# Question
Title: How is White compensated in these lines of the Milner-Barry gambit?
After White's sixth move 6. Bd3 in the Milner-Barry gambit line, White hasn't yet truly offered his pawn up for sacrifice yet. It's for this reason that Black will play cxd4, but not continue the exchange following cxd4, instead fortifying against a possible Bb5+ with Bd7. What if Black chooses not to begin the exchange until he can be sure to win it? After all, is usually happy to return dxc5 with Bxc5, so there shouldn't be any rush to trade off the c-pawn. Yet when I follow the "best play" by Stockfish (and uniquely best, if it is to be trusted) following 6. ... Bd7 and arrive at the following position:

```
[FEN "r3k1nr/pp1b1ppp/1qn1p3/2bpP3/8/2PB1N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 1 8"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 Bd7 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. O-O

```

I see White has traded away one center pawn, and the other center pawn needs to be defended by pieces for the foreseeable future, and he doesn't have the attacking chances that could be expected from the mainline. Following Black's likely 8. ... a5, White can't even chase away the Black bishop with b4. Despite this, Stockfish rates White at about 0 to +0.5. What resources does he have?

There is also the following similar line, where if I didn't know any better, I'd say White ends up with many of the same problems including a meddlesome knight on his kingside, yet Stockfish rates this as about equal:

```
[FEN "r1b1k2r/pp3ppp/1qn1p3/2bpP3/6n1/2PB1N2/PP2QPPP/RNB2RK1 b kq - 3 9"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 Nh6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. O-O Ng4 9. Qe2

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am not too excited about this line for white either. Probably there is a reason that it is not played much.

```
What resources does he have?

```

As in most French, white has more space, two good bishops (vs one good for black) and if black castles short there are always ideas with attacking the king because most of black's forces are concentrated on the queen side.

Also, because you took on c5, white does not have to worry anymore about black taking on d4, making it easier to play particularly for a more positional player.

As for future plans, black most likely wants to play a5 to prevent white playing b4, Be3, a3, c4... Black's pieces are currently placed ok, but there is not much they can do from where they are. Likely sooner or later black wants to attack in the center with f6 or even d4.

After black's a5, the square b5 gets weak and white can target it developing for instance with a4, Na3, Nb5, perhaps later putting a knight on d4.

And if black castles short kingside attacks are always an option.

---
Tags: opening, french-defense, gambits
---


# Question
Title: Who is eligible to play in the 2017 FIDE Asian Zonal 3.3 in Tagaytay, Philippines?
I'm struggling to find information on this chess tournament. It's listed on FIDE's website (link):

I'd be interested in playing in this tournament, but my federation is Australia and I don't know if I'm eligible.

*Question*: Who is eligible to play in the 2017 FIDE Asian Zonal 3.3 in Tagaytay, Philippines?

# Answer
> 2 votes
That tournament is for federations in zone 3.3 (basically SE-Asia and Japan). Australia is in zone 3.6. So you could only play at the Asian zonal 3.6 in Auckland.

---
Tags: tournament
---


title: Najdorf threefold repition

text:
# Question
Title: Najdorf threefold repition
In the Sicilian Najdorf there is a well known line which ends in threefold repition (if both players want).

