dynamic of the game. How much this change is I'm not sure of. So here is my question:

> Is opposite side castling significant enough that a chess engine should think about such positions differently from how it would normally?

For example, a chess engine could lower the importance of material and up the importance of king safety in its evaluation when opposite castling occurs.

# Answer
> 38 votes
I'm pretty sure Stockfish doesn't have explicit code that handles opposite-side castling. What it does have is:

* Some kind of "menace" score for enemy pawns advancing against our king. The closer they get, the more dangerous Stockfish thinks they are.
* Some kind of "pawn shield" score for friendly pawns in front of our king. The fewer there are, the more dangerous Stockfish thinks the position is.

Therefore you get kind of a balancing act: if we castle on the same side, then we could advance our pawns against their king (getting the "menace bonus"), but it would reduce our pawn shield (and therefore losing the "pawn shield bonus"). The converse does not hold in opposite side castling, which therefore encourages the engine to push pawns against the enemy king.

Of course, the details are more complicated than this, but that's the gist.

# Answer
> 16 votes
Interesting question. I think it depends on how much bottom-up intelligence the engine has. For example, AlphaZero was given no explicit heuristics, but was able to infer plenty of strategy by playing itself millions of times and learning that way.

An engine with explicit heuristics can also exhibit additional strategies you didn't program into it. As a non-chess example, I've programmed a Connect Four engine with a number of heuristics. Using these and its search algorithm, it then tended to favour clumping pieces together in the centre when given the opportunity. While you might argue the engine doesn't necessarily "understand" this bottom up behaviour it's doing here (does a program really understand anything it does?), it's still playing so that for all intents and purposes, it values clumping pieces in the centre.

In my opinion, if a chess engine is able to infer some heuristic A (or behave *as if* it understands this heuristic, even if it's just bottom-up behaviour), given a set of explicit heuristics X, then the question comes down to whether you can describe A better than the engine would understand it on its own. If you're making your own chess engine then I think it's best to make some explicit heuristic for opposite-side castling. For the top engines though I'm not sure whether or not they do this, for the reasons discussed. It might be hard to understand the raised importance of king safety without calculating far ahead and seeing pawn storms happen, so it's reasonable to think these engines would have something given to them about opposite-side castling.

# Answer
> 7 votes
I'd like to make explicit a point that's been hinted at by the existing answers.

I'm from an AI, not specifically a chess, background. The usual approach to problems in games like this is to treat the game as a Markov process: a system in which future states are (maybe probabilistically) determined entirely by the current state, with no need for an explicit "memory" of how one arrived at the current state. Everything there is to know is represented in the observed board state.

In this context, a chess engine wouldn't need to be aware of any history at all. Maybe the players just randomly placed pieces on the board until they arrived at the current board state: the engine doesn't know or care if it was switched on mid-game or whatever, it doesn't rely on remembering anyone's past moves. This makes sense: suppose your engine *did* pay extra attention to the fact that opposite-side castling occurred. How long should that matter for? Should we learn separate evaluations for "the pieces are here, and OSC occurred \[1, 2, 5...\] turns ago"?

Humans playing human opponents may develop a model of opponent psychology: maybe you can tell your opponent's attention is fixated on a certain part of the board, or predict what they're planning based on their prior moves, their tempo, the decisiveness with which they handle the pieces. For a computer to consider this would require adding far too much extra uncertainty and supposition into a problem that's already really really hard just from the board state combinatorics--assuming you could even find a way to communicate those factors to the computer. And learning from it would mean learning *bad data about board position*--because the computer would have to separate the learned model of its (individual) opponent's psychology from the learned evaluation of how good a particular board position is.

Instead the computer plays like one of those chess masters who plays 15 different opponents at once: by ignoring the history of the game and just making moves based on where things are now.

My guess is that the chess experts you're alluding to are giving a heuristic for evaluating board states. Now, it's possible to imagine an engine which looks at board states and classifies them according to various properties: "OSC has occurred," "\[I/my opponent\] control\[s\] the center of the board," etc., and then predicts moves based on those properties as features (to reduce the overwhelming combinatorial complexity of board states & capture some of their natural symmetries). You now have two learning problems: first, how to identify a board state that meets a given heuristic; and second, how to use that set of heuristics to determine how to play. This might have been interesting twenty years ago, but it looks like the state of the art is past that (although this is probably happening in some sense in neural network-based chess engines; but as is typical for neural networks, we humans don't recognize anything coherent in the features that are learned in the middle layers of the network.)

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Is opposite side castling significant enough that a chess engine should think about such positions differently from how it would normally?

I'm not sure your question makes sense. Obviously, a chess engine should take into account the game state. Opposite side castling is part of the game state. So obviously it should influence the evaluation. But what does it mean to "think about such positions differently from how it would normally?" Like, the engine does a "general" evaluation that doesn't take into account opposite side castling, and then "adds in" a factor that takes into account opposite side castling? What would that mean? That there's been opposite side castling is part of the position. What would it mean to to evaluate the position except for the fact that there's been opposite side castling? I guess if your basic analysis just looks at material strength, and doesn't look at position, then adding in opposite side castling could be useful, but any engine advanced enough to be at all competitive is already going to be deeply positional.

---
Tags: engines, castling, evaluation
---


title: Why develop knights before bishops?

text:
# Question
Title: Why develop knights before bishops?
So, I've found the general advice that you should develop your knights before your bishops. Reasons I think are: 1) The knights almost always go to the main squares (c3,c6,f3,f6) (or sometimes to d7 the black knight in the queen's gambit) but, generally, you know in advance that you are likely to want your knights there. However, the bishops you don't want to commit to a square and "reveal" your intentions.

Of course this rule has a lot of exceptions, starting with the ruy lopez Bb5, italian game Bc4 are better for white than 3 Nc3.

But I've seen this rule for example here1. In that quora question, 5 answers reference my intuition that i describe below. Here also argues that while not universal, it is recommended normally. Other authority sources were founded using this article , in that , it can be found that Emmanuel Lasker and Reuben both recommend it:

> Bring out your knights before developing the bishops.

Intuition: is not to commit /reveal information by moving the bishop, and since the knight has almost only 1 great square in most openings (c3,f3,c6,f6) then there is nothing to hide and sooner or later it will be needed there, so just move right now. Keeps the bishop options open.

# Answer
Commitment (versus flexibility) indeed is the main reason for this piece of advice. In particular:

* The first moves are (usually) all about fighting for control over the center. The knights are superior to the bishops in that regard because from their "natural" development squares, they have access to 2 of the central squares (e.g. **a knight on f3 reaches both d4 and e5 - attacking and defending the center at the same time**), while the bishops can control at most one (e.g. **Be3 reaches d4 and Bf4 reaches e5, so the bishop can only attack *or* defend the center, but not both**) *unless* they are fianchetto'ed, but that has the cost of two moves to develop instead of one.
* Half of the options to develop the bishops in one move (Bf4, Bg5, Bc4, Bb5) makes them **vulnerable to the opponent's pawns** (Be2, Bd2, Be3 and Bd3 are safe) which might cause you to lose tempo, while the developed knights are usually safe from pawn attacks after their first move.
* **a bishop may attack a developed knight on the bishop's first move** (e.g. 2...Nc6 3. Bb5), **a knight cannot attack a developed bishop on the knight's first move**. This slightly increases the value of developing the bishops only after a few moves.
* never forget that this is just a broad **rule of thumb**, and there actually is a perpendicular one: To develop the pieces of one wing (typically kingside) before those of the other to enable you to castle as soon as possible. You will very often see the bishop on f1 to be developed before the knight on b1 (e.g. in the Ruy Lopez or Giuoco Piano), contradicting the rule to develop knights before bishops. From the fact that these two openings are by far more popular than the Four Knights, you can tell that these moves are very strong regardless!
> 7 votes

# Answer
Another reason besides what you stated: The Bishops can work from home. What I mean by that is when the e/d pawns are out of the way the Bishops are already influencing enemy territory.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I would also add to what you wrote that you start with less valuable pieces, so you don't have to worry about them being exchanged. You wouldn't probably start with Rf3 if Bg4 pin was possible. Also bishop on c1 is active even from that square and it's often developed mainly because of the rook on a1. In quite some lines of Ruy-Lopez the rook is developed with a4 so bishop c1 doesn't even have to move. For example Zaitsev line. There's even more obvious example in Breyer Ruy-Lopez for black. You play like Be7 0-0 Re8 Bf8. Obviously you don't make moves with the bishop here to develop him, but to develop other pieces. It's long range piece worried about being exchanged for knight, they like to stay far from battlefield, using their rifle...
> 2 votes

# Answer
Knights are better "skirmish" pieces than bishops. They are "powerful" (compared to pawns), but operate at short range. They typically need two moves to get to their best (strategic) locations(typically on the 5th or 4th ranks). So they need to get an early start.

Bishops are "distance" pieces. I compare them to archers (and rooks to artillery). They can have a powerful impact on the board after only one move.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Besides the fact of keeping options for the development square of your bishops, another reason lies in the fact that you prefer to use knights right away for center control because if you use bishop and have some reason to trade it against an opponent's knight, you lost the bishop pair. Yet another reason though is the fact that the bishop can't control the center square on your side when developped on move 2. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, the knight controls d4 and attacks e5. If black plays d6 for instance, you can play 3.d4. The bishop on c4 would only control d5, and the other bishop that could control d4 can t be developped yet. It's more important in games with 1.e4 (open game, sicilian) but it's often true as well in 1.d4 games. Of course in openings where both side decide to delay their control of the center, the move order may matter less. For instance after 1.c4 c5, besides the usual 2.Nc3 and 2.Nf3, 2.g3 is very playable as well (and if 2....Nf6 then 3.Nc3, but if 2...g6 then 3.Bg2 is ok).
> 1 votes

# Answer
In openings, pawn structure is usually fluid; i.e., a closed diagonal might suddenly open up, and vice versa. A bishop may be blocked by pawn movements, so it must find a better diagonal. However, knights aren't affected by such - both side have same-strength knights. Thus, it is best to develop bishops only if the pawn structure is clarified(for example, in the exchange French).
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think this might have some value for someone who is playing her very first chess games, but it has not to be taken too seriously, especially if we see GMs and World Champions play, as White, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4, or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4.

It's like the advices that say "Castle as soon as you can"... or "Don't move the Queen too early". I hope you get the idea...
> 0 votes

# Answer
I think one aspect of the "guideline" or "suggestion" to develop the knight first is a subtlety aimed at the closed center. As we all know, knights(well positioned) work better in a closed position. To a degree, white with 2. Nf3 Can be said to be waiting to see what black plays next which could decide the placement of the Bishop for white. As far as these guidelines and GM play they know the how/when/why that these guidelines do not apply *in specific positions*.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I knew a very strong player whose advice was to develop Bishops before Knights and who successfully followed this principle himself. His justification was that you were more likely to get your opponent out of their book.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, development
---


title: Canal Attack Stockfish Indication

text:
# Question
Title: Canal Attack Stockfish Indication
Apparently, Stockfish on depth 22 states that the Canal Attack is the best opening after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6. Is something wrong with Stockfish?