```
[Event "NN"]
[ECO "B90"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation, English Attack, Anti-   English"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6 8. Be3 Ng4

```

Since white retreats the bishop to c1, the positions after 5. ... a6 and 7. Bc1 are almost the same (only difference is that the knight is on g4 now) and since it is black's turn, black gained a tempo (if not for the knight's position on g4).

Two questions on this line:

* Why does black have to return the knight to f6? Aren't there any other useful moves that he could make and only retreat when being attacked?
* Ignoring any match situation or Elo difference, etc, both players insisting on this repetition, does it mean that Be3 is the best 6th move in the Najdorf for white and does it mean that normal play with 6... e5 is very dangerous for black?

# Answer
> does it mean that Be3 is the best 6th move in the Najdorf for white and does it mean that normal play with 6... e5 is very dangerous for black?

"No" is the answer to the first question and "Not really but in any case, as hoacin points out, there are plenty of reasonable alternatives for black" is the answer to the second question.

Look, whether it is true or not, the vast numbers of cynical ordinary club players like me strongly suspect that every time a game like this was played it was preceded by the players meeting in the bar the night before and agreeing a draw and then picking their favourite "forced draw" variation.

When challenged the players will come out with standard BS along the lines of "Well, I spent hours preparing the X variation \[say first 5 moves above\] because I know my opponent plays that line a lot. All my preparation was based around move 6 and I expected he would play move y \[obviously a different choice from the drawing variation\] and when he didn't I had to fall back on the repetition line".

It is complete hogwash. Everybody knows it. But if both players have decided, for perfectly good reasons \[tournament situation, tired after previous long hard game, minor illness - cold, stomach bug, etc., opponent is a close relative\] that a draw is what they want then there isn't much anybody can do about.
> 3 votes

# Answer
He doesn't have to return, but it is probably the most flexible move. You can't hold knight's position on g4, you don't like going on e5 and the knight will be attacked by the most natural move in the world (Be2 or f3). White makes no concessions while black would make some.

e6 isn't possible Nc6 isn't Najdorf's favorite move g6 is dragon e5 is well met by Nf5

If Bc1 was easy to 'refute', it would never become popular in the first place.

I don't understand much the 2nd question.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, najdorf, threefold-repetition
---


# Question
Title: Should a beginner try to learn 1 specific opening in depth or is not the best use of time?
Or will it be better to learn 5 different openings at a lower detail level?

And what 1 or 5 openings would you then suggest?

# Answer
I would recommend against focusing on depth and instead focus on breadth.

There are "famous" openings that people memorize, and there's some value in it. However, you also have to understand all of the points of departure that arise from it. What happens if your opponent ignores your move, and does their own thing. If you truly understand the opening, then that isn't an issue. However, if you merely memorized the opening, you may not know what to do when your opponent doesn't play ball.

A perfect example from my past is the Scandinavian Defense, 1. e4 d5. This is typically followed by 2. exd5 Qxd5. Then there's a merry chase as black tries to leverage the power of having such a massive piece as the queen out in the open, but still having to pay attention to the development of other pieces. Meanwhile, white can develop while attacking the queen. It's a beautiful opening, and I really enjoyed playing it. However, one time I had an opponent who simply didn't go after my queen. He calmly just went about his business. I soon realized that I'd learned how to follow the "main lines" of this opening so deeply that I had never learned how to actually leverage that queen out in the open if my opponent lets me use it. I fell behind on development, and ended up losing. Later analysis with my chess coach showed me that I actually had the advantage when my opponent deviated from the normal lines, but I simply had not prepared myself to leverage the situation when he departed from the main line.

Also consider what your goals are for chess. If your goal is to win a bunch of games at the beginner level, massive memorization of how to beat someone in the opening has value. If you want to learn the game, however, you may need to take a more subtle nuanced approach. You may want to just *try things* in the opening, just to see what happens. Eventually you will find that these "openings" are indeed best practices, but by exploring on your own you will learn *why* they are best practices.
> 3 votes

# Answer
What is your level?

For an absolute beginner learning general opening principles (fight for the centre, develop minor pieces, castle for king safety...), tactic training and paying attention not to blunder pieces in one move, will be much more useful than learning an opening.

Also if you play mostly low rated opponents there is not much point studying a specific line in the Sicilian to move 30 if all your opponents know is the first 4 moves of the Italian game.

If you study an opening make sure to not only study the move but also the typical plans which can be for instance typical pawn breaks, exchanging bad bishops and keeping the good one, typical regrouping manoeuvres, etc

Opening theory can be very complex. For a beginner I recommend to start with the main line and not too deep (how deep will depend on the opening). As you encounter side lines in your games or feel that you lose because you are on your own after your main line theory ends, you can always learn more.

Getting away with one opening will not be possible as with black you will have to prepare for at least d4 and e4. And if you are white and start with e4 you need to be prepared for at least e5, c5, e6, c6... As above I recommend to start studying what you encounter most often first and play the other opening s on general principles until you learn them.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, training, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Blender 3D models for chess pieces and board for blind players (open licence)?
I am interested in Blender 3D models for chess pieces that can be used in a 3D printer.
I am aware of Blender 3D models for "normal" chess pieces that are available under an open licence, i.e. this chessboard and these pieces (just the pieces?) in the Blender 3D Model Repository (available under a Creative Commons licence).

However, I have an additional requirement: I would like 3D models of chess pieces and a chess board that can be used by **blind players**.

* For the **pieces**, this means that each piece has a little pin at the bottom that fits into a hole in the squares (so the pieces don't get knocked over when you check where they are). In addition, the pieces need something to distinguish white from black (e.g. an extra pin at the top of the black pieces.
* For the **board**, this means that each square has a little hole where the pins on the fit in, and the black squares are raised compared to the white squares.

You can see some examples on ChessHouse.com and MaxiAids.com.

Are there any Blender models for this? Especially under a Creative Commons licence?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I don't know much about 3d printing, but you could design your own.

Windows has a program called 3D Builder with a built in chess set that you modify, as well as a 4x4 game board that can be modified and built up. 3D Builder is free on the app store.

If you get stuck, I suggest visiting 3D Printing.SE.

---
Tags: chess-set
---


# Question
Title: Is there a master list of FEN chess positions for advanced beginner/intermediate?
I'm an advanced beginner. I don't have internet access as much as I like to, so I'd much rather have a series of chess position FENs that I can put into some free chess engine and then try to play them myself offline. I've tried getting those huge books with bunch of problems for beginners (like "mate in three") but they're heavy to carry around and also I'm still struggling with visualization so I like to have the computer nearby. I've also tried to just play a game against those free chess engines but I find it very difficult to maintain my focus. It's much easier to work 30 minutes on a problem or two, take a break, then do another couple, until it becomes easy enough to visualize.

The sort of problems I have in mind are like the one I just mentioned (mate in X number of moves) but also ones see on the popular chess websites, like being given a position and try to either gain material or checkmate or prevent opponent from doing so. In short, not so much positional chess than tactical.

Appreciate suggestions.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Do you have a smartphone or tablet? The Chessok (formerly Convekta) people have ported a number of their training programs to Android (and I'm guessing iOS), and they are much cheaper than the PC versions ($8 vs $15-20). Search for chess king in one of the app stores. This includes things like CT-ART, Elementary Chess Tactics I & II, Chess Tactics for Beginners, and others.

A quick search on Google found this as well:

http://tacticstime.com/tactics-time-download-page/

---
Tags: problems, fen
---


# Question
Title: Are there any lines in the Lopez Opening / MacLeod Attack that are actually good for White?
In an event I played in this past weekend, I was surprised when (playing Black) I encountered: 1. e4 e5 2. c3.

I'd never seen this opening before - later web searching told me that it is the Lopez Opening a/k/a MacLeod Attack (ECO code C20, which seems to cover several miscellaneous double king pawn openings). When I saw White's second move, I couldn't imagine what the purpose of it was, and was worried that I was missing some sort of obvious trap. But I didn't see one. The only thing I could think at the time was that my opponent was trying to get me "out of book", but at my level that's sort of pointless - I don't have much of a book to begin with... So I just fell back to general opening principles and played 2. ... Nf6. My opponent's continuation was the (possibly even more dubious) 3. d3. This all led to a fairly easy game for me, that I won in less than 20 moves.

Thinking about it afterwards, the most confusing thing was that this was played by a player with about 4 years of tournament experience rated about 150 points higher than me. So this wasn't someone who's just learning the game. So I'm just mystified as to why someone would play this opening. I tried to do some research to see if there are any lines that are good for White, but found that MCO and FCO don't even cover this opening. The opening explorer on 365Chess (which I admittedly don't know how big its database is, or where it gets its games) seems to indicate that the best continuations for Black are 2. ... Nf6 or 2. ... d5, with around a 75% winning percentage, or 2. ... Nc6, with more than an 80% winning percentage (but with a much smaller sample size than the other two).

Are there any reasonably rational plans for White with this opening that I haven't been able to find, other than just playing it for the "surprise factor"? Am I missing something obvious here?

# Answer
> 7 votes
The reason to play 1.e4 e5 2.c3 is probably to go for a slow manoeuvring/strategic game without much theory.

After the natural 2...d5, white can go for 3.d3 and in case of 3... dxe4 4.dxe4 Qxd1 5.Kxd1. This transposes into a familiar position with one tempo up and reversed colors compared with 1.e4 d6 2.d4 d5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8.

Note that in the line 1.e4 e5 2.c3 d5 3.d3 dxe4 4.dxe4 Qxd1 5.Kxd1 the move c3 is useful because it gives the King the square c2 to hide and a good control on d4.

# Answer
> 4 votes
2. c3 is probably not a good move as it blocks the square c3 for the white knight. Black can take advantage of this fact with either:

* 2....d5, when after 3. exd5 Qxd5, the black queen is difficult to attack

or

* 2.....Nf6, when white is forced to defend the e4 pawn passively with 3. d3/Qc2 or similar or go for sharp play with 3. d4 (likely sacrificing a pawn doing so)

Why did he play this? Ask him! One reason I could think of is that some beginners might automatically play 2....Nc6 as they are used to the Italian/Spanish game. In that case 2...Nc6 3. d4 going for a strong pawn center, could be a point, though it is not the end of the world for black either.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: An offline alternative to lichess.org's online analysis engine
Lichess.org has probably the best chess analysis interface. But, the problem it works only online.

Whereas, Stockfish the engine behind the analysis is downloadable, the interface is not.

I am looking for an analysis software (preferably open source and free) that uses traditional engines and can provide data such as number of blunders, mistakes, inaccuracies etc,. And, preferably with graphs and statistics like lichess.org.

The reason for open source is that so it can be compiled across several operating systems. And, most importantly, can be modified to suit individual needs.

# Answer
I will strongly recommend SCID. Its open source and very feature rich.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Scid vs PC has the ability to annotate games:

http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/doc/Analysis.htm#Annotating
> 1 votes

# Answer
LucasChess Has a great anlysis interface and is also open source
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


# Question
Title: Huge difference between elometer.net approximation and other rating
I have a chess.com 3-days-per-move rating of ~1400 and recently I played someone offline with a national ELO rating of ~1530 which was a surprisingly equal game (even according to the computer) until I eventually got a slightly worse position, blundered and subsequently resigned. I assume my national ELO rating (although I don't have one) would be between 1400 and 1500.

I found this website http://elometer.net, claiming to approximate your ELO strength (ostensibly with a 95% confidence interval of 250 points) by asking you which move you would play in 76 different positions (including, but certainly not limited to, tactical puzzles), and took the test.

Unfortunately for the authors of the test their estimation was about 500 (?!) points too high: I was estimated having a playing strength of ~1950 ELO with the "95% confidence interval" of \[1829, 2079\].

On the other hand, I remember taking this test one or two years ago, getting an estimation which was lower. IIRC (*big* if), the estimation then was around 1700. This correlates with my chess.com rating, which has improved by about 200 points since then.

The test appears to have some serious theoretical foundation and was made by people associated with a university in a major city in Germany, so I assume the people who made this are quite knowledgeable in their fields and knew what they were doing. Yet the test is quite inaccurate. Why did the authors publish this test? Do they actually believe the test is accurate? Why is it off by so much?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I recently took the test and the result was reasonable (around 2100), so it is not complete bogus.

However I am rather skeptical about such tests, since I believe that playing strength/Elo rating depends on more factors than finding the best move in a certain position; such as the following which are not really tested at elometer as far as I can see:

* Can you concentrate for 4-6 hours that a game can last?
* Do you blunder often?
* Can you come up with good long time plans in the middlegame?
* How good is your opening knowledge?
* Can you spot the point in a game where you need to find a good/special move, i.e. the point where you have to invest some time thinking vs following a certain plan more or less automatically?

Regarding your comparison of online rating (1400), expected Elo of 1400-1500 and the elometer estimate of 1950, a few thoughts:

* Any rating system is only relative to the pool of people playing. You cannot compare online ratings from one website with online ratings from another website or with the FIDE Elo.
* You say your online rating is from 3 days/move game, which is a big difference to the Elo which is from normal games with hour long time scale.
* In my experience players of your strength, particularly if they are beginning with chess, are not very stable in their playing strength. One game they might play like a grandmaster ;-) and in the next game, well...
* There is a small (but finite) probability for you to score any Elo rating in the elometer test, so having just one outlier like yours does not mean that the test is bad.

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


title: Delete annotations in pgn games

text:
# Question
Title: Delete annotations in pgn games
Using ChessBase 13, I saved a bunch of games in PGN format. Is there a simple way to suppress the comments of all annotated games? I would like to avoid doing it one by one.

# Answer
In Chessbase, copy the games to a temp database, right click the file, go to tools and select Unannotate db, then copy to the games to a pgn file.

Edited to note Unannotate doesn't work on pgn files directly.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Goto https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/pgn-extract/help.html#suppress and look for Suppress annotations in the output.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pgn, chessbase, annotation
---


# Question
Title: Implementing Late Move Reduction (LMR) inside iterative deepening
Here I am trying to improve my engine, and the next feature on the list is LMR. I understood the general ideia, but since I don't want to introduce bugs and the CPW on the subject has no code, how do I go about coding it inside an `iterative deepening` scheme?

Here's my current code:

```
   //inside alpha-beta move loop
   //bool doReduce = false;
   int tmp_mv = moves.get(i);

 /* Late move reduction CPW code */
    if (depth > 3 && legal > 3 && (!atCheck) &&
        Move::captured(tmp_mv) == 0 && Move::promoteTo(tmp_mv) == 0 &&
            (mv_from != Move::from(board.searchKillers[0][board.ply]) || mv_to != Move::to(board.searchKillers[0][board.ply])) &&
            (mv_from != Move::from(board.searchKillers[1][board.ply]) || mv_to != Move::to(board.searchKillers[1][board.ply])) &&
            !oppAtCheck){
                int reduce = legal > 6 ? 2 : 1;
                //doReduce = true;
                score = -alphaBeta(-beta, -alpha, depth - 1 - reduce, true);

            //re-search
            if (score > alpha)
               score = -alphaBeta(-beta, -alpha, depth - 1, true);
        }
        else {//no LMR
            score = -alphaBeta(-beta, -alpha, depth - 1, true);
        }

```

This appears to be working, but I have some questions:

1. Is the code correct?
2. CPW engine (and many others) have code like this:

`if (! isPV && ... ) { apply some heuristic }`

Since I'm not using `PVS`, how do I deal with this in my code? Do I need something like this:

```
//probe hashtable, at the top of alphabeta
int hash_move = HashTable::probe(board)