# Answer
First of all, stockfish and other chess engines don't have the best reputation of being good at openings, often misevaluating this particular phase of the game. Second of all, Canal attackis perfectly respectable opening. After e4 c5 Nf3 d6, at depth 30, I get 0.53 d4 0.44 Nc3 0.40 Bb5+(canal)

with these three constantly changing positions at different depths. Just so happens that at depth 30, d4 was the most favored, but on 31, my engine switches to Nc3, for example. They are all perfectly reasonable moves, but its not like you can just turn on the engine and expect it give you a verdict about which of the three moves I mentioned are the best.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, sicilian-defense
---


title: Bird's Defense Deferred

text:
# Question
Title: Bird's Defense Deferred
In the Bird's Defense Deferred in the Ruy Lopez(1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nd4), why can't White take the e5-pawn?

# Answer
In the case of 5.Nxe5 Qe7 6.f4 b5, Black will meet both 7.c3 and 7.Bb3? with 7...d6. E.g., 7.c3 d6 8.cxd4 dxe5 is apparently around equal.

A better response for White is 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.0-0. This is an improved version (for White) of the Bird's Defense, since now ...c6 won't come with tempo. In the normal Bird's Defense with the bishop on b5, ...c6 was a key resource.
> 4 votes

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


title: Finding a Seirawan game

text:
# Question
Title: Finding a Seirawan game
I am looking for a game played by Seirawan. I remember in the position that Black was heading for a Botvinnik formation(c5 and e5 but without d6 yet), and White had sacrificed a knight on e5 for an attack. I am 80% sure that Seirawan was Black.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Probably this one:

```
[FEN ""]
[Site "it"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Granda Zuniga Julio E PER"]
[Black "Seirawan, Yasser"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2595"]
[ECO "A30h"]
[NIC "EO 40.6.2"]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.O-O Nc6 7.e4 e5 8.d3 g6 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.f4 Nc6 11.e5 Ng8 12.f5 Nh6 13.Ne4 Nxf5 14.Nf6+ Ke7 15.Nd5+ Ke8 16.Nf6+ Ke7 17.g4 Nfd4 18.Qe1 Qb8 19.Nd5+ Kd8 20.Bg5+ Kc8 21.Rxf7 Ne6 22.Bf6 Ncd8 23.Re7 Rg8 24.Re8 Bc6 25.Bxd8 Nxd8 26.Nf6 Rh8 27.Bxc6 dxc6 28.Qe4 Qc7 29.e6 Bg7 30.e7 Rxe8 31.Nxe8 Bd4+ 32.Kh1 Qd7 33.Nd6+ Qxd6 34.e8=Q a5 35.Rf1 Ra7 36.Rf8 Rd7 37.Q4e6 Qxe6 38.Qxe6 Kc7 39.Qe2 Bg7 40.Rf2 Bd4 41.Rf3 Nf7 42.Rf4 Nd6 43.Kg2 Nc8 44.b3 Re7 45.Re4 Rf7 46.Qe1 Rd7 47.Qg3+ Kb7 48.Re6 Bc3 49.Qf3 Nd6 50.Qf8 Nc8 51.Re8 Rc7 52.Rd8 Bg7 53.Qe8 Bf6 54.Rxc8 1-0

```

---
Tags: famous-games
---


title: Relation between checkers and chess

text:
# Question
Title: Relation between checkers and chess
After watching GM Vasyl Ivanchuk's victory against GM Baadur Jobava in checkers, I have a question in my mind:

**Is it possible to relate checkers with the tactical knowledge of chess? If so, how?**

# Answer
> 4 votes
While tactical skills (calculating accurately several moves ahead) can definitely translate, everything else is completely different

# Answer
> 1 votes
Checkers is at the point where it is all memorization. For Fischer chess was too close to that for him to really enjoy it any more.

For most of us chess still has enough problems to solve to keep us interested.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Checkers can in no means be related to Chess. CHECKERS HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED - i.e., there is an algorithm that can produce optimal moves from any position, and the algorithm states that the person with the first move wins with best play by both sides. So all a person has got to do is to memorise a few lines and walk up to a checkers tournament and immediately claim first place.

Chess is different in the fact that games still mostly end in wins/losses. There are still many aspects in chess which are unsolvable which keeps chess alive and enjoyable.

---
Tags: learning, tactics, psychology
---


title: Games won by the stalemated player?

text:
# Question
Title: Games won by the stalemated player?
Here is a quote from Davidson's "*A short history of chess*" (Link), chapter 8, which I used in an answer to an earlier question.

> \[...\] In Italy, however, from the very beginning, players could not accept stalemate as a victory for anybody. They argued that since no legal move was possible, the game simply stopped. Consequently in medieval Europe four different stalemate rules were simultaneously in effect, and travelling players had to agree in advance as to whether they were playing by the Spanish (victory for White), French (forfeited move for Black), British (victory for Black), or Italian (drawn game) rules. The Italian practice eventually spread throughout the Continent, partly because of the tremendous influence which Italy exercised on all European culture, partly because of the fame of Italian chess players, and partly because the rule seemed inherently logical. By the end of the eighteenth century every part of Europe (except Britain) had agreed that stalemate was a drawn game.

So in Britain for a long time stalemate was actually a win for the stalemated player.

**Question**: Are there any records of historical chess games from Britain ending with a win by stalemate for the stalemated player?

Here is a bit more context from Wikipedia:

> The rule in England from about 1600 to 1800 was that stalemate was a loss for the player administering it, a rule that the eminent chess historian H. J. R. Murray believes may have been adopted from Russian chess (Murray 1913:60–61,466). That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game (Murray 1913:391).

# Answer
You can search up Armageddon games on chessgames.com or any other database. Black always has drawing odds in those games, so there's bound to be games where black wins by getting stalemated.
> 1 votes

# Answer
It seems strange that stalemated games may be won, but there is another case.

White stalemates Black but neglects to stop the clock. Black 'stares in bewilderment' at the position. White is happy that he managed to draw. Suddenly, the chess clock starts beeping. White jumps up in surprise, to see that he hadn't completed his move! His time had run out just before the end of the game.

Thus, we see that the stalemated player may win.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, history, stalemate
---


title: Where is the blunder that White made?

text:
# Question
Title: Where is the blunder that White made?
```
[Event "the_meayhi vs. oxygen2020"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2020-08-16"]
[White "the_meayhi"]
[Black "oxygen2020"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "810"]
[BlackElo "1032"]
[TimeControl "blitz"]
[Termination "the_meayhi won by resignation"]
[fen ""]

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5 3. dxc5 e6 4. Bxb8 Rxb8 5. e3 Bxc5 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Nf3 Bd6 8. Qd4 O-O 9. Bd3 a6 10. Qh4 g6 11. Ng5 h5 12. g4 Nf5 13. Bxf5 1-0

```

Despite the result of the game, te chess.com engine says that White blundered. It also says that one player was winning and blundered it away. What do those mean?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Your last move **13.Bxf5** leaves you with a much smaller advantage than **13.gxf5**, that's what the engine is counting as a "blunder" (some of the previous moves have smaller mistakes, but none of them should be counted as "blunders")

# Answer
> 6 votes
13.Bxf5?? is a blunder because 13.gxf5 wins a piece. In other words, by playing 13.gxf5! White has a winning game. When the computer detects a big change, like a change from an even or near even game to a winning/losing game, it considers the move that caused the change to be a blunder.

---
Tags: engines, analysis
---


title: Resources on the Bogo-Indian opening

text:
# Question
Title: Resources on the Bogo-Indian opening
I'm looking for good resources to learning the Bogo-Indian opening:

```
 [FEN ""]
 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+.

```

For background purposes, I play at around the 1750 elo level. I like closed positions (I play the Caro-Kann & Slav defence as Black, & always open with 1. d4 as White). Lastly, I'm motivated to learn the Bogo-Indian because I'd like to avoid the Nimzo-Indian.

Thanks in advance!

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is a moderate chapter on it in Boris Avrukh's 1.d4 Volume 2, you can download a pdf excerpt from the website to see.

And the Sielecki book is at the time of writing (Nov 24 2014) not out yet (Jan 31 2015).

Other than that there aren't many decent works on this, and if so, most of them are outdated, scanning through databases and viewing GM games (preferably with annotations) can help a lot though.

There are also various videos on youtube, just search up the opening name

A Chessbase DVD by IM Andrew Martin covers it solely

Alternatively you can check the Chess Publishing Forum

# Answer
> 2 votes
One of my favorite chess you-tuber's - IM Christof Sielecki has written a book on it: Opening Repertoire: Nimzo and Bogo Indian http://www.amazon.com/dp/1781941092/

It would be worth to take a look at it!

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Complete Bogo-Indian Defense by International Master Maxim Chetverik is a pretty good resource. Here is the link.

https://www.newinchess.com/the-complete-bogo-indian-defense

---
Tags: opening, bogo-indian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Analysis of positional play by a very aggressive player
After checking that it was okay to seek analysis on this site, I decided to post this recent game against a 1950 (I was white, 1650) with post-game annotations (forgive my excess rambling). I think it was quite an interesting game, as it featured a very uncommon opening, and an attempt (successful) at playing solid, positional chess. I think the unconventional ideas used in this game will be helpful to those here who play 1.d4 or the Nimzo as black, or in general for people who don't like to study openings. **I'm looking for criticism of the game: strategy, opening, etc. and/or my analysis**. If this question is deemed not productive for the site, do let me know, so that I can delete it.

**EDIT:** Please refrain from posting computer analysis. As I've said, I'm looking for improvements in the strategy/opening/personal analysis. Its fine to use engines to go over the game, but if you find improvements, please explain why its an improvement (i.e. strategically; don't post a 10 move computer line to explain it).

**The Opening (Nimzo-Indian, Kmoch variation):** This was the first time I have played this opening ins a serious match.

**1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4**

The dreaded Nimzo-Indian. Since I have had terrible results playing classically against it in blitz, I decided to try something very unorthodox.

**4. f3 d5**

To make sure the pesky Bishop harassed my Knight no further.

**5. Qb3 Be7**

Perhaps a more aggressive approach by Black, which I would've gladly welcomed. (5. .. c5 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Bg5)

**6. Nh3**

For two reasons: I told a teammate (jokingly) that I would play Nh3 in my game, and because it supports the idea of controlling e4 via f2 along with the f3 Pawn

**6. . .O-O 7. Bg5 c6 8. Nf2 Na6**

Cheeky, but very logical. Most of Black's moves from here are geared to prepare c5, which was perhaps played later than it should have. Black already has a safe King and can afford to strike at the center with c5 in a move or two

**9. e3**

I realize that Black has the luxury to strike the center at will, and want my center (especially d4) to be well supported, considering my uncastled King.

**9. . .Re8**

This move was ridiculed by my teammates upon later analysis as "it did nothing" according to them. I disagree, and maintain that it is a patient and principled move that can allow Black to strike at d4 with both c5 and e5 with, say, the Queen on c7.

**The Middlegame**

**10. a3**

Prophylaxis. Two of Black's pieces can occupy b4, which may amount to something if the Queen also gets on a5. As the rest of my position seemed fairly safe, I thought it was a necessary move to reduce potential counterplay from Black.

**10. . . Qa5**

Of course, eyeing my g5 Bishop and potentially allowing a safe Bb4 (due to the pin on the Rook.)

**11. Bh4**

I considered playing h4, but wanted to keep the tension in the position and sought to not allow easy trades, which would give Black's pieces breathing room.

**11. . . c5 12. dxc5**

Two reasons: I did not want Black to play cxd4 and leave me with hanging center Pawns on c4 and d4 (easy targets for Black's pieces), and I wanted to lure the Black Knight to c5, where it can be a potential target for my b4 push.

**12. . . Nxc5**

Consider 12. .. Bxc5 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. cxd5 Bxe3 (14. .. exd5 15. Bxa6 bxa6 16. O-O {The awful Pawn structure and King safety negates the activity of Black's pieces}) 15. Ng4 Bd4 16. O-O-O Bxc3 17. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 18. bxc3 Kg7 19. Bb5 Rd8 20. d6 (White has much better pieces and a space advantage, which would be hard to neutralize by Black)

**13. Qc2**

The most natural square for the Queen. Eyeing h2, I would now be happy with playing Bg3 to an eventual Nh5 and opening up my h-file for the Rook. Additionally, b4 is threatened, which forces a passive retreat of one of the two well placed pieces on a5 and c5.

**13. . .Qb6**

?! Not the most accurate, as it allows White to gain massive Queen side space and the initiative. Better was perhaps the passive looking Ncd7! which would allow the zinger Bxb4 in case White is not careful and plays b4 right away.

**14. b4 Ncd7 15. c5 Qd8 16. Rd1**

A very principled move, I believe, considering that there were many good moves to choose from, such as Bg3, Bd3, Nd3, and perhaps even Bb5. This move puts pressure on the center and freezes Black's d Pawn for the forseeable future, allowing no central activity.

**16. . . a5**

Black doesn't have many options here and must strive for activity by activating pieces, such as the a8 Rook

**17. Bb5**

Perfectly timed, as now there is no a6 to kick the Bishop. This move instantly paralyzes the Knight on d7, and hence suffocates the Bishop on d7.

**17. . . axb4 18. axb4 Nh5**

Necessary, as Black needs to make space in order to activate his pieces, and trading is the best option that allows this.

**19. Bg3 Bg5 20. Qe2**

A rash decision on my part, as I was too tempted to follow this move with f4, forcing Black to open my h-file for me. Better was e4, which was my whole reason behind playing f3 in the first place. It would've favorably allowed White to open the center with his well placed Rook, Queen and light squared Bishop.

**20. . . Qf6 21. Nb1**

Very pretty, and very logical. I preferred it over Na4 (both stop the Rook from coming to a3 and pressuring my e3 Pawn) because this allows the Knight to get to the center or the Kingside more quickly, if necessary.

**21. . . Nxg3**

Necessary, as allowing Bd6 would crush Black's opportunities to activate his pieces

**22. hxg3 Qe7 23. f4 Bf6 24. Qh5 h6 25. g4**

Better than Ng4 right away, as g4-g5 still allows Ng4, but with another piece in the attack. More importantly, it allows White to win the h-Pawn, as g6 is forced to avoid losing the Bishop due to the mate threat on h8.

**25. . . g6 26. Qxh6 Bg7 27. Qh7+ Kf8**

The ridiculed Re8 from earlier comes in handy.

**28. g5 e5 29. Nc3 exf4**

The pony joins the battle with a vengeance!

**30. Nxd5 Qxg5 31. O-O f3 32. Qh2 Be5 33. Qh3 Qxg2+ 34. Qxg2 fxg2 35. Kxg2 Kg7 36. Ng4**

Or Nb6. 1-0, because my opponent had less than 5 seconds on his clock, to my 10 minutes. However, I think my position is sufficiently strong at this point to win anyway with accurate play. What do you think?

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {The dreaded Nimzo-Indian. Since I have had terrible results playing classically against it in blitz, I decided to try something very unorthodox.} 4. f3 d5 {To make sure the pesky Bishop harassed my Knight no further.} 5. Qb3 Be7 (5... c5 {Perhaps a more aggressive approach by Black, which I would've gladly welcomed.} 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Bg5) 6. Nh3 {For two reasons: I told a teammate (jokingly) that I would play Nh3 in my game, and because it supports the idea of controlling e4 via f2 along with the f3 Pawn} O-O 7. Bg5 c6 8. Nf2 Na6 {Cheeky, but very logical. Most of Black's moves from here are geared to prepare c5, which was perhaps played later than it should have. Black already has a safe King and can afford to strike at the center with c5 in a move or two} 9. e3 {I realize that Black has the luxury to strike the center at will, and want my center (especially d4) to be well supported, considering my uncastled King.} Re8 {This move was ridiculed by my teammates upon later analysis as "it did nothing" according to them. I disagree, and maintain that it is a patient and principled move that can allow Black to strike at d4 with both c5 and e5 with, say, the Queen on c7.} 10. a3 {Prophylaxis. Two of Black's pieces can occupy b4, which may amount to something if the Queen also gets on a5. As the rest of my position seemed fairly safe, I thought it was a necessary move to reduce potential counterplay from Black.} Qa5 {Of course, eyeing my g5 Bishop and potentially allowing a safe Bb4 (due to the pin on the Rook.)} 11. Bh4 {I considered playing h4, but wanted to keep the tension in the position and sought to not allow easy trades, which would give Black's pieces breathing room.} c5 12. dxc5 {Two reasons: I did not want Black to play cxd4 and leave me with hanging center Pawns on c4 and d4 (easy targets for Black's pieces), and I wanted to lure the Black Knight to c5, where it can be a potential target for my b4 push.} Nxc5 (12... Bxc5 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. cxd5 Bxe3 (14... exd5 15. Bxa6 bxa6 16. O-O {The awful Pawn structure and King safety negates the activity of Black's pieces}) 15. Ng4 Bd4 16. O-O-O Bxc3 17. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 18. bxc3 Kg7 19. Bb5 Rd8 20. d6 {White has much better pieces and a space advantage, which would be hard to neutralize by Black}) 13. Qc2 {The most natural square for the Queen. Eyeing h2, I would now be happy with playing Bg3 to an eventual Nh5 and opening up my h-file for the Rook. Additionally, b4 is threatened, which forces a passive retreat of one of the two well placed pieces on a5 and c5.} Qb6?! {Not the most accurate, as it allows White to gain massive Queen side space and the initiative. Better was perhaps the passive looking Ncd7! which would allow the zinger Bxb4 in case White is not careful and plays b4 right away.} (13...Ncd7!) 14. b4 Ncd7 15. c5 Qd8 16. Rd1 {A very principled move, I believe, considering that there were many good moves to choose from, such as Bg3, Bd3, Nd3, and perhaps even Bb5. This move puts pressure on the center and freezes Black's d Pawn for the forseeable future, allowing no central activity.} a5 {Black doesn't have many options here and must strive for activity by activating pieces, such as the a8 Rook} 17. Bb5 {Perfectly timed, as now there is no a6 to kick the Bishop. This move instantly paralyzes the Knight on d7, and hence suffocates the Bishop on d7.} axb4 18. axb4 Nh5 {Necessary, as Black needs to make space in order to activate his pieces, and trading is the best option that allows this.} 19. Bg3 Bg5 20. Qe2 {A rash decision on my part, as I was too tempted to follow this move with f4, forcing Black to open my h-file for me. Better was e4, which was my whole reason behind playing f3 in the first place. It would've favorably allowed White to open the center with his well placed Rook, Queen and light squared Bishop.} Qf6 21. Nb1 {Very pretty, and very logical. I preferred it over Na4 (both stop the Rook from coming to a3 and pressuring my e3 Pawn) because this allows the Knight to get to the center or the Kingside more quickly, if necessary.} Nxg3 {Necessary, as allowing Bd6 would crush Black's opportunities to activate his pieces} 22. hxg3 Qe7 23. f4 Bf6 24. Qh5 h6 25. g4 {Better than Ng4 right away, as g4-g5 still allows Ng4, but with another piece in the attack. More importantly, it allows White to win the h-Pawn, as g6 is forced to avoid losing the Bishop due to the mate threat on h8.} g6 26. Qxh6 Bg7 27. Qh7+ Kf8 {The ridiculed Re8 from earlier comes in handy.} 28. g5 e5 29. Nc3?! exf4 {The pony joins the battle with a vengeance!} 30. Nxd5 Qxg5 31. O-O f3 32. Qh2 Be5 33. Qh3 Qxg2+ 34. Qxg2 fxg2 35. Kxg2 Kg7 36. Ng4 {Or Nb6. 1-0, because my opponent had less than 5 seconds on his clock, to my 10 minutes. However, I think my position is sufficiently strong at this point to win anyway with accurate play.}

```

# Answer
This was an interesting game, but the opening was played fairly poorly by both colors.

White erred with `5. Qb3?`, the main line is definitely `5. a3`. The point of a3 is to force black to part with the bishop pair and prepare e4. If black retreats the bishop, then `6. e4` gives white a good game.

After `5. Qb3?`, black should reply `5... c5!` with a large edge. In the line that you gave in your analysis, black improves with `5... c5 6. dxc5 Nc6! 7. cxd5 Nxd5`.

Moving on from the opening, the key idea for white is to play e4 at some moment. The knight on c3 and the pawn on f3 both exist only to support this push. After black allowed the queenside expansion with a3, b4, and c5 (white is clearly better after this expansion, black should even consider sacing the knight with `...Nxc5` to prevent the dark square domination), white should try to play e4 at all costs. `19. Bxe7!` allows e4 to be played after a preparatory `20. O-O`. As you correctly point out, in the game continuation, `e4` instead of `Qf2` would again allow white a large edge, but black has better with `19... f5` or `19... Nxg3`, both working to prevent e4. (Consider for example `19... Nxg3 20. hxg3 h6 21. e4 b6!` when black's queenside play gives him sufficient compensation for white's center)

At any rate, your analysis is very good, and you did a good job finding most of the key moments for both colors.

It is too bad that the game ended when it did as white would have had a nice edge, but trying to convert the endgame would have been highly instructive.