//inside move loop
if (tmp_mv !=  hash_move && conditions ){ apply heuristic }

```

Thank you!

# Answer
1. LMR is a general technique and there is no rule on the best implementation. That is why chess programming is hard, because you are expected to come up with your own interpretation and implementation.
2. LMR works like this:

> ```
> if (this is a late move)
> {
>     if (this late move satisfies certain conditions)
>     {
>         Find a reduced depth to search
>         Search alpha-beta with the reduced depth
>         Do a full-search if the result is greater than alpha
>     }
> }
>
> ```

LMR is easy to understand but hard to master. Let's go through one by one. We will use Stockfish for our example. The code is https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/search.cpp.

3. **If this is a late move**. What is a late move? We know the first move in iterative deepening is definitely not a late move, because we assume the first move is most likely the best move. Stockfish defines a late move like this:

> ```
> if (... moveCount > 1 ...)
>
> ```

Stockfish starts LMR search if there's enough depth to reduce and the move is not the first move in iterative deepening (`moveCount > 1`). There is no right or wrong answer here, in my engine I refused to reduce for the first two moves and I like my idea. Your implementation might be different, but you should always find a move that you think most likely to **fail-low**. The CPW wiki suggests:

> Typically, most schemes search the first few moves (say 3-4) at full depth, then if no move fails high, many of the remaining moves are reduced in search depth.

This is just a recommendation, as Stockfish has implemented more aggressive reduction.

4. **This late move satisfies certain conditions**. Generally, you don't reduce if:

* Tactical sequences
    * Checks
    * During reduced search
    * PV node

You should consider to minmise reduction for PV nodes. The PV nodes form the most likely sequence of moves your engine reports, thus it's important to be as precise as possible.

You should also be careful if the move is a capture, because it's easier to make a search horizon mistake if you reduce the move too much.

This is Stockfish's implementation:

> ```
> if (    depth >= 3 * ONE_PLY &&  moveCount > 1
>   && (!captureOrPromotion || moveCountPruning))
>
> ```

5. **Find a reduced depth to search**. This is hard because nobody knows how much to reduce. You'll need to play hundreds and hundreds of games to tune your parameter. Generally, you reduce more if:

* Cut node
    * Poor SEE
    * Quiet move

Again, there's no right or wrong here. Stockfish has the following:

```
 // Decrease/increase reduction for moves with a good/bad history
 r = std::max(DEPTH_ZERO, (r / ONE_PLY - ss->history / 20000) * ONE_PLY);

 if (cutNode)
     r += 2 * ONE_PLY;

 // Decrease reduction for moves that escape a capture. Filter out
 // castling moves, because they are coded as "king captures rook" and
 // hence break make_move().
 else if (   type_of(move) == NORMAL
             && type_of(pos.piece_on(to_sq(move))) != PAWN
             && !pos.see_ge(make_move(to_sq(move), from_sq(move)),  VALUE_ZERO))
      r -= 2 * ONE_PLY;

```

Stockfish considers the history, node type and move type.

6. **Search alpha-beta with the reduced depth**. This is standard. You will need to recursively search for the reduced depth you calculate. Stockfish has this:

> value = -search(pos, ss+1, -(alpha+1), -alpha, d, true);

Note that the reduced depth is passed to the search function.

7. **Do a full-search**. This is also standard. If your alpha-beta returns something greater than your lower bound (alpha), you have no choice but to do a full-search. If your LMR implementation is correct, the benefit you gain by reducing should outweight the cost of doing a full-search. Otherwise, LMR is a liability. Stockfish has this:

> ```
> // For PV nodes only, do a full PV search on the first move or after a fail
> // high (in the latter case search only if value < beta), otherwise let the
> // parent node fail low with value <= alpha and try another move.
> if (PvNode && (moveCount == 1 || (value > alpha && (rootNode || value < beta))))
>
> ```

**EDIT:**

You don't have to add a check to PV node if you don't want to. But in chess programming, there are lots of things you should and should not be done in PV nodes. For example, we typically don't reduce for PV nodes. Your engine might lose rating if you don't check.
> 5 votes

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


title: Is White checkmated?

text:
# Question
Title: Is White checkmated?
Does Black's pinned knight on `g4` protect the bishop on `f2` from the white king?

```
B2N4/8/3p2p1/Q2P4/4R1nk/7b/PPP2bpP/1R4K1 w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
This is checkmate.

According to the fide rules (bold by me):

1.2
The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

3.9
The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, **even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check**. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What are minimum number of moves needed to checkmate a king using king and rook?
Assuming that both players do the best move, I want to know the minimum number of moves needed in the worst case scenario when checkmating a lone king using king and rook.

**Edit**: The worst case does not include "stalemate" or "king able to capture rook" positions, as it will be clearly draw in that cases.

# Answer
> 8 votes
According to this site, the worst case for King + Rook vs. King is the following position, requiring 16 moves to mate (White to move):

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/2k5/1R6/K7 w - - 0 1"]

```

There are other positions which require 16 moves, e.g. with the White King on a1, Rook on e2, and the Black King on d3.

You can play these endgames with an online database viewer, e.g. Shredder.

The worst case scenario (for White) with Black to move is when Black is stalemated or can capture the rook, when it is a draw. With White to move, all positions are won.

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: Does it make sense to use an online ELO-rating-test for a beginner as a monthly test tool in order to see my progress?
I'm almost a beginner in the chess world who at the moment only plays online and watch various chess lectures on youtube.

I'm thinking about using http://www.elometer.net/ on a monthly basis in order to see my progress over time.

What are the pro and cons of doing that?

# Answer
Elometer is just a test.

A *true* rating system score is only *relative*, i.e. it means something only *among the members of a group* (that should be big, but is *finite*). After choosing **Elo**, **ree**, **TrueSkill**, **Glicko** \- here's a comparison \- or what you like better, it makes no sense at all to compare your score within a group with your or someone else's scores in other groups, or do some other *abstraction*.

You can go on playing online and check your Elo variations, or record a subset of matches in another rating system (as aforementioned Glicko, TrueSkill or rankade, our free-to-use rating system), or in case use them for your club, or friends, and track your score vs matches or time. These are good ways to measure your progress.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Well, the main problem with these tests is that they aren't reliable. They can only give you a *rough indication* of your playing strength, nothing more. Maybe something accurate to 100 rating points, and it's very hard to gain 100 points in a month, even for a beginner. So it will be hard to measure your progress on that scale.

Also, taking the same test over and over again makes you recognize certain test questions, instead of solving them with pure chess skills. And lastly, they measure your ability to solve chess diagrams, instead of your playing strength. That encompasses many more things like an opening repertoire, knowing how to spend your time over the game, etc.
> 7 votes

# Answer
If you are playing online you should already have an online rating which should be enough to track your progress.

As far as I can see, the website you list tries to give an estimate based on how well you solve tactics puzzles. Tactics is important, but not all to estimate playing strength.

At least at some level other aspects like openings or strategy/developing long time plans will become relevant and it is difficult to assess these in a test.

Also note that ratings (e.g online and FIDE Elo) are not comparable as they always depend on the player pool. If you only want to track progress it is fine if you stick with one rating system. I don't see much need for another test.
> 5 votes

# Answer
answer: No cons. More info can only be better, but it is just a number to measure an abstract skill. The key is to not read into it anything other than that.

As mentioned already, you should be playing online as much as you can (G15 at least, blitz less, bullet never), and that will give you a good approximation of your rating.

But it is just a number, something you should not be married to.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, beginner, online
---


# Question
Title: How to play against bad bishop outside pawn chain
I'm trying to understand general principles and common themes on how to play against a bad bishop outside of the pawn chain. In particular, I'm talking about the less sharp variations of the london system, slav, and caro kann(although I don't play the caro kann with either side). Think typical london system or 4. e3 slav where black plays Bf5 or Bg4. Are there any enlightening games or common ideas?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Two ideas that spring to my mind:

1. Harass the bishop, and threaten to trap it / exchange it for a knight, with moves like h3, g4 and Nh4.
2. Attack the squares/pawns the bishop has left behind, with moves like Qb3 targeting the b7 pawn, or Qa4 / Bb5 / Ne5 targeting the a4-e8 diagonal.

# Answer
> 1 votes
More to the point would be why do you think a bishop is "bad" if it is outside the pawn chain? The bishop on f5/g6 for black is a fine piece in the Caro Kann. It serves several functions, offensively and defensively.

That is simplistic and novice thinking.

More to the point is it can be considered "bad" if it cannot attack opposing pawns and only its own pawns, and if it serves no useful purpose.

---
Tags: opening, slav-defense, london-system, bad-bishop
---


# Question
Title: How should I prevent the quality of my game from declining?
So, I was a very good player 4 years ago and then due to academic commitments I had to discontinue playing chess. Now, I want to start again but I seem to have lost the old skills and it seems that the quality of my game has dropped very much. I want to again start playing but I don't know where to start from? Is it advisable to start again from scratch as that will take a lot of time? Should I just focus on playing more games? Any pointers or suggestions please?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I have always found the fastest way to get rid of some rust to be tactics training.

I would recommend two steps:

First you do a lot of relatively simple exercises, like game typical 'mate in two' (not chess problems, those can be quite difficult). This will remind your brain to automatically spot the easy stuff and reduce the probability of really bad blunders. You can go through the same positions several times.

Then you do some hard problems with something like 15 minutes per problem, here every problem should be new to you, you should sit down with a clock and write down your solution. This should get you back into tournament shape.

In my experience this works a lot better than playing blitz online. Playing long games seriously should have a similar effect, but I usually want to get back into shape *before* I play a really serious game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> Should I just focus on playing more games?

Absolutely!

The single most effective way to improve, regardless of your situation, is to play lots of serious games at standard time rates (so not blitz and rapid). You have been good before. You will be good again, probably even better, if you just start playing serious games (league and congress) more often.

Playing serious games means that the rules oblige you to write the moves down. A day or two after each game try and make a point of setting up the pieces on a board and going through the game. If you have the time an old tip from the Soviet school of chess is to write annotations for each of your games. This will help you think about where you went wrong and where your opponent went wrong.

# Answer
> 1 votes
1. Play
2. Tactics
3. Play out Difficult Positions multiple times from both sides against a decent computer program or a friend with a comparable or higher rating.

You want to simulate and stimulate game play with #3. It is a great training tool to use and is underutilized by just about everyone. Why do you think masters know plans so well in a wide variety of positions? \<== SECRET

You play the position multiple times from both sides to investigate different offensive and defensive ideas. \<== SECRET

# Answer
> 1 votes
I had more or less the same situation when university intervened. I have tried a couple of solutions, having returned after five years. I am (almost) back to my old strength now, barely missed an IM norm few months ago. Here is what I can say about the process:

1. Tactics first: Knowledge and patterns fade slower than your calculation so first things first. Find tactics from actual games which must **not** be trivial for you, nor too hard. Get out of your comfort zone and get the engine rolling.
2. Update your opening repertoire: Make it brief, stick with your old openings. I would suggest against starting to play new openings immediately. Find analyzed games (no engine, the more text the better) in your openings and guess the moves.
3. Play training games: Make sure to go over each and every game in detail afterwards. Postmortem is an invaluable tool. Tournaments is first, otherwise internet and rapid time controls (blitz only before the tournaments to get in shape)
4. Solve studies: This teaches you endgames and skill of calculation (elimination above all). I believe this helped me most.

Good luck!

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Is there a Unicode-compatible alternative to PGN?
One of the problems with PGN is that it requires ASCII, while names of players often contain non-ASCII characters. (And of course, many names are not written in the Latin alphabet ...)

The background to this question is the rendering of non-ASCII characters in Arena 3.5.1 (on Windows 7), as in the image below. The names for white and black are `Mittelsträß, Jürg` and `王, 玥`, respectively. Arena reads the UTF-8-encoded file as if it were encoded as Windows Codepage 1252. Editors such as Notepad++, SublimeText and JEdit identify the file as UTF-8 (which is the default encoding of all my plain text files, anyway).

Here's an example PGN for testing:

```
[Event "Office Armageddon"]
[Site "Böblingen GER"]
[Date "??.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mittelsträß, Jürg"]
[Black "王, 玥"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Mode "OTB"]
[Termination "unterminated"]

1. d2-d4 d7-d5 2. e2-e3 c7-c5 3. Bf1-b5+ Bc8-d7 4. a2-a4 Ng8-f6 5. d4xc5 e7-e5 6. b2-b4 Nb8-c6 7. Ng1-f3 Qd8-c7 8. Nb1-c3 a7-a6 9.  *

```

(SCID assumes a system encoding if a PGN is encoded in UTF-8 without a byte order mark (BOM), but the BOM makes no difference in Areana 3.5.1.)

So I'd like to know if there is a **Unicode-compatible alternative (ideally UTF-8)** that is supported by some chess programs. (If not, PGN needs an overhaul.)

# Answer
https://sourceforge.net/p/pgn4web/wiki/PGN\_Support/

if you read that, you will notice:

`in order for pgn4web to display those characters correctly, the PGN file should be saved in unicode UTF-8 format.`

you *can* save PGN as UTF-8... Just open `notepad > Save As... > Encoding` and select `UTF-8`. and you can then add the appropriate player names! I've tested this, and it works with Arena Chess and a few others...

Hope this solves your problem. ~CSS
> 2 votes

# Answer
PGN databases created by ChessBase programs are encoded as UTF-8 by default, too.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: What is the purpose of editorial comments in Informants?
I was browsing an old Informant today and came across an editorial comment, marked with RR. I've seen several of them at the beginning of a game that reference another game, involving a completely different opening, by other players. What is the purpose of these comments?

# Answer
> 2 votes
`RR` = `Redaction Remark`, meaning they consider recommended line to be better, or that the game/line they pointed out is relevant...

`{Credit to AlwaysLearningNewStuff's comment above}`

---
Tags: books, annotation
---


# Question
Title: What to play as black after Bishop's Opening: 1. e4 e5; 2. Bc4
I keep losing at my chess club to the Bishop's Opening:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

```

I have no idea what to play after that, any help?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The Bishop's Opening often transposes to the Italian, so black's response depends on which line he wants to play after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4: 3....Bc5 or 3....Nf6. The former allows the Evans Gambit (4.b4), while in case of the latter, black should be ready for 4.Ng5.

According to the GameDatabase of ChessTempo, after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4, the most popular responses are 2....Nf6, 2....Nc6 and 2....Bc5.

The most popular and probably the most aggressive move is 2....Nf6. Now, white's main options are

* 3.d3. After 3....Nc6, the game will likely transpose to the Italian after 4.Nf3. Another idea is to try to grab the initiative with 3....c6 4.Nf3 d5.
* 3.d4, the Urusov Gambit. After 3....exd4 4.Nf3 has several options, e.g. 4....Nxe4, 4....d5 and 4....Bb4+. Moreover, 4....Nc6 transposes to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4.
* 3.Nc3. Now, black has two good options: 3....Nc6 or 3....Nxe4.

If black wants to play 3....Bc5 against the Italian, then 2....Bc5 against the Bishop's Opening is definitely an option. However, white has the option transpose to the King's Gambit with 3.f4.

If black doesn't want to bother with all the possible transpositions, then he can consider 2....Nc6.

```

      [StartPly "3"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 (3...Nf6 4.Ng5) 4.b4) Nf6 (2...Nc6) (2...Bc5 3.f4) 3.d3 (3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6 (4...Nxe4)(4...d5)(4...Bb4+)) (3.Nc3 Nc6 (3...Nxe4)) Nc6 (3...c6 4.Nf3 d5) 4.Nf3

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
I have played this in the past, and always had trouble with the following line:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4  e5
2. Bc4 Nf6
3. d3  c6
4. Nc3 d5