```
[FEN ""]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "71"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. Qb3 (5. a3 Bxc3+ (5... Be7 6. e4) 6.
bxc3 O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 c5 9. Bd3 b6 10. Ne2 Ba6 11. O-O Bxd3 12. Qxd3 $13)
5... Be7 (5... c5 $1 6. a3 (6. dxc5 Nc6 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. e4 Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc5
10. Ba3 Qh4+ 11. g3 Qe7 12. Bxc5 Qxc5 13. Rd1 O-O) 6... Ba5 7. cxd5 cxd4 8.
Qa4+ Bd7 9. Qxd4 exd5 10. b4 Bb6 $17) 6. Nh3 O-O 7. Bg5 c6 (7... dxc4 $5 8.
Qxc4 Nc6 9. Rd1 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Ncxe7 11. Kf2 Nxc3 12. bxc3 e5 13. e4) (7... c5 $1
8. dxc5 (8. cxd5 cxd4) 8... d4) 8. Nf2 Na6 9. e3 Re8 10. a3 Qa5 11. Bh4 c5 12.
dxc5 Nxc5 13. Qc2 Qb6 14. b4 Ncd7 15. c5 Qd8 16. Rd1 a5 17. Bb5 axb4 18. axb4
Nh5 19. Bg3 (19. Bxe7 $1 Rxe7 20. O-O Nhf6 21. e4) 19... Bg5 (19... Nxg3 20.
hxg3 h6 21. e4 b6 22. O-O (22. cxb6) (22. exd5 exd5 23. O-O bxc5 24. Nxd5 Bf8)
22... bxc5 23. bxc5) 20. Qe2 Qf6 21. Nb1 Nxg3 22. hxg3 Qe7 23. f4 Bf6 24. Qh5
h6 25. g4 g6 26. Qxh6 Bg7 27. Qh7+ Kf8 28. g5 e5 29. Nc3 exf4 30. Nxd5 Qxg5 31.
O-O f3 32. Qh2 Be5 33. Qh3 Qxg2+ 34. Qxg2 fxg2 35. Kxg2 Kg7 36. Ng4 *

```
> 17 votes

# Answer
I did not analyze with a computer and am just giving general strategic comments as a 2100 player.

I would consider 13.Qb5. There may be tactical reasons why Qc2 is preferable, but from a strategic point of view, you want to challenge Black's queen. Your arcane idea of playing Nh5 is tangential. In this position, what is important is the resolution of the tension in the center, not kingside attacks.

13...Qb6? was terrible because it allowed White to get a large space advantage on the queenside.

From a strategic standpoint 20.Qe2 was a wishy washy move. The obvious move was 20.Ng4 improving the position of the knight, White's worst piece. If 20...f5 21.f4 looks powerful.

23.f4 seems committal to me. Usually you want to save moves like that. Improve the position of your pieces before moving pawns. From that standpoint 23.Nd2 was logical.

Your whole sequence starting with Qh5 was premature. John Curdo used to say "You need three pieces to attack." As you saw Black can defend against the attack and has counterplay in the center. Sure, winning the pawn was good, but to my mind moves like 24.e4 would be much preferable. The problem is that you are going off on an adventure with your queen while your knights are on terrible squares. You need to improve those knights, that is the priority.

33...Nb6 34.g4 Nxd5 35.Rxd5 Qxe3 36.Bxe8 Be6 and every Black piece is activated. Sure, White wins the exchange, but in a game with 5 minutes left on the clock I would definitely want to be playing Black. Black's plan is to gang up on the pinned knight (Bd4, Ra2).

The problem I see on both sides is failing to focus on the center and moving the same pieces over and over again to squares that are no better while leaving other pieces on bad squares.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: analysis, nimzo-indian
---


# Question
Title: Which notable players in chess history successfully used dubious openings?
I am reminded of a famous game between Karpov and Tony Miles where Miles played **1...a6** against Karpov's **1. e4** and still won the game.

```
     [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]
     [White "Anatoly Karpov"]
     [Black "Tony Miles"]

     1...a6?!

```

Which other players in chess history have used dubious openings successfully? Which were the openings?

**NOTE:** For the purpose of this question, the player (or the opponent) must either have been a **world champion** (like Karpov in this game) at some point or at least a **strong contender for the world title** during his time. Also, the openings must have been considered to be dubious during *their* time.

# Answer
> 18 votes
If you really mean "dubious", then no one really fits this description since Steinitz, who liked to, for example, go for walks with his King when playing the King's Gambit as White. But people didn't really know better back then.

If you're willing to relax "dubious" to "offbeat", the first player that comes to mind is Bent Larsen, one of the strongest players in the world in the 1960s and 1970s. He regularly played 1.f4 and 1.b3 (often known now as Larsen's Opening), and also helped revive the Bishop's Opening and the Philidor Defense. None of these were regarded particularly seriously by top-level players at the time that he adopted them.

Before that, players like Réti and Nimzowitsch developed hypermodern theory, in which players tried to control the center from afar instead of occupying it with their pawns. Some players regarded this strategy as dubious but it shortly became clear that it was perfectly legitimate.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Among World Champions, Alekhine was a top bluffmaster. Capablanca once remarked that "Alekhine's game is 20% bluff".

Here's one example of his bluffs.

```
    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [White "Alekhine"]
    [Black "Erich Cohn"]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. e5?

```

This was played in Alekhine vs Erich Cohn and Alekhine won that game.

On one occasion, Magnus Carlsen himself played the shocking **1.a4** against a player as strong as Radjabov and still won the game. Although it was a blitz game, it was the World Blitz Championship 2012, so clearly not an ordinary event! Clearly, he managed to psychologically upset Radjabov.

```
    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [White "Magnus Carlsen"]
    [Black "Teimour Radjabov"]

    1. a4 e5 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bb4 5. Bb5 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. d3 Bg4
    8. Ne2 a6 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Ng3 Nh5 11. h3 Nxg3 12. fxg3 Bd7 13. g4 Bc5
    14. Kh1 Qe7 15. Qe1 f6 16. Nh4 g6 17. Bh6 Rf7 18. Rb1 Bb6 19. b3 d5
    20. Nf3 Re8 21. Qg3 Bc5 22. Rbe1 dxe4 23. dxe4 Bd6 24. Re2 c5
    25. Nd2 Be6 26. Qd3 g5 27. Qxa6 Kh8 28. Nc4 Bxc4 29. Qxc4 Rg8
    30. h4 gxh4 31. g5 Rg6 32. Ref2

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
Thomas Wilson Barnes used `1. e4 f6?!` to beat Paul Morphy.

```
   [FEN ""]
   [Event "London m1"]
   [Site "London"]
   [Date "1858"]
   [Result "0-1"]
   [White "Paul Morphy"]
   [Black "Thomas Wilson Barnes"]
   [ECO "A00"]
   [PlyCount "100"]

  1.e4 f6 2.d4 e6 3.Bd3 Ne7 4.Be3 d5 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nd5 7.Nh3 Be7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qh6 Bf8 10.Qh4 Bg7 11.O-O O-O 12.c4 Nxe3 13.fxe3 f5 14.Neg5 h6 15.Nf3 e5 16.Qxd8 Rxd8 17.Bc2 exd4 18.exd4 Bxd4+ 19.Nxd4 Rxd4 20.Rfe1 Kf7 21.c5 Be6 22.Rad1 Nc6 23.Rxd4 Nxd4 24.Ba4 g5 25.Rd1 Rd8 26.a3 f4 27.Nf2 Ne2+ 28.Kf1 Rxd1+ 29.Bxd1 Nd4 30.Ke1 Kf6 31.Kd2 Nb3+ 32.Bxb3 Bxb3 33.Ng4+ Kg6 34.g3 h5 35.Nf2 Kf5 36.Kc3 Bd5 37.Kd4 c6 38.b4 Bg2 39.gxf4 Kxf4 40.a4 Bf1 41.Ne4 h4 42.Nd2 Be2 43.Ne4 g4 44.Nf2 Kf3 45.Ne4 Bf1 46.Ke5 Bd3 47.Ng5+ Kg2 48.Kd6 Kxh2 49.Kc7 Kg3 50.Kxb7 h3 0-1

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
Preston Ware is a 19th century American Chess master who played the Ware Opening/Meadow Hay Opening (1. a4) and the Corn Stalk Defence (1. e4 a5).

# Answer
> 0 votes
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1105081

Petrosian used an A00 uncommon opening against Pachman.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Kamsky has drawn with a reverse Leningrad a few times (g3/Bg2/f4/Nf3/O-O)

Topalov drew a Cochrane against Kramnik.

But Nakamura's really the person I think of for odd openings. He's played e4/Qh5 a few times, a Zukertort, some King's Gambits, some Vienna Gambits, some Hungarian. Trompowsky, Alekhine's, Grand Prix Sicilian—not entirely dubious, but a least unusual.

And, while nowhere near the strength constraint of your question, Sam Sloan is infamous for his love of Damiano's.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Baadur Jobava http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1782733, Richard Rapport Odd Larson sidelienes, Baskaran Adhiban (every third game he tries to play something new and crazy http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1860331

Steinitz has numerous dubious openings named after him including the Steinitz defense from the Ruy Lopez.

Steinitz Attack in the Sicilian. 1.e4 c5 2.g3

The Steinitz Gambit from the Vienna or King's Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 Qh4+ 5.Ke2

---
Tags: opening, theory, history, famous-players, famous-games
---


title: How to win it in less moves

text:
# Question
Title: How to win it in less moves
From this point I tried to win this match but it took a very long chase. I know there is some shorter way to win it as my mobile chess-free app asked to resign after moving my white knight, but couldn't figured out how to win it in lesser moves.

```
[fen "1nb2rk1/q3pp2/2p1n1pQ/1p1pP2p/rP1P4/2PB1N1P/P4PP1/R1B2RK1 w Q - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
1.Nh4 is best, preparing to decisively take on g6. Black can't do much to brace for this move. For example, 1...Rd8 2.Nxg6 fxg6? 3.Qxg6+ Ng7 (3...Kf8 4.Bh6+ leads to mate) 4.Bh6 e6 5.Qh7+ Kf8 6.Qh8+ Ke7 7.Qxg7+ Ke8 8.Bg6+ Qf7 9.Qxf7#.

It would be better if Black played ...f5 either on the first or second move, but this clearly isn't challenging since then your knight just takes on g6 for free, and White's attack is crashing through.

---
Tags: strategy, learning
---


# Question
Title: Why wasn’t Rashid Nezhmetdinov a grandmaster?
He won the Russian championship 5 times, so why wasn’t he a grandmaster?