```

You can also play Bc5 on move 2, to prevent the Urusov Gambit, 3. d4, and likely transpose either into the Italian Game, or white may continue as above into a King's Gambit Declined setup.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You can go and convert it into a Giuoco Piano chess opening with the moves:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Bc5
3. Nf3 Nc6

```

Now you have transposed into a regular opening line and can carry forward from there.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, bishops-opening
---


# Question
Title: Repertoire book on the Ruy Lopez exchange variation?
```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6

```

Is there a good opening repertoire book for White advocating the Ruy Lopez exchange variation?

# Answer
Larry Kaufman's *The Chess Advantage in Black and White* is a well-regarded (though old, by opening book standards) repertoire book that uses the Ruy Lopez exchange.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I had also problems with finding good book about it. What is worth Chessbase has videos tutorial about it and I find it quite resourceful.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/robert-ris-fighting-the-ruy-lopez-exchange https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/spanish\_exchange\_variation
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, books, ruy-lopez, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Are the best engines good enough that they will always win against the best humans?
I understand that they are much *better*, but are they good enough yet that they can always win (i.e. never draw) against a GM? If not, how far away might this situation be?

# Answer
TL;DR - that ship has sailed.

---

EDIT - one user claims quite rightly that the ELOs between different populations should not be compared. And by different populations, he means FIDE ELO and whatever ELO the chess engine people are using. He is correct. Therefor, we cannot say that a 2800 ELO is the same as a 2800 other-ELO. But in the current case, we do have enough information to know that the other-ELO are in the ballpark. Giving the paucity of information available, what follows is my best guess.

---

Bear in mind that there have been few ratable games between humans and chess engines. Comparing ELOs is *fraught with peril*. That being said...

The best engines on non-customized but stout hardware are rated well above Magnus. Stockfish and Komodo are estimated to play with the strength of a 3381 player. At his peak, Magnus Carlsen achieved a rating of 2882, the highest rating ever achieved by a human.

The way ELO works is that a 400 point ratings difference means the lower rated player has virtually no chance of winning the game.

The difference between the current Stockfish rating and peak-Magnus' rating is 499 points, well over the 400 point limit.

When Kasparov lost a match to a computer (the first) he wasn't hailed as the Heroic Defender of the Realm. It hurt his reputation to a degree. Engines are far better now even on non-custom hardware. Professionals have little incentive to play them. And engines are no fun to play.

I think it is fair to say that Magnus would have no chance of winning a tournament-type match against the best Stockfish or Komodo implementations.

For this reason, while we can't know for sure, but the time has probably already arrived - only a fluke would save Magnus from losing every game. And bear in mind, this is on commercial-commodity, not custom, hardware. (Deep Blue, the machine that beat Kasparov, was on corporate-sponsored custom hardware, as a comparison.)

---

Here, enthusiasts have rated many engines:

Remember, these ratings should probably not be directly compared to FIDE ELO ratings.

---

Fun fact! According to this page, in 2009, a **cell phone** achieved a rating of 2898 (higher than Magnus' highest), against humans, at a FIDE category 6 tournament. Had it been human, it would have received a "GM norm".

---

And according to this page, in 2007 and 2008, there were a few human-engine matches, and Rybka gave odds (eg pawn-and-move) to the human. A 2700-ish player won these matches but it was not a slaughter. The player lost a normal (non-odds) match to Rybka. The best Rybka engine is currently rated as the *15th* strongest engine.

---
> 6 votes

# Answer
Chess engines increase in playing strength each year.

This is partly due to the increase in processing power that enables calculations to be made to ever greater depths in a given time. In addition, programming techniques have improved, enabling the engines to be more selective in the lines that they analyze and to acquire a better positional understanding.

According to one survey, the top engines have been increasing in strength by an average of 67 Elo per year since 1986.

---

# Current Computer Engine ELO Ratings

---

# Highest Ratings Achieved by *Humans*

---

As you can see, there is a substantial difference in the top ratings of Man, and Machine.

To answer your question:
*Are the best engines good enough that they will always win against the best humans?*

Most of the time, yes. Though sometimes they *will* draw.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Playing Crazyhouse OTB

text:
# Question
Title: Playing Crazyhouse OTB
I was playing Crazyhouse online on Lichess and I wondered how to play OTB, namely how to change the color of a captured piece.

I came up with 2 methods.

1. Exchange the captured piece for another of a separate chess set, picking the opposite color.
2. Pieces are 2d cards, with the Black version of the piece on one side and White on the other.\]

Does anyone know better methods?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Shogi also called "Japanese Chess" use the crazyhouse mechanics as well. They have one-colored (flat) pieces that always face in one direction. If you capture a piece and bring it back into play you just let it face towards your opponent.

---
Tags: chess-variants, otb-chess, crazyhouse
---


# Question
Title: Which binary of Stockfish 7 should I use?
Stockfish 7 for Windows comes with 3 64-bit binaries:

* `stockfish 7 x64 bmi2.exe`
* `stockfish 7 x64 popcnt.exe`
* `stockfish 7 x64.exe`

All 3 of them work on my system. Which one gives the best performance?

# Answer
Open a terminal/console. Run the stockfish program, if the engine crashes move to the next one.

Type `bench` for the working binaries, and pick the one with best nodes/second.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I think in general, the 'best' is x64\_bmi2, then x64\_popcnt, then x64 and x32 is 'worst'. That said, if your processor doesn't support bmi2 it won't run, etc. So pick the best one that doesn't crash.

To confirm this I ran the benchmarks given above.

On my PC (nodes/sec): stockfish\_32: 1380872 stockfish\_64: 1764951 stockfish\_64\_popcnt: 1813557 stockfish\_64\_bmi2: 1886284
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What does the FIDE do besides organize the international tournament?
What does the FIDE do besides the organize the international tournament? Or does the FIDE specialize in the tournament?

# Answer
> 1 votes
(I am not an expert so the following list will be incomplete.)

FIDE does:

* calculate Ratings
* issue Titles (CM/WCM, FM/WFM, IM/WIM, GM/WGM)
* defines the chess rules
* umbrella organization for national organizations
* issue "Medal of Merit Awardees"
* and overall try to promote-improve chess (like try to make chess part of the Olympic games)

# Answer
> 0 votes
FIDE (Fédération Internationale des Echecs) is the world governing body for chess in the same way that FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) is the world governing body for soccer. You'll notice that both titles are in French. That's because these organizations were started almost 100 years ago when French was the language of international diplomacy. Today the principle language of FIDE is English and the definitive versions of the rules and regulations are the English versions. Where there is a conflict between the English version and a translation then the English version is the correct version.

FIDE is an international federation, so its constituents are national federations, although "national" is stretched a bit so that, for instance, the UK is represented by separate English, Scottish and Welsh "national" federations and conversely the Irish Chess Federation represents both the country of Ireland and the part of the UK called Northern Ireland. There are currently 188 member federations, but this number is almost constantly changing. These member national federations run chess in their regions and supply individuals to serve on the FIDE board and commissions. The chess competitions these federations run are for the most part run according to the rules and regulations laid down by FIDE.

There are also about 20 affiliated organizations. These include wider geographical organizations like the European Chess Union, special interest (language or race) organizations like the Francophone Chess Association and Arab Chess Federation and more loosely associated organizations like the International Computer Games Association, International Correspondence Chess Federation and the World Federation for Chess Composition.

There is a president and a board who form the "government" of FIDE and meet 4 times a year at quarterly presidential board meetings but the bulk of the work of administration is performed by the approximately 25 different commissions. These vary in importance from the Rules Commission, Anti-Cheating Commission, Events Commission to less critical ones like Commission for Chess in Museums and Commission of Chess Journalists, for example.

To give a complete answer to your question as to what FIDE does would involve describing the work of these ~25 commissions which would be very long indeed so I will make do with describing the functions of some of the more important commissions.

**Rules Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=25)

This commission controls the FIDE Laws of Chess which define the layout of the pieces, how they move, how the game ends, how players should move, behave, handle the clock, record the moves, how the arbiter should behave, etc. The aim is to update these rules once every 4 years with improvements, updates and corrections. For instance, as digital clocks have replaced analogue clocks the rules have been updated to reflected changing technology. The latest version of the FIDE Laws of Chess (likely valid until summer 2017 when the next set of updated rules is expected to be authorized) is here https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article.

**Anti-Cheating Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=9)

This is primarily concerned with preventing outside help for the chess player. Currently the emphasis is on detecting when this happens and steps to prevent it. More details here - https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Anti%20Cheating%20Guidelines.pdf.

**Medical Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=22)

This commission investigates health related issues regarding chess. This includes on the one hand health benefits of chess and how healthy living can legitimately improve your chess and on the other the dark side of substances / drugs which can give illegal aid to the chess player. For more on all these topics see here - https://www.fide.com/fide/fide-anti-doping-regulations.html.

**Qualifications Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=6)

This commission is responsible for regulating the FIDE Rating System and the FIDE titles for over-the-board competitions. For more on title regulations see here - https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=10&view=category. For rating system rules see here - https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=172&view=article.

**Technical Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=24)

This is a high level commission which oversees technical aspects including control over other related commissions like the Rules Commission. As well as responsibility for the Laws of Chess (via Rules Commission) it also is in charge of tournament rules and regulations (https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Competition\_Rules.pdf), Swiss Pairing Rules (https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=18&view=category) and regulations for FIDE competitions.

**Arbiters' Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=10)

This commission is in charge of setting the standards and training required for the different levels of FIDE arbiters (the chess equivalent of a referee in football). They appoint and govern FIDE arbiters. The FIDE regulations for the titles of arbiters is here - https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=41&view=category.

**Trainers' Commission** (https://ratings.fide.com/fide\_directory.phtml?content=30)

This commission is in charge of setting the standards, training and qualification of FIDE trainers. They appoint and govern FIDE trainers. The regulations for these titles are here - https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=42&view=category.

---
Tags: fide
---


title: What is a fortress in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a fortress in chess?
Throughout the 2016 World Championship match, analysts have made many references to the term "fortress". What does it mean, and how can I use it to my advantage?

# Answer
> 16 votes
A fortress in chess is a position in where the weaker side defends by making waiting moves, and where the stronger side cannot make any progress as long as the defender does not make a crazy move. A very well-known fortress position is the following:

```
[fen "6k1/6p1/5r1p/8/Q7/8/7P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

It is impossible for white to make any progress if black just moves his king around in the corner, since the black rook denies the white king any possibility to infiltrate as long as it stands on f6. Since the rook is guarded by the g7 pawn, and the g7 pawn is in turn guarded by the black king, the only way to make progress would be to force the black king out of the corner. However, this is not possible.

The way you use it to your advantage in your own games is as always: understand the concept, and recognize when a fortress is possible in your own games.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It's a position with a big material disadvantage that still can be held.

Eg.

White: Kg1 Pg2 Black: Kd2 Pg3 + Bishop anywhere

You are piece down but the opponent still can't win. Your position is a fortress.

---
Tags: terminology, fortress
---


# Question
Title: Why grandmasters play giuoco pianissimo less often than the ruy lopez?
White players in search for the win are sometimes annoyed when people play the berlin defense against their ruy lopez. I notice that the italian game often reaches position very similar to the ruy lopez middle game. So my question is why grandmaster do not switch to the italian game as the new E4 main line?

# Answer
> 1 votes
In italian game black put his bishop easily to c5 while not making too many concessions. In Ruy-Lopez prospects of that piece are usually worse. Berlin is not the main choice for black in the first place and it isn't horrible to play with white either. Many black players just stop thinking about Berlin the first time they see Re1 line. No fun at all. Endgame, while interesting, also not to everyone's taste. And white can settle for d3 systems. Black positions seem perfect by machine eyes, but still people prefer a6. The more people play a6, the less you worry about Berlin. And you can still make your opponent suffer in Berlin.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I am not grandmaster, but I took lessons from one, and he said RL immediately threatens defender of center pawn, whereas GP is less aggressive (more quiet). If you want a sharper game the RL is sharper, but both lead to open games. I was told if opponent kicks pawn to take knight immediately.

I find that a lot of people don't like their knight gone right away. Others don't seem to care so much as they might keep the bishop pair. Some of chess is personal preference. Experience players will try to find games that their opponents have played, see what they do when they play black or white, and the prepare to give them the kind of game they don't like.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The Berlin defence only got popular after the world championship match in 2000. Various lines have been tried over the years to play for a win with white. So it is not like it made the Ruy Lopez immediately drawish.

Some possible answers to your question:

* Some (older) grandmaster or coaches might still be more used to the Ruy Lopez than to the Italian game.
* Even the Berlin is not automatically a draw but requires precise play.
* The Italian does not give much of an advantage for white either. It is mostly played for trying something new, perhaps less analysed.
* Some white players might like the Berlin endgame.
* Some black players might not like the Berlin endgame. If white is aware of it, no need to forego the Ruy Lopez.
* Overall most decent openings if analysed well enough will lead to drawish positions.

PS: Magnus Carlsen just won against Karjakin in the WC match in an anti-Berlin (not because of the opening though) and did not achieve much in the Italian.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Attacking the accelerated dragon

text:
# Question
Title: Attacking the accelerated dragon
What are the best moves for white after the following moves

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6

```

One aggressive choice here is **4. h4**.

which can potentially damage the pawn structure or harass the bishop if he is deployed to g7. Is this a fairly good move? What are other alternatives in this position?

# Answer
The two sources I'd depend upon to answer this question are *actual games* played by GM's (best), and *engine analysis*, carried to a depth of at least 24 ply (12 moves by each side).

Here's what I get:

### Actual Games

```
Move     Games  Win %  Latest  Players
4 d4      2947  57.3    2016   Carlsen, Kasparov, Karjakin, Anand
4 Bb5      513  57.8    2016   Grischuk, Karjakin, Morozevich, Adams
4 Bc4      229  47.2    2016   Vallejo Pons, Movsesian, Lu SHanglei, Zhigalko
4 g3       153  48.4    2010   Mamedyarov, Romanishin, Galego, Biyiasas
4 h4        38  43.4    2012   Hamdouchi, Pilavov, Minasian, Pridorozhni

```

So, the move is pretty unpopular at the highest levels (about 1% of games), and since Black outscores White by 57%-43% in this line, it's no wonder.

---

### Engine Analysis

```
Engine parameters: Stockfish 7, QuadCore AMD CPU using 4 Cores, Depth=25/39
Line Move    Eval
 a.  4 Bb5   0.17
 b.  4 d4    0.13
 c.  4 h3    0.13
 d.  4 Rb1   0.11
 e.  4 a4    0.10
 f.  4 Bc4   0.09
 g.  4 a3    0.03
 h.  4 Be2   0.01
 i.  4 d3    0.00

```

---

That's *9 lines* that are better than 4 h4, and the 9th has an evaluation of dead equal, implying that the move 4 h4 must have a lower evaluation. Note that 4 h4 starts at among the top four moves until the engine reaches a depth of about 15-17 ply, and then falls off the map. So the blowback seems to occur somewhere between move 11 and move 13.
> 3 votes

# Answer
4.h4 is a decent move, is not objectively best, but that doesnt matter unless you are playing a GM.

I play the accelerated dragon myself and know early h4s can be a pain to deal with. The usual approach when your opponent "wastes" moves on the flank early on is to go for opening of the center to exploit better development, however in the sicilian blacks development is usually slower anyway, since he already starts with a nondeveloping move c5, so is hard to flip the script like that.

For instance in one tournament game of mine the game went

```
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.h4 {i decided to follow the formula and go for opening the center and played} 3...Nc6 4.h5 Nf6 5.hxg6 fxg6 6.Nf3 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Bc4 {here i discovered to my surprise that i wasn't ahead in development at all, and with my kingside ruined i went on to lose without ever finding the time to castle queenside (which might not have been that safe either)}

 [FEN ""]

```

In your given position i guess the idea is to sac the h pawn.

```
1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6 4.h4 Nf6 5.h5 Nxh5 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 {when the open h file and better development means black's king will have no safe place to castle, which i would say gives good enough compensation below GM level.}

[FEN ""]

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
The move 4 h4 can have some surprise effect, but it certainly goes against the general opening principle of piece development as primary goal **and** the other principle that flank attacks can be undertaken only if the situation in the centre is clarified.

Given that, it may well be not a real bad move in the sense that it doesn't lead to a clear advantage for black.

Do you know of occurrences of 4 h4 at the (grand)master level?
> 1 votes

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


# Question
Title: What is the strongest chess engine working on Arduino (Atmega328)?
What is the strongest chess engine working on Arduino? Or does any engine work on it?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Not every chess engine works on Arduino as it doesn't run a conventional \*nix operating system.

There's a list of chess engines that do work here:

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Arduino

Updated url from Fabian's comment:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Arduino#Chess\_Programs

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Tournament Preparation

text:
# Question
Title: Tournament Preparation
How should someone prepare for a chess tournament? Openings? Tactics? Strategy? Endgames?

What are some of the techniques strong players use in order to get ready for an upcoming tournament?

(1800 USCF)

# Answer
> 4 votes
Openings can be trained with applications like chessable.com, and if you're going to be playing in a tournament, then it's probably assumed that if you want best results that you're going into it with a plan. What this means is that you're going to play your pre-determined openings and thus openings should not be a major area of focus in your preparation, at least at your level.

I use chessable as an everyday practice so that I always know what to play in response to my main lines. Yet, this doesn't take much time to do. At your level, I would recommend tactics over openings, but still incorporate chessable into your regimen.

Endgames are critical to reaching higher levels, so they should not be left out. Again though, at an 1800-level, endgame study can certainly help but typically at this level I've found that it's more about the middlegame than anything. For example: tactics resulting from your pre-determined openings, and lacking a clear plan of what to do when a desired position is reached, or recognizing key features of a position and acting on them. For example:

* is the c-file open? **Yes, get a rook to occupy it.**
* who's bishop is better? **Well, my bishop has free reign because my pawns are on opposite colors. My opponent's bishop is locked in by its own pawns, so I can try to attack the chain while seeking to preserve my bishop for a while.**
* is the position closed? **Yes, so keep knights on the board.**
* is the position closed, but I have no knights, but instead I have bishops? **Seek to open the position asap.**
* am I up material? how much material? **A pawn? who has the initiative? I do. So seek to trade down. Opponent has initiative? Guard against threats first. I'm up 2+ pawns, definitely seek to trade material - for example, you my find getting the queens off the board to greatly help your advantage.**
* blunder proofing? **Tactics training!**

So in the end, I believe at your level tactics training, overall middlegame strategy and recognizing positional features are going to play an important role in tournament preparation. Sprinkle on some endgame study and do your daily chessable training (openings) and you're good to go.

Also keep in mind retrograde and post-mortem anaylsis; using the completed tournament's results to learn from. Using this analysis, you'll hopefully learn from your mistakes and not make them again in future tournaments.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If the opponents are known (e.g. in a round robin tournament) you can prepare specifically for these opponents, i.e. find openings or positions which your opponents don't like or in which they perform badly, etc.Professional players would do this even during the tournament (in-between rounds).

If the opponents are not known (e.g. in a large open tournament) there is not much you can do other than what you should always do: practice tactics, learn/study endgames, strategy, refreshing your openings, doing some sports (not chess)...

Overall at your level I would not worry too much about all this. Arriving relaxed to a match will be more important than trying to prepare specifically for one opponent.

# Answer
> 0 votes
After posting a question, I shortly found an article on tournament preparation.

1. Exercise
2. Study Openings
3. Tactics

---
Tags: training, preparation
---


title: Make chess great again

text:
# Question
Title: Make chess great again
Chess at the highest level has changed a lot perhaps helped by computers, so that nowadays we have:

* black often playing for a draw
* GM analyzing some opening lines all the way to the endgame
* opponents blitzing out 30 moves of theory
* some openings considered to be drawish
* games ending more often than not in draws
* GM playing obscure openings like the London system, etc, not with the aim to gain an opening advantage, but with the aim of keeping enough pieces on the board and to achieve less analyzed positions.

, and other, similar factors which make for less interesting (to watch) games. I was wondering, what proposals there are to lessen the influence of computer analysis on human games and to focus more on the work done at the board instead of at home? A few I am aware of:

* chess960 (Fischer Random)
* reduced time control
* Sofia rules

What else is there?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Play Chess Variants**

Capablanca suggested to add to new pieces, a Bishop-Knight compound and a Rook-Knight-compound, to the setup and enlarge the board size to 10 files and 8 rows. Computer experiments suggest that Capablanca Chess and some variations of it (putting the new pieces on different files than Capablanca) are less drawish than Classical Chess, see this comment on Schoolbook on chessvariants.org)

If you want a balanced and very decisive Chess Variant, try Shogi.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Mindset of many players is way bigger problem than computer influence in my opinion. Watch engine/corr games, it's hell fight on whole board, crazy tense positions all the time... When there are two fighters, you can make good game by playing good moves and then I see no big problem to make a draw when position is exhausted. But when white says I'm 100 rating less and plays d4 Bf4 c3 e3 just to make safe and easy position in hope for a draw, it is bad for chess and don't blame computers for that. Rating system and human mind is the problem. If people played 50% as fighting chess as pc/corr players, no one would ever say the draws are boring and that chess isn't interesting any more.

---
Tags: analysis, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: How to improve my early endgame / late middlegame?
When I search for books on the middlegame versus the endgame, I usually find discussions about positions that have almost nothing to do with each other: the former being rich with strategies with upwards of five pawns on each side, and the latter being more precise and cut-and-dry, rarely with more than one or two pawns if there's a valuable piece on each side. Discussions of the latter sometimes include vague advice along the lines of "try to reduce to a winning cut-and-dry endgame" to extend the complexity a couple pieces/pawns more. Yet when I reach a point in the game like this:

```
6k1/5p1p/6p1/2Np1b2/1r1P4/7P/5PP1/3R2K1 w - - 5 28

```

I feel like I'm playing on nothing more than shallow tactical threats sometimes colored by old adages like Tarrasch's rule, the principle of two weaknesses, bishop and pawn colors, open files, etc. Can anyone recommend me sources of good theory/practice for this stage of the game?