# Answer
Rashid Nezhmetdinov, aka “Super Nezh”, was clearly GM strength, having a plus score in the 20 games he played against World Champions, including a plus score against his friend, Tal. He was also a five-time Russian champion (this title predates the Soviet Union, and is not the same as champion of the Soviet Union).

I was a Russian linguist in the Air Force during the cold war (1980-1988), and all of my Russian teachers were “off the boat” as they say, meaning they were natives of the Soviet Union, so we heard many stories about life there, and Nezhmetdinov’s story is not uncommon: Lack of favor.

During his peak years, Nezhmetdinov only managed to play outside of the Soviet Union one time, and he finished second to Korchnoi at Bucharest 1954, which again showed that he was strong enough to be a GM. Unfortunately, strength is not the only factor in getting a title. FIDE has long had in place title rules that were designed to make sure that federations could not manipulate titles, thus you have to play x-number of other titled players, and x-number of players from other countries. So, back then, it was harder to get titles because there were not as many titled players as there are today.

Typically, in the Soviet Union, there were also “favorites”, and they were people, who were Communist Party members, or related to those, who were. If you were not a favorite, you could not travel abroad freely as you can today, and they lived behind what was called “The Iron Curtain”. The Party also worried a lot about players defecting, so in essence, your whole country was a prison of sorts. There were exceptions, who were not Party members, but who were so talented that they could bring the Party great favor and prestige, especially when it made the West look bad. Nevertheless, I read somewhere that Nezhmetdinov was a low-level party member, but he was also not a prodigy as were the Tals and Spasskys of the time. As great as Rashid Nezhmetdinov was, he had huge flaws in his game, and thus, he would probably never become World Champion, and the top chess players knew it, and thus, the Party did not favor him. If you were not given the opportunity, you cannot succeed. He was also an ethnic minority, a Tatar, which also surely played a role in this.

Personally, I would love it if FIDE would posthumously award Nezhmetdinov the Grandmaster title. He is easily the best player ever not to get the title, during the era of titles. I have since written an email to FIDE President, Arkady Dvorkovich, regarding the possibility of posthumously awarding Rashid Nezhmetdinov the GM title.

For anyone, who does not know of Super Nezh, I suggest you search for some of his games. He has what might be the greatest queen sacrifice ever.

I was asked in comments why black resigned after 33. Ke2, so I added a sample line just showing where to put the white pieces, and how that will eventually lead to an easy win, and Chernikov knew it.

```
 [Event "Rostov on Don"]
 [Site "Rostov on Don"]
 [Date "1962.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Nezhmetdinov, Rashid"]
 [Black "Chernikov, Oleg L"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B35"]
 [PlyCount "65"]
 [EventDate "1962.??.??"]
 [EventType "game"]
 [EventRounds "1"]
 [EventCountry "URS"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Qh4 Qa5 11. O-O Bf6 12. Qxf6 Ne2+ 13. Nxe2 exf6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Nd5 Re6 16. Bd4 Kg7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Rd3 Bd7 19. Rf3 Bb5 20. Bc3 Qd8 21. Nxf6 Be2 22. Nxh7+ Kg8 23. Rh3 Re5 24. f4 Bxf1 25. Kxf1 Rc8 26. Bd4 b5 27. Ng5 Rc7 28. Bxf7+ Rxf7 29. Rh8+ Kxh8 30. Nxf7+ Kh7 31. Nxd8 Rxe4 32. Nc6 Rxf4+ 33. Ke2 (33. Ke2 a6 34. c3 Rf7 35. Nb4 a5 36. Nc6 a4 37. a3 Kg8 38. Be3 Kf8 39. Nd4 Rb7 40. h4 Ke7 41. Bf4 d5 42. g3 Kf6 43. Kd3 Rb6 44. Bg5+ Ke5 45. Nf3+ Ke6 46. Kd4 Rb8 47. Ne5 Rg8 48. Bf4+- {and Kc5 next wins}) 1-0

```
> 58 votes

# Answer
If one is not a GM then apparently they did not satisfy the written FIDE rules for getting to be a GM. Maybe russia had their version of GM titles for players like USA does with USCF.

Was his rating 2500+ ?? Did he play in enough tournaments with enough GMs with enough rounds and score well enough enough times ??

Clearly not since he died in 1974 when the requirements were slightly different, AND he was getting too old to keep scoring well enough.

Back when he may have been that strong they did not award the GM titles like they do now. The modern system did not start until 1953.

Before 1950, the term grandmaster was sometimes informally applied to world class players. The Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE, or International Chess Federation) was formed in Paris in 1924, but at that time did not award formal titles.

The answer is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time to get the GM title even though he may have been that strong.

FIDE Titles The most prestigious titles are granted by FIDE, which is the World Chess Federation. These titles require high FIDE ratings, and the highest titles also require strong performances in tournaments against other elite players. Once granted, FIDE titles are not taken away from players, even if their performance drops. The FIDE titles and their requirements are as follows:

Candidate Master: This title is awarded to any player with an established FIDE rating of 2200 or higher. This is the least prestigious title awarded by FIDE.

FIDE Master (FM): The FIDE Master title is awarded to any player who establishes a FIDE rating of at least 2300. Many international junior tournaments also award the FIDE title to winners; for instance, one may earn the FM title by winning a section at the Pan-Am Youth Games, even if they do not meet the rating requirement.

International Master (IM): To earn the IM title, a player must normally have an established FIDE rating of 2400. However, players must also prove their strength by having sufficiently strong results in (normally) three tournaments against very strong competition. Like the FM title, however, there are potential shortcuts to winning the IM title, such as by being the runner-up at the World Junior Championship.

Grandmaster (GM): The GM title is the most difficult title to earn for any chess player. To become a grandmaster, a player must establish a FIDE rating of at least 2500. Also, he or she must go through the same norms process required of an IM, but with a higher standard required to achieve each norm. Only a few tournaments award a GM title outside of this system; winning the World Junior Championship or the World Senior Championship are two ways in which a player might earn the GM title despite not otherwise qualifying for it.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Rashid Nezhmetdinov would be a grandmaster, if not for his extreme minus scores against positional opponents, like Korchnoi and Petrosian. The one problem was that Nezhmetdinov spent too much energy on attempting to attack, so he would neglect his own position in the meanwhile. However, his positional opponents kept the position safe, keeping away attacking chances, and then swooping in to take advantage of weaknesses.

So, if not for his desperation to attack, Rashid Nezhmetdinov would have been a grandmaster.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: history, grandmaster, famous-players, titles
---


title: New Chess Variant

text:
# Question
Title: New Chess Variant
If in chess, pieces have the option instead to not move, then how would the game change? I have looked through a few positions and I see that zugzwang doesn't work at all. What else would be changed?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Moves in chess are powerful. As any player or even engine will tell you, a move has material significance (Stockfish awards it a fifth of a pawn, visible when no moves have been played).

There are some mechanics of chess, like stalemates and, as you mentioned, zugzwang, but for openings and middlegames , it really wouldn't change much.

As an example, beginners often are unable to formulate a plan and thus waste moves, this is analogous to passing your turn and often results in a loss.

Endgames are another story entirely. King and pawn endgames rely on zugzwangs (a common example is where one side tries to infiltrate the other's pawn chain) and opposition will not be a thing anymore, thus drawing most games without a significant advantage. To put into perspective the severity of the damage, even King vs King and Rook will be drawn (because of no opposition).

It may also slightly increase wins in positions where one side plays for a stalemate, but in my opinion, the game would overall take a turn for the worse, as it mostly affects only the endgame and can ruin a hard fought game with a undeserved draw.

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants
---


title: Traxler Counterattack

text:
# Question
Title: Traxler Counterattack
I've had a few looks at the Traxler counterattack before. It seems fine for Black, but somehow the engine (Stockfish) says that White has a +2.57 advantage after Nxf7, but not much advantage after Bxf7+. Why is this so, when this opening is accepted by masters?

# Answer
I can't find it now, but I remember reading this exchange on Chessbase. A player just played ...e6 on one move, and then ...e5 on the next, seemingly losing a tempo for no reason. It was clearly computer preparation however. An interviewer asked GM Viswanathan Anand what he thought about the moves. Anand replied that if the computer thinks it's fine, then it's fine. Instead you have to analyze the lines afterwards to see why it's fine.

In other words: these days computers are so strong that their judgement trumps human judgement, including those made by world champion-caliber players.

Now the fact is that computers don't like the Traxler, even at high depth. It was played in the TCEC S17 superfinal between Leela and Stockfish. Here's the first game, and here's the reverse. Note:

* These engines are playing on super hardware and achieve speeds and depths that would take very long for ordinary machines. When Leela played her fifth move, she was at depth 22/62. When Stockfish played its fifth move, it was at depth 43/62.
* Both finalists thought 5.Bxf7+ is the best move.
* Both finalists evaluated the position after 5.Bxf7+ as +1.5 for White (more precisely, Stockfish gave +1.5 for White; Leela thought White had a 60% chance to win).
* Comparatively, in the starting position, White has roughly a +0.5 advantage.
* There is some fluctuation in engine eval, so e.g. if Stockfish thinks a move that is +0.1 pawns better than the next-best move, the next-best move might still be playable. However, +1 is a pretty large gap.

Therefore the only conclusion here is that the human masters are wrong. The Traxler is objectively dubious at best. Playing this *can* work against humans because humans cannot find a string of "only moves" in a row to hold a position, plus it's psychologically difficult to defend against a strong attack for a long time. That's why humans - even top-level humans- often crack under pressure. The Traxler also offers plenty of opportunities for both sides, which is great if you want to play for a win and/or you think you are better than your opponent. But if you play the Traxler as Black in correspondence chess, you are asking for trouble. Maybe 32-piece tablebases will show that your position isn't lost, but you would have to fight hard for equality.

Finally I'll add that it's misleading to say the Traxler is well-regarded by masters:

* Wikipedia's article on the Two Knights includes this quote: "No grandmasters have regularly adopted the Wilkes-Barre as Black, but Alexander Beliavsky and Alexei Shirov have played it occasionally even in top competition"
* Chess Openings Explorer gives by far the most common response to 4.Ng5 as 4...d5 (which is also the main line of the Two Knights).