# Answer
It sounds like you are looking for strategic guidelines in non-theoretical endgames. Then a modern classic is *Endgame Strategy* by Mikhail Shereshevsky. Strong players tend to like this book, which should tell us something, but I'm not sure exactly what (causation? correlation?).

Another decent choice is *Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics* by Glenn Flear. It focuses on so-called NQEs (Not Quite Endgames) where each side has a couple of pieces each, not counting kings and pawns. The chapter on Rook and Bishop against Rook and Knight contains 50(!) fragments from real games with this material balance, the one in your example. At least it should give you plenty of study material.
> 7 votes

# Answer
There exist all kinds of position from that stage of the game, so it is difficult to give general advise. But it certainly holds, that if you cannot gain any advantage out of the middlegame, it is not likely that you will win an equal endgame unless your opponent cooperates. That's why books focus on middlegames with many pieces or endgames with few pieces.

Studying endgames first is not a bad idea as you will learn what kind of positions can be won and which positions are draw. So you know what to aim for in the middlegame. It is usually a good idea to transfer into the endgame if:

* you have decisive material advantage (which is often more easily won with few pieces on the board)
* if your opponent has weaknesses in the pawn structure which can be attacked
* if you would end up with more active pieces

Regarding your example: If there is no immediate tactics, it looks very drawish to me. The only way to potentially win this for either side is by winning the d pawn. Starting from this you can think of plans for white and for black. My line of thought would be:

**White plan**: Obviously white needs to free his rook from defending the d4 pawn. The only way to try to do this is by defending it with the king from e5 (too dangerous), e3 or c3. This might not be easy because black can check with the rook from c3 and c2. So it could be worth trying to get the black bishop from the b1-h7 diagonal which would give white also the square d3 for the king or perhaps another piece to defend against checks.

But even when white frees the rook, it is not clear to me how to proceed. Black can just centralize the king to f6 or d6, put the bishop on e6 and a pawn on h5 and wait.

**Black plan:** Since black has a light-squared bishop, the only way to win the d4 pawn is with the help of the black king. So black wants to walk the king to c4 or c3 basically. This is a serious threat and white needs to think of how to prevent it, either with active counter-play on the king side or cutting-off the black king or defending passively.

Knowing these plans you can come up with concrete moves. Also it would be worth keeping in mind what endgames can result from this position. E.g. what about if the rooks are exchanged, or if knight/bishop are exchanged or if you end up with an endgame (e.g. after a piece had to be sacrificed against a pawn and the f-g-h pawns were exchanged) R+B vs R or alternatively R+N vs R. This will help you in coming up with moves as you will know what to aim for or what to avoid.

I don't know what this position resulted from, but if it was a kind of good knight vs. bad bishop position, white should have tried not to exchange pieces.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: endgame, books, middlegame
---


title: Position of pieces in square

text:
# Question
Title: Position of pieces in square
Is there a rule on how accurately pieces have to be positioned within a square? Can they touch the border for instance?

# Answer
> 7 votes
There are no FIDE laws governing these items for very obvious reasons.

FIDE does not legislate the size of the board, the squares or the pieces for ordinary play, nor the colour of the board nor the pieces. Since the pernickety days of Bobby Fischer these kind of things can be legislated for in something like the World Championship according to the demands of the players but it is unusual.

If you don't legislate for the size of the board, squares and pieces then it is nonsensical to start legislating for how pieces must be positioned within their squares. Obviously if you happen to be playing with kings whose diameter matches the width of a square then the king is going to be touching at least 2 sides of the square.

The FIDE laws of chess do give the following relevant guidance in the Preface:

> The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.

The one line summary of that is not too hard to understand -

"Use your common sense!"

On your turn you are allowed to say "j'adoube" and adjust as many of the pieces as you like as may your opponent when it is his turn. However if you continue to do this repeatedly you may find that the arbiter comes and first warns you for disturbing other players and then starts penalizing you.

EDIT: For a real world example of pieces touching and crossing edges check out this Youtube video of a game between IM Basman and GM Fodor played in a FIDE rated rapid competition in August 2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYTy7xAT6uU .

The game starts just after the 3 minute mark on the video so start watching from about 2:45. Note the black c pawn which is 2/3 on c7 and 1/3 on c6. This doesn't disturb white who makes his first move without adjusting black's wayward pawn. It does mildly disturb black, though, who adjusts the pawn without saying j'adoube. His first move is b5 and the c pawn is adjusted en passant, as it were, with a backward nudge from his middle finger. Adjusting like this makes it clear that there is no intention to move the piece.

Now scroll forward to about 34:50 when white plays exd7. Note the white pawn on d7 is fractionally over the line into d8. Black plays Qxd7 and again the black queen is partially in d8. Both white and black players are unconcerned. Black plays Qb7 and again the queen is over the line and just edging into a7.

Scroll forward to the 40 minute mark and watch white play BxRc8. Note the bishop is just fractionally over the edge of the board. The black queen is still 90% in b7 and 10% in a7.

Both players, internationals in their own right, have no problems with this.

Note that the Youtube channel belongs to Adam Raoof who runs these monthly FIDE rapid tournaments. He is a FIDE international arbiter who has officiated at World Candidate match level and is a qualified FIDE international organizer who makes a living running and organizing FIDE rated chess competitions.

---
Tags: rules
---


title: Engine that likes to draw

text:
# Question
Title: Engine that likes to draw
Is there a world-class chess engine that can be configured so that it equally likes to draw and win?

I imagine the engine would really like making exchanges, for example.

What would happen if you placed the engine against top-of-the-line Stockfish? If it would basically never lose, it would be strong evidence (but obviously, not a proof) that chess is a draw with perfect play.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Stockfish, Houdini and Komodo (many other engines too) can all be configured like what you said. This is known as `Contempt`. In Komodo, the name is `Drawscore` (same thing). If you give enough negative value to the option, the engine will not push for a win even it sees it.

http://support.stockfishchess.org/kb/advanced-topics/engine-parameters

# Answer
> 6 votes
Ubisoft's *Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition* allowed users to play against computer personalities. One was described as being a *drawmaster*:

> LOGAN
>
> \[RATING\] 2561
>
> \[BIOGRAPHY\] Logan is an English professor at a small, prestigious college in the Northeast. As faculty advisor for the college chess team, he enjoys the opportunity of playing against the bright young minds of his school and helping shape the strengths and strategies of his protégés.
>
> \[STYLE\] Logan is called the 'drawmaster'. His openings tend to be drawish and he will often play for a draw even when ahead. He is rated at 2561.

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


# Question
Title: Implement a chess app for Android with Stockfish
I want to implement a chess app for Android with Stockfish.

I downloaded the Stockfish binary source code, but I don't know how to use engine

Please tell me how to use Stockfish engine for programming.

# Answer
@Glorfindel is absolutely correct (+1). To get you started, do this:

1. Read UCI specification (http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/UCIProtocol.html)
2. Download Droidfish source and check how it interacts with the engine
3. Learn how to compile Stockfish with JNI
4. Create an empty Android project. Send the engine `isready`. Do you get anything back from Stockfish?
> 3 votes

# Answer
Stockfish is written in C++, so in order to call it from your Android app (which I presume is written in Java), you need to call its library via JNI (Java Native Interface). This is a rather technical task better suited for Stack Overflow; here is a question to get started.

If you encounter specific problems while doing this, you can ask a question there; in it's current form it is way too broad. Afterwards, you might need to find out which *methods* to call (e.g. to evaluate a certain position, or to suggest the best move). That's something we'd be able to answer here, provided that you have a very specific question.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, android
---


# Question
Title: R+3P vs B+N+3P ending. Win or draw, and plans for both players
In a recent game I reach this position (white to play). I was playing white and eventually lost the game.

```
[fen "1R6/5pkp/4n1p1/8/3b1P2/6P1/7P/7K w - - 1 51"]

1.Kg2 h5 2.h3?! h4! 3.f5 gxf5 4.gxh4 Bf6 5.Rb4 f4 6.h5 Kh6 7.Rb5?! Bg5 8.Rf5 f6 9.Ra5 Kxh5 10.Ra8 Nd4 11.Rd8 Nf5 12.Kf3 Nh4+ 13.Kf2 Ng6 14.Kg2 Ne5 15.Rh8+ Bh6 16.Kf2 Ng6 17.Rh7 Kg5 18.Kf3 Bf8 19.Rb7 Ne5+ 20.Kg2 Bc5 21.Rb3 Be3 22.Kf1 Kh4 23.Kg2 f3+ 24.Kh2 Bf4+ 25.Kg1 Kxh3 26.Rb7 Kg3 27.Kf1 Ng4 28.Rg7 Bd2 29.Rg8 Bg5 30.Kg1 f2+ 31.Kf1 Kf3 32.Rxg5 Nh2#

```

My question is: has white any chance to draw this game? which would be the plans for players, both white and black, to draw/win the game?

Edited: I've added the rest of the game. "Evaluations" (?! and !) are mine, maybe they're not correct.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Here's what my sources say about this endgame.