I'd call the Traxler playable in human games, but only as an occasional weapon.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines, analysis, theory, traxler-counter-attack
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't 6.Bc4 considered by theory in the 5.Bxf7+ Traxler Counterattack?
In the Traxler Counterattack of the Two Knights Defense, after

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 (6. Bc4)

```

why isn't 6.Bc4 considered as a "serious" move for White by theory? Only 6.Bb3 and 6.Bd5 are seen in this fairly rare line.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Comparing 6.Bb3 and 6.Bc4, the drawbacks of the latter are obvious since the bishop is not protected and can become a target to attacks:

* either by a black piece: Ne5, Na5, Qc5, Qd4...
* or, more probably, by the d-pawn: the typical ...d5 will gain a tempo for development

On the other hand, I can see no advantage of having the bishop on c4 rather than b3. You will hardly ever want to retreat to e2, nor to play a queenside fianchetto.

Given how important each tempo can be in such an complicated line, it is understandable than no strong player has ever ventured 6.Bc4. Probably there isn't a direct refutation, but you might regret having your bishop exposed later on.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Traxler is too rarely played to anybody care. Bd5 and Bb3 are old main lines. Bc4 is actually Lc0 main line on pretty solid depth. One obvious advantage is easier handling of future pin while I don't think the bishop is so exposed there. From b3 it could actually be easier for black to hunt it with Na5. So it's great move in position you will probably not have on a board anytime soon. The old reasoning behind not playing Bc4 makes sense too, of course, but try to explain it to Leela... If it was in more frequent position, it would be played at least as much as the 2.Nf3 3.d3 Caro Kann, very fresh AI invention too.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, two-knights, traxler-counter-attack
---


# Question
Title: Kasparov quote on the simple math behind attacking
I've seen several references to a certain Kasparov quote that paraphrase the idea of the quote without giving the actual text of the quote, or indicating where he said it. The idea is something like "if you simply point more pieces at the enemy king than the enemy has positioned for defense, then a successful attack is almost assured". Arithmetic is sometimes mentioned, in the sense that just having a greater number of pieces in a specific region of the board means you have the advantage in that region. I'm looking for the exact quote, does the description ring any bells?

I notice multiple questions already about specific Kasparov quotes, probably in part because he's said and penned so many quotable things in his long career. I've tried googling this one several different ways, but I've always come up empty. It's not particularly easy to find one specific quote on how to attack, when Kasparov has written a great deal on world affairs, propaganda, and Vladimir Putin that turn up in the results if you search for Kasparov quotes on "attack".

# Answer
Finder's credit goes to Akavall. Kasparov's explanation of how he calculated an attack against Karpov appears to be the origin of the quote I've seen referenced.

youtube.com/watch?v=SMe-hvCwTRo
> 4 votes

# Answer
Julian Hodgson has elaborated on this in his book "Attack with Julian Hodgson 2". He calls it the attack statistics box. Another writer who uses arithmatic to calculate positions and moves is Shashin in his book "Best Play: A New Method For Discovering The Strongest Move".
> 4 votes

---
Tags: attack, kasparov, quotations
---


# Question
Title: How to determine the value of a piece from scratch?
Assume we have a standard chess set setup, but we make a slight change so that (for example) pawns can now move two squares forward on any move rather than just on their initial move. Even assuming that we can still use the established point values for the pieces (Knight=Bishop=3 Rook=5 Queen=9 or whatever system you wish to use), how would one go about finding out how much our modified pawn would be worth?

My initial thought would be to (re-)program a chess engine with the modified piece ability, change the internal values for it in several different ways, and then hold a series of engine tournaments until an approximate value can be narrowed down. This would work (as all point values are approximate and situational anyway), but point values for pieces have been around longer than computers, so there must be other methods available.

Any ideas?

Note: I am not actually looking for software recommendations, etc. to do this. I'm just curious what the best way of doing this would be.

# Answer
It's possible to use logistic regression (a statistical method) to estimate the predictive values. This way, you wouldn't need anyone to try the game at all.

http://www.sumsar.net/blog/2015/06/big-data-and-chess has the details. I personally tried the method, and it was a good start.

The method estimates the value of each piece by predicting how they relates to the log-odd of winning.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Ralph Betza tried to do this and he wrote a series of six articles about this, starting with this one: http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/ideal-and-practical-values.html

Ideas to determine the piece values include the following factors

* average mobility (clearly the dominant factor, but hard to bring it down to numbers)
* colourboundness
* type of movement (jump vs. ride)
* levelling effect (Scharnagl calls it "elephantiasis correction")

Practical experience with chess variants shows that an empirical determination through playtesting cannot be replaced completely by a determination from first principles. For instance, the compound piece formed from Bishop and Knight (known under many names, including Archbishop, Princess, Janus, Cardinal, Paladin, Equerry, and Minister) is much stronger than an *a priori* analysis suggests.
> 10 votes

# Answer
The values of the pieces derive from which piece exchanges are considered desirable and which are not. Knowledge of desirability of piece exchanges usually comes from having played many games, but it is probably also possible to mechanically extract this knowledge from a large collection of games played by skilled players.

Another option is to use an evolutionary process to determine piece values. You start with a large collection of random piece values and hold one-on-one elimination matches (or maybe tournaments is better?) to determine some best fraction (half, top ten percent) of random piece values. Then you create a new generation of random piece values through some method of combining values from that best fraction together with small random perturbations. Repeat until the values stabilize. The values you get will probably depend on the specific chess engine (and time controls) you use, but I don't know how strong that effect is.

Once you have a reasonably good sense of where the values are, you may want to use the scientific method to answer specific questions, such as whether the value of your new pawn is more or less than half a knight. You could have your chess engine play many games at different strengths (time controls or ply depth) and use statistical analysis to determine an answer up to a certain confidence level.

You may also be interested in deriving piece values in a more analytical way; many people have thought that there must be a relation between piece mobility and piece values. Relevant factors may include: board-average mobility, board-maximum mobility, reachable fraction of the board, triangulation ability, mating ability, and (most confoundingly) the other pieces on the board. Nothing very general seems to have been discovered though.
> 8 votes

# Answer
We could start guessing the approximate value of this hypothetical "superpawn" or "enhanced pawn" in terms of "mobility", in the order of E~2P because of the definition (move up to 2 squares instead of only 1 square).

Next we adjust this initial guess by forming an 8x8 matrix, where each square has a number indicating how "mobile" is the analyzed piece (P=pawn, E="enhanced pawn") when placed at that square:

```
Pawn    xxxxxxxx<--last rank    Enhanced pawn   xxxxxxxx
        11111111                                22222222
        11111111                                22222222
        11111111                                22222222
        11111111                                22222222
        11111111                                22222222
        22222222<--first rank                   22222222
Pawn    xxxxxxxx               Enhanced pawn    xxxxxxxx

```

Here we have an average mobility of 2 squares for the enhanced pawn vs 7/6 for the normal pawn (who can only jump 2 squares when located at the initial rank). The relative power E/P appears to be 2/(7/6)=12/7~1.7 slightly below E=2P.

But there are normally other pieces that populate the board and limit the mobility. In a real game, we will find that at some locations our new "superpawn" is completely surrounded by other pieces and does not differ from a "normal pawn". So the tentative number E=1.7P should be pushed somewhat lower.

In order for these numbers to be of any value, we should imagine certain tasks or situations and see how a particular piece or group of pieces performs. A similar analysis has been made for the standard chess pieces. Some examples:

* 1 Queen cannot corner and checkmate a lonely rival King, while 2 Rooks can. That suggests 2R\>Q which is in accordance with the normally accepted values Q~9P, R~5P. (Or Q~10P R~5.5P).
* King+Rook can checkmate an enemy King, while kNight+Rook cannot (they need the aid of the King). So in this case K+R\>N+R, K\>N.
* But a kNight can cross a barrier formed by a Rook, while a King cannot. So there are opposite situations where N\>K.
* For some tasks K\>N, for other tasks N\>K. This behaviour is supported by the official point scales, which evaluate the difference of King vs kNight to be in the order of a pawn or fraction of pawn.
* And where does our new enhanced pawn fit? He can cross the barrier of a rook, while a King cannot. That means that in some situations, he can outperform a King, E\>K (being K between ~3P and ~4P)
* But he cannot cross a barrier formed by 2 Rooks, while a Bishop can. So here is B\>E.
* And he cannot cross a barrier formed by 2 Bishops, while a kNight can. So here is N\>E.
* If we build a big table with lots of tasks, we can count how many "E\>K" and how many "K\>E", "E\>B", "B\>E"...etc we have, and calculate an average.

A more powerful approach would be to access a big database of complete games, not just individual "tasks". As has been already mentioned in this site, with the aid of a game database it is possible to analyze the result of trading pieces. Applying this idea to our "superpawns", with thousands of games we could answer questions like "Is a superpawn really worth 2 pawns? Or is 2P\>E? The player who loses 1E while taking 2P from the rival, does he normally lose? Or does he retain a reasonable expectation of winning? What about 2E vs 3P? E vs B? 2E vs B? 2E vs N?

It is often said that everything depends on the position, but with big (very big!) sets of data we could think that the variations of particular positions tend to cancel out and what remains after averaging is what we call "piece value".
> 5 votes

# Answer
The value for pieces in terms of pawn units was originally determined by collecting experience while actually playing the game. The same can be applied to the modified game.
> 4 votes

# Answer
In a different reality, I would do this by creating an pool of experts, then asking them.

1) Ensure an educated set of experts.

Hold a chess tournament (or perhaps several) with attractive first, second, and third prizes. This will entice the best players to attend. They'll play and become educated.

2) Have the experts tell you the value of the pawn

As part of the tournament, on the last day perhaps, have the top X players estimate the new value of the pawn. The GM who most closely guesses the value you feel is accurate wins another cash prize. From the estimates, calculate an average (or whatever) and pay the person making the closest guess.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There are many factors that affect the value of a piece, three of which are most influential:

1. Piece mobility in situation - e.g., A knight in an open position is less valuable, but in a closed situation is more valuable.
2. Piece qualities(can it cause zugzwang, can it be easily trapped, etc.)
3. Piece's positioning - e.g., if a queen was on the other side of the board unable to save the king from an attack, it is significantly weaker than a queen on the 'correct' side of the board.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, pieces, point-value
---


title: Antichess piece value

text:
# Question
Title: Antichess piece value
What is the point value of each chess piece in Antichess? I think they don't need to be negative values, because you're just going after the lower valued ones.

In particular, I wonder what the value of a king has in ntichess, since it has no value in regular chess.

# Answer
> 7 votes
In my opinion, this is a very difficult question, since the **piece values** in antichess are not as static as in normal chess and usually **highly depend on the game phase and position**.

However, there are some **rules of thumb** which pieces tend to be stronger or weaker, see, e.g., http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~andrew/suicide/StanGold/theory.htm.

You can also try to derive the piece values from the results that are obtained in **automated parameter tuning** for antichess engines. E.g., there is a paper on automated learning of piece values for chess variants, also including antichess/suicide, which you can find at http://www.ke.tu-darmstadt.de/publications/reports/tud-ke-2008-07.pdf. They got only negative piece values for antichess, so their engine probably was not strong enough to find that it can be good to have more pieces. Due to the simplified evaluation function they used (with basically only piece values), the result is not unexpected, I think.

In 2016, I added antichess to the Stockfish fork with support for multiple chess variants that is also used on lichess. Over time we improved the search and the evaluation function and repeatedly ran an automated optimization (with SPSA) of the piece values. When the evaluation function was very simple and the playing strength rather low, the optimal piece values were all negative. As the search and evaluation got more sophisticated and playing strength improved, the optimal piece values changed and some moved towards zero or even to positve values.

Today, it seems to be the strongest antichess chess, and the piece values mostly agree with intuition of strong human players. You can find the current piece values in the code. Since there are several other evaluation terms (piece-square table, mobility bonus, etc.) that are influenced by the presence of pieces, these values are not completely representative, though.

Here is a summary of my interpretation of **Stockfish's piece values** (also trying to consider the influence from other evaluation terms):

* **pawns** are usually bad, since they are very restricted in their movements and are easy targets for forcing captures. I would give them a value of **-1**.
* **knights** are quite dangerous, but for a strong player they can also be very useful pieces. According to Stockfish, the knight's value is about **-1 in the middlegame**, and **+2 in the endgame**.
* **bishops** are usually very dangerous in the opening/middlegame, since the opponent can often get rid of all pieces if you have to start taking pieces with your bishop. Their value is about **-3 in the middlegame** and **+2 in the endgame**.
* **rooks** tend to cause the same issues as bishops in the middlegame, but are usually very strong in the endgame. Their value is **-5 in the middlegame** and **+2 in the endgame**.
* the **queen** can be useful in the opening due to her high mobility and the ability to quickly attack and capture pieces that are covered by the opponent, which might force him to take back in an unfavorable way. In the endgame the queen attacks too many squares and is usually bad. The piece value estimate is **0 in the middlegame** and **-2 in the endgam**e.
* the **king** is a strong piece because it can move to many squares, but only locally. In this way, it can be used to avoid zugzwang and to put up local threats without attacking squares in the opponent's camp. The piece value is something like **+2 in the middlegame** and **+3 in the endgame**.

You might find that the results disagree with some the rules of thumb I linked above. That only confirms that it is hard to break down the evaluation of pieces in antichess positions to a few numbers.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Antichess, which I call giveaway, values should be derived from their mobility just like in most chess (variants).

The pawn has the least mobility and therefore is the easiest to force to take. The sliding pieces come next, although most people would claim that they it's easiest to force them to take, they are mobile enough to choose their path of destruction.

The knights are slightly better than the sliding pieces due to their awkward movement.

The king has to be slightly worse than a sliding pieces due to its limited range of movement of range.

In my opinion, the values would be:
pawn - 1
king - 3
queen, rook, and bishop - 4
knight - 5

# Answer
> 1 votes
In Antichess, piece values are dependent on two factors:

1. The detriment of the range of the piece(pieces can easily make it capture)
2. The range of the piece(makes it easier to sac itself)

So the pieces in a closed situation would be more influenced by the second factor, and in an open situation more by the open factor.

---
Tags: chess-variants, point-value, losing-chess
---


title: Most pins in a chess game

text:
# Question
Title: Most pins in a chess game
I've looked at a few chess games on ChessBase that have a lot of pins, and I am wondering, what is the most number of pins that has occurred in a game, and what is the game?

# Answer
The most pins in a real game position that I know is **3** from an extremely famous game nicknamed "On Pins And Needles" by chessgames.com. Agadmator covered in a YouTube video a few years ago.

```
[Title "Geoff Chandler-Richard Kynoch, Edinburgh Club Championship, Scotland, 1981"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "53"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2 c5 7. Be3 Nc6 8. dxc5 Nxe5 9. Nd4 Rc8 10. Bb5+ Nc6 11. Qe2 Nf612. O-O-O Be7 13. h4 h5 14. f3 Nd7 15. gxh5 Rxh5 16. Rhg1 Nxd4 17. Bxd4 Qc7 18. Rxg6 fxg6 19. Qxe6 Rf5 20. Nxd5 Qd8 21. Qxg6+ Rf7 22. Re1 Kf8 23. Qh7 Ke8 24. Qg8+ Rf8 25. Qxg7 Rf7 26. Qg8+ Rf8 27. Nf6#

```
> 5 votes

---
Tags: famous-games, pins
---


# Question
Title: When did Bobby Fischer move from New York to California?
As title above, when did Bobby Fischer move from Brooklyn, New York, to California, where did he actually locate, and why did he leave New York?

# Answer
> 1 votes
It’s just a guess, but it could be because he started following Herbert Armstrong who was in California. Fischer did donate *lots* of money to him and was reported riding in his jet plane with him. As I recall, it would have been in the 70s or possibly the 80s.

---
Tags: history, fischer
---


title: Pinning Combination

text:
# Question
Title: Pinning Combination
There are are four types of pins.

1. Absolute Pin-A piece is pinned to the king and cannot move due to the resulting illegal check.
2. Partial Pin-A piece is pinned to the king and can move along pinning line but nowhere to else due to the resulting illegal check.
3. Relative Pin-A piece is not pinned to king and can move but doing so would lose the exchange.
4. Situational Pin-A pinned piece can move butdoing so is dettered by a loss of material or mate.

I am looking for a combination played in a real game that demonstrates all four kinds of pins, preferably in a row in any combination of the four pins.

The best I can find is a mate in two combination with two absolute pins in a row.

```
[FEN "rnbq1r2/pp2kpQp/3p4/1B6/3Np3/B1b5/P1P2PPP/1R1K3R w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe5+ Be6 2. Nf5#

```

# Answer
I do not know of a game that shows all four in a combination. However, here is a chess problem that I made to demonstrate all 4 types of pins in a "combination-esque" sequence.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 8/19/2020, Mate In 4"]
[FEN "1K6/NP3p2/8/p5Pb/kr1RRPPp/3P2Nq/1Pp3PQ/2nB2B1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxc2+ Nb3 {An absolute pin is instated to limit Black's move choices and to lock up the Black king} 2. Qxh3 hxg3 {After White moves, Black's pawn is in a relative pin. This is because moving it exposes the higher-valued bishop to capture. If Black's bishop moves, White can still mates in two} (2... Bxg4 3. Ne2 null 4. Nc3#) 3. Qxh5 {Now Black's two moveable pieces are pinned. The pawn is in a situational pin because moving it results in a mate, and the rook is in a partial pin because it can only move along the pin line, although it is also in a situational pin.} f5 (3... Rc4 4. Rxc4#) 4. Qe8#

```

Addendum 12/17/2020-Here is a shorter, less complicated version of the above problem, being one move shorter, fewer units used, and much cleaner play.

```
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 12/17/2020, Mate In 3"]
[FEN "8/N4p2/8/p1P2PPr/kr1R2pp/1r1P2NQ/1PR1P1P1/3BK3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rcc4! {This instates an absolute pin on Black's b3 rook, and a partial pin on their b4 rook.} hxg3 (1... gxh3 2. Ne4 null 3. Nc3#) {Black's h4 pawn was in a relative pin. If it doesn't move, White mates with the knight, and if it does, Black loses the higher valued rook. } 2. Qxh5 {Now Black's pawn is in a situational pin, as moving it will result in mate. Black's rook is also in the same predicament.} f6 (2... Rxc4 3. Rxc4#) 3. Qe8#

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics, problems, pins
---


# Question
Title: Searching for players by primary opening choice
My opening repertoire consists mostly of openings that score respectably at the club level but rarely appear in high-level play, and far more rarely as any high-level player's primary choice rather than a secondary or tertiary surprise weapon. I'm interested in studying games played by strong (preferably 2500+ FIDE) players who genuinely believe in the theoretical strength of these openings, fervently enough to play them as *primary* weapons, willingly walking into their opponents' preparation rather than relying on surprise. For example, players as strong as Magnus Carlsen have pulled out the Dutch Defense on rare occasions, but I'm more interested in players like GM Vladimir Malaniuk, who played the Leningrad Dutch against 1. d4 about three times as often as everything else put together and even managed to hold a draw against Kasparov with it, and GM Simon Williams, whose primary weapon against 1. d4 is the Classical Dutch. Similarly, many GMs trot out the Dragon Sicilian with varying rarity as a secondary weapon after the Najdorf or the Sveshnikov, but I'm only interested in players like GM Gawain Jones who statistically prefer it over all alternatives and play it regularly against the likes of Carlsen.

What's the best way to go about this search? I can search for whoever has the most games on record in a given line, but I've found that that often just leads me to players with an exceptional quantity of games on record in general. I can search for the highest-rated games in a given line, but that just turns up superGMs playing that line for the first time in about six months as a shock tactic. I can Google "grandmasters who play the Whatever", but surprisingly that too leads to players who only occasionally use that opening. I can't even go by authorship of opening books; it's entirely too common for a GM to write an intro gushing about how the Such-and-Such has been their dearest and most reliable ally in 30 years of tournament play, but for the database to show that they tried it out for (at most) a scant dozen games and then promptly went back to the standard Berlin/Nimzo repertoire. And of course, Kasparov played nearly everything at one point or another and contributed importantly to the theory, so that's a frequent confounding factor in any search (notice how often devotees of any given opening will boast that Kasparov himself played it, quietly implying that it was his main weapon). Is there a better way to specifically look for players who *prefer* a given opening line and play it more frequently than the alternatives?

As a wonderful bonus, it would also be great if there's some way to filter for recency. Carlsen for example has a surprising proportion of Dragon games on record for a superGM, but apparently hasn't played it since 2014, so even if he may have believed in it before, he clearly hasn't for some time.

# Answer
The opening explorer at 365chess dot com shows which player played the position at hand most often, while also showing most recent examples.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, master-games, repertoire
---


title: Bird's opening problems

text:
# Question
Title: Bird's opening problems
I've played the reversed Leningrad Dutch for some time, and I have the problem that when I play Nd2, Black forks my rook and queen on f6-\>g4-\>e3. I never get to push my e-pawn before Black forks me in some cases. Is there any solution to this problem?

Here is a sample line.

```
[FEN ""]

1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. O-O e6 6. d3 Bd6 7. Nbd2 Ng4 ( I have wasted a move on Nd2.)

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
You have some options. You could abandon 7. Nbd2 because it allows 7. ... Ng4; the standard choices in the main line are 7. Qe1, 7. c3, and 7. Nc3, much like the regular Leningrad Dutch. If Black plays Ng4 while you still have e3 covered by the Bc1, you can simply proceed with your plan to push e2-e4, and maybe later kick the knight with h2-h3 to get an attack going on the kingside. Just make sure to keep an eye out for tactics on the a7-g1 diagonal as long as Black has a knight on g4; Bird's Opening can get ugly for White fast if you miss seeing a tactic. You'll still need to pay attention to e3; Black's main try in the strongest lines is to play d5-d4, possibly following up with Nd5, and eventually you'll need to be prepared to play against that. If your opponents are still gifting you e6 setups though, that might be a ways off.

In the specific position you've shown with Black's lackluster e6 setup, you have the option of going straight for 7. e4 as @bof and @pulsar512b discussed, but that idea won't ordinarily be available if Black plays more demanding lines.

If you're dead set on making 7. Nbd2 work instead, then 7. ... Ng4 8. Nb3 doesn't look like the absolute end of the world to me, but the positions aren't pleasant and Black is calling the shots.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Yes. Do not play Nd2.

It is better to not play that variation of the reversed Dutch.

It is best to just play 1. e4 and avoid the issues with Birds.

---
Tags: opening, knights, birds-opening, fork
---


# Question
Title: Do "chess engine in the cloud" services exist?
And if so, what interfaces can connect to them, and how do they do that?

I want to analyze with Lc0, but I don't have a computer with a GPU; I could rent one for a short time period at various cloud providers, but then I don't know what GUI I could use to talk to an engine running somewhere on the Internet.

Do e.g. Chessbase, Scid, Aquarium etc have a feature to work with engines running in the cloud?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Chessbase has this feature for subscribers. Basically you can analyse your games using their cloud based engine. If you have a powerful machine yourself you can also "rent out" your engine. More details here.

Here is an older article which includes a video explaining how it works and walks you through the process.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Next Chess Move offers a number of engines in the cloud including LC0, although they charge a subscription fee for access to more powerful hardware.

At the time of writing, they provide an app on Android and iOS, though it doesn't appear to have any integration with desktop programs.

# Answer
> 5 votes
If you're looking for cloud engines that can be used outside of ChessBase as well, I'd highly recommend taking a quick view at the services offered by Chessify. Alongside other engines, we offer a 100kN/s GPU server for Leela Chess Zero at a rate of $0.10 per minute. You can use our service on ChessBase, SCID, or directly on our website.

Check out the full list of our servers/engines and prices here. We provide up to 500,000kN/s cloud servers for different chess engines. I'll be happy to answer any related questions. You can also contact me at ani@chessify.me.

---
Tags: engines
---


title: where is chessbase support located?

text:
# Question
Title: where is chessbase support located?
I asked how to fix a problem in chessbase. And was told to ask chessbase support.

I can not find any support for chessbase.

Where can I find support to fix the problems with chessbase?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I believe they mean to make a request at their support site here: https://en.chessbase.com/support-new

---
Tags: chessbase
---


title: Endgame Tablebases-What are they?

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame Tablebases-What are they?
I've been reading and enjoying the site immensely.

What is the "Endgame Tablebase"? I see it referenced frequently.

# Answer
Endgame tablebases are essentially databases containing known endgame positions that have been “solved”, so to speak. That is, every position in an endgame tablebase will have a corresponding result which will either be a win for white, a win for black, or a draw (assuming perfect play). They are used by chess engines because it is much more efficient for the computer to look up an endgame position in a database to get the result of the endgame rather than exhausting all the possible variations to determine the result.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Endgame table base is a huge tree of information, which solves the game of chess, with minimum number of pieces. We have reached up to 7 pieces up till now and the best quality tablebase is maintained by Ronald de Man at syzygy endgame tables
> 3 votes

# Answer
All the previous answers are correct. One interesting fact is the file size of tablebases grows enormously with each piece added.

* 5-Piece TB = 939 MB
* 6-Piece TB = 150.2 GB
* 7-Piece TB = 140 TB
* 8-Piece TB = \>5 PB (estimated).

Chess will be "solved" when we have a 32-piece TB. :)
> 2 votes

# Answer
Basically, Endgame Tablebases are a collection of positions involving a number of pieces, with optimal moves in the situation provided(e.g., In a Q+KvK endgame, the longest checkmate is mate in 9.)

Tablebases are used to save a chess engine's memory. It is easier to simply search up an optimal line instead of calculating all possible positions.

However, at this time, tablebases are still very limited, and the largest we have are 7-man tablebases.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: terminology, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: Does a KQQ vs KQ endgame position with perpetual check exist?
In such an endgame situation (no specific position), where White isn't pinning the Black queen on the first move, is it possible for Black to get a perpetual check if they move first?

# Answer
> 31 votes
The position given by Akavall is indeed a draw by perpetual, but it's a bit difficult to see because White has many different options at some moves. They can even choose to sacrifice the h2 queen, which effectively ends the perpetual (but it's still a draw).

A position where this is much easier to see is the following one:

```
[FEN "5k2/8/8/8/8/5q2/7Q/6QK w - - 0 1"]

1. Qgg2 Qd1+ 2. Qhg1 Qh5+ 3. Q2h2 Qf3+

```

White has two options each move, and the black queen simply moves to the opened line/diagonal. As mentioned in the comments, White could sacrifice a queen on f1 or h3, but even then Black can force a perpetual on f1 and h3 (though the easiest way to draw is then trading the last pair of queens).

# Answer
> 12 votes
Yes, it is possible. Here is an example:

```
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "5k2/1Q6/8/8/7q/8/8/6QK w - - 0 1"]

1. Qh2 Qe1+ 2. Kg2 Qe2+ 3. Kg3 Qe5+ 4. Kh3 Qh5+
5. Kg2 Qe2+

```

---
Tags: endgame, draw, queens, perpetual
---


# Question
Title: Three way fork-Why take the rook instead of the queen?
I just finished off a game and decided to do some analysis because I had a position that I was thinking about for a little bit.

I ran the game through Stockfish and the move I was thinking about was one Stockfish disagreed with.

```
[FEN "r1b3r1/pppqkpB1/2nb1N1p/8/8/5N2/PPP1BPPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 2 1"]

1. Nxd7 (1. Nxg8+)

```

I played **Nxd7**, however, Sockfish suggested that I should play *Nxg8+*.

The only thing I can think of is looking at relative value. The suggested move would result in a rook (5) and Pawn (1) for no material lost, while *Nxd7* move would result in a queen (9) and pawn (1) for a knight (3). Doing the math, the *Nxd7* move still results in a better move. That or it doesn't like me opening up Black's white bishop

I let the engines play it out from this position and in both instances the Nxd7 results in a mate faster than the Nxg8+ move.

Because I can't see any reason the the Nxh8+ move is better than the Nxd7 move, is anyone able to assist or is Stockfish drunk?

# Answer
Both moves lead to crushingly won positions for White, so all things considered it doesn't matter which one you choose. For me, Stockfish shows +14 for Nxg8+ and +9 for Nxd7. The difference between +9 and +14 is a lot less significant than the difference between, say, +0.5 and +2.5.

About the material calculation you gave: Nxd7 costs two minor pieces for the queen rather than just one, since if Black responds to Nxd7 with ...Rxg7 then the knight on d7 is also lost. So to the extent that this matters, on balance it probably favours Nxg8+ (which gains a whole rook).
> 21 votes

# Answer
In my opinion, you have to consider what can happen next too. With Nxg7+, his King is forced to move. Ke8 is a loss for them. Ke6 can cause damage if your pieces come (with Bc4 for exemple), so the best move after Nxg7 is Kd8 with the result that a Black rook that won't come for a long time in the game.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: GMs resigning in theoretically lost endgames
In classical play, do GMs tend to resign in endgames like king+queen vs king+rook where the game can be won by the side with more material in under 50 moves, but only with good play? (I understand queen vs rook is a win in 31 in worst case, barring any immediate captures/checks which make it a draw. A computer can likely draw it out to 50 moves against a human, but another human might not.)

Queen vs rook isn't the only example - think of any pawnless endgame where the fastest forced mate is between 20 and 50 moves long.

On one hand I could see that it might be insulting to continue to play on with such a difference in material, where your opponent will clearly not fall for any skewer tactics and the endgame will be very long and very boring, but on the other hand I see the pragmatism in continuing play as long as there is a non-trivial chance of a draw.

# Answer
> 4 votes
They may as well try, since Q vs R is extremely difficult to win (even disregarding skewer tactics). The example of RB vs R is a great similar example, as it is a theoretical draw, but **extraordinarily** difficult to draw. There are numerous examples of top grandmasters being unable to convert Q vs R. As to a computer vs human- this was tested in 1978 in a special match between Belle (computer program, had the tablebase so it would play perfectly), and GM Walter Browne. Two positions were played, both with a win in 31 moves. He was unable to convert one but won the other (although barely avoiding the 50 move rule)

Example 1 - Gelfand-Svidler (two of the greatest players of their time, admittedly a rapid game. Black was pushing but Gelfand held.)

Example 2 - Morozevich-Jakovenko (Morozevich was a great player, but Jakovenko not so much. Morozevich was pushing, but Jakovenko held with what is known as a rambling rook idea, where a rook is sacrificed and keeps checking so either perpetual check occurs, or the king takes the rook leading to stalemate)

To add more to this- it's quite possible that the side with the queen is in time trouble, which heightens the difficulty of breaking through.

---
Tags: rook-endgame, resigning, queen-endgame
---


title: Finding a Kasparov Game

text:
# Question
Title: Finding a Kasparov Game
I remember seeing a Kasparov game, where Black played a classical bishop sacrifice. He was playing against a computer, and I'm pretty sure it was Deep Junior. I have tried to find this game, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere.

# Answer
The 2003 game Kasparov-Deep Junior ) was a draw by repetition. Deep Junior played a bishop sacrifice on h2 and then forced the draw by repetition.

```
[Title "Garry Kasparov-Deep Junior, FIDE Man-Machine WC, New York New York USA, 1/26/2003"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "19"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Nge2 Re8 8. O-O Bd6 9. a3 c6 10. Qc2 Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Ng4+ 12. Kg3 Qg5 13. f4 Qh5 14. Bd2 Qh2+ 15. Kf3 Qh4 16. Bxh7+ Kh8 17. Ng3 Nh2+ 18. Kf2 Ng4+ 19. Kf3 Nh2+

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, famous-games, kasparov
---


title: Double Grob-Coca-cola Gambit?

text:
# Question
Title: Double Grob-Coca-cola Gambit?
I was using the opening explorer on Chess.com when I came upon the following line

1.g4 g5 2. f4 (Coca-cola gambit)!?

How did this opening get its name? It sounds like Coca-cola walked up to Fide and payed some money for some weird advertisement.

# Answer
# Sense of Humor

There are several real but somewhat silly openings that gets its name. Sodium Attack (1. **Na**3), Ammonia opening (1, Nh3), Meadow Hay Gambit (1. a4 e5 2. Ra3 Bxa3), Picklepuss Defence (1. e4 h5 2. d4 Nf6).

No one will actually play these in tournaments or something, they serves no useful purpose (except maybe training), but they're funny. Similar to code golf.

Coca-cola is very likely just something that sounds humorous.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, history, terminology, gambits
---