Müller, Lamprecht, *Fundamental Chess Endings*:

> With three against three on one wing the defender is usually able to hold on.
>
> ```
>  [Title "Mueller vs Yusupov, Hamburg SKA (1991), after 66... Ba5"]
>  [fen "8/5p2/6p1/b1n4p/2k2P1P/4K1P1/1R6/8 w - - 0 0"]
>
> 1. f5 Bc3 2. Rg2 gxf5 3. Kf4 Kd5 4. Kxf5 Ne4 5. g4 Nd6+ 6. Kf4 Be5+ 7. Kf3 hxg4+ 8. Rxg4 Ke6 9. h5 Nf5 10. Rg1 Kf6 11. Rg8 Nh6 12. Rg1 Kf5 13. Rg2 Bf4 14. Rg1 Bg5 15. Rg2 Bf4 16. Rg1 f6 17. Rg7 Bg5 18. Kg3 Ng4 19. Rg8 Ne5 20. Rg7 Bh6 21. Rg8 Nd3 22. Kh4 Nf4 23. Rh8 Bg5+ 24. Kg3 Ne6 25. Rg8 Bh6 26. Rg6 Bf4+ 27. Kf2 Bg5 28. Rg8 Nf4 29. Rh8 Kg4 30. h6 Kh5 31. h7 Kh6 32. Kf3 Ng6 33. Ra8 Kxh7 34. Kg4 Ne7 35. Kh5 Kg7 36. Ra5 Bf4 37. Ra6 Be5 38. Rb6 Kf7 39. Ra6 Nc8 40. Rc6 Nd6 41. Ra6 Ne4 42. Kg4 Kg6 43. Rc6 Bd6 44. Ra6 f5+ 45. Kf3 Kf6 46. Ke3 Kg5 47. Kf3 Nd2+ 48. Ke2 Bf4 49. Ra4 Kg4
>
> ```
>
> White should just sit and wait in his fortress. However, he decided to start some misguided activity.

Dvoretsky, *Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual*:

> If both sides have three pawns placed on the same wing, then the defender may hope for a draw (only if, of course, the pawn structure is devoid of grave flaws).
>
> \[He then analyses the endgames in Capablanca vs Lasker, St Petersburg (1914) and Timman vs Karpov, Bugojno (1980).\]

Flear, *Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics*:

> The case where all pawns are on the same flank is interesting as the result isn't always evident. However, a general rule could be that the bishop and knight require a target in order to convert their superiority.
>
> \[He then uses Ponomariov vs Sasikiran, Biel (2004) and the aforementioned Timman vs Karpov, Bugojno (1980) as examples.\]

# Answer
> 1 votes
Maximenko, Srokovsky, and Braslawski wrote a book on this material imbalance in the endgame called *"Mastering Rook vs Minor Pieces"*. This imbalance only occurs in about 2% of endgames, so unless you're at least master level, knowing the theory may be a fairly low priority.

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


# Question
Title: Notable decisive grandmaster-level games where only pawns were captured?
Are there any notable Grandmaster-level games that were won with only pawns captured, but no higher level pieces?

# Answer
Last week GM Nigel Short tweeted:

> Not sure I have won too many games without a single piece or pawn being captured. Short-Derakshani, Beautiful Minds Krulich Cup, rd 10.

I can't find PGN of that game yet and am at work, but you can replay it at https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/krulich-cup-2016/10/1/1 \- all 32 pieces still on the board, until at move 20 black removed the last escape square of his own queen. After 21.Ng2 attacking it, black resigned.

Moves, taken from here:

```
[FEN ""]
1. c4 e5 2. e3 Nc6 3. a3 Nf6 4. Nc3 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. g4 h6 7. Bg2 d6 8. h3 Be6 9. Nd5 Qd7 10. Ne2 Nd8 11. b3 Nh7 12. e4 c6 13. Ne3 Qe7 14. Bb2 Bd7 15. d4 O-O 16. d5 c5 17. Qc2 Qh4 18. Nc3 b6 19. O-O-O Nb7 20. Bf1 Ng5 21. Ng2 1-0

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
Yes. A quick search came up with this game: Zapata vs. Anand.

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. Qe2

```

My initial thought was to look for the game Christiansen vs. Karpov. However, that game had one set of minor pieces exchanged before Karpov's blunder and resignation.

```
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Ba6 5. Qc2 Bb7 6. Nc3 c5 7. e4 cxd4 8. Nd4 Nc6 9. Nc6 Bc6 10. Bf4 Nh5 11. Be3 Bd6 12. Qd1

```
> 4 votes

---
Tags: captures
---


title: Ruy Lopez Open Variation

text:
# Question
Title: Ruy Lopez Open Variation
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4

```

Why is 6. Re1 not played, prefer players 6. d4 only? Please answer with explanation and variations so that it could help all players.

# Answer
> 4 votes
6.Re1 is considered inaccurate because black has the strong reply 6...Nc5!. Nc5 forces white to part with the bishop pair, and although white will regain the pawn, white cannot claim any advantage. Black will have a slight lead in development after, for example, `7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxe5 Be7 9.d4 Ne6` because white will have to consolidate the d4 pawn at some moment.

6.d4 has several advantages. Black's king is still in the center and white has a lead in development, so it is a principled response to try to open the center. d4 keeps white pieces off of the c5 square (at least until white plays dxe5). Finally, in many lines of the Open Ruy, white is quite happy to keep the rook on f1 where it defends the f2 square. For example, consider the following:

```
[Fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Bc5

```

This is one of the main starting positions of the Open Ruy, white is immediately subject to pressure on f2, and the rook on f1 gives white a moment to complete development with c3 and Bc2 (for example).

# Answer
> 5 votes
After 6.Re1, black equalizes comfortably after 6....Nc5, as he wins the bishop pair. For example, 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxe5 Be7 9.d4 Ne6 10.c3 0-0.

Instead, 6.d4! is the main line, after which 6....b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 is almost forced for black. The resulting position is the tabiya of the Open Spanish.

```

      [StartPly "10"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 (6.d4! b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6) Nc5 7.Bxc6 (7.Nxe5 Be7) dxc6 8.Nxe5 (8.d4 Ne6) Be7 9.d4 Ne6 10.c3 O-O

```

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Why is there a craze of becoming chess grandmaster?
Go to any online chess server, there are thousands playing and trying their best. These days there are even online coaches and titled players and people are ready to shed huge bucks for getting couple of hours sessions.

But given all this, I sometimes think: Why do people want to become a chess grandmaster or a titled player? **What do I really get out of that? A high paid job? NO. A green card to the US? NO. Free sponsorship? PROBABLY NOT. A lot of money? NO (because once you become GM you have to compete with others similar to you).**

Then why? Why is there a craze to become a chess grandmaster, or a titled player?

If anyone has a good answer and a accurate ones, please reply with good points.

# Answer
> 19 votes
I think it has to do with just having the title "Grand Master". Would I like to be a Grand Master? YES, but it probably would never happen in a million years. Unless you are probably in the top 10, you probably won't make a living out of it. I would suspect that those who don't make a living out of it, but still highly rated and play in international tournaments might have secondary jobs, but in the end, it is not about the money, it is about having fun.

# Answer
> 33 votes
Napoleon put it succinctly: A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.

Just a couple of points:

It is the same reason that students love getting "gold stars," and why there are so many badges on StackExchange itself. There have been volumes written on the power of peer recognition.

In particular, chess titles (for the most part) are a direct result of chess achievement. FM, IM and GM titles are all well-earned. No matter how much we might not care for a person, we know that if they have a chess title, they earned it. A GM title is the highest formal title, and it serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained.

# Answer
> 18 votes
The answer has to do with our human psychology. There is a book written by Daniel Pink, titled ***"Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us"***, where he finds that people are **NOT** motivated by these things:

1. Rewards
2. Avoiding punishments

And he concludes that people **ARE** motivated by these things:

1. **Autonomy** \- Being able to do what you want
2. **Mastery** \- Getting better at stuff, it's satisfying!
3. **Purpose** \- Making a difference in the world

He says the research shows that for physical tasks, rewards and punishments can be effective. However, for tasks that require even a small amount of mental effort, **bigger rewards actually lead to worse results**.

The reason people spend huge amounts of time studying chess, and huge amounts of money on chess, with no hope of ever making any money from chess, is the same reason that people play musical instruments for fun: Because **mastery is satisfying**. That's it.

Here is a 10-minute video of the author's explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

# Answer
> 6 votes
Just to expand Ram's point a little bit, and speculate as to why there is such a craze now as opposed to the past.

I suspect the modern craze is in part a result of Elo ratings, and pseudo Elo ratings online.

Modern computer game design is very carefully constructed to ensure that:

* At any point the game is challenging, but not too hard
* The player gets instant feedback on their success and progress

Such ideas are now spreading into other areas, and it is often referred to as "gamification", such as on stack exchange getting immediate feedback from votes etc.

Chess is already a game, but the Elo system makes learning chess a game in itself. You can always play someone very close to you in ability, and you can always see the tiny steps of progress towards grand master.

I suspect many who make GM did not set out to become GM, but simply to become better chess players, to reach the next rung and see how good they can get... If a learning curve is pitched just right it can be extremely addictive.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Isn't there a lot of ego involved in this, the desire for prestige and to show others that you're their superior? It can't be for the money, since even now with the big reward tournaments only a small percentage can live well on their earnings. The others will also have to teach or publish, and for the time, effort and expense one has to put into reaching that level, assuming they have sufficient talent to do so, the tangible rewards hardly seem worth the effort.

I had the desire to become really good when I started playing, but it became hard work and took all of the joy out of it. I ultimately decided it wasn't worth it, so now I just play for fun with less stress and probably just as good results. But I no longer agonize over possibly losing. It is after all just a game.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Ram Narasimhan wrote correctly: "A GM title (...) serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained."

I'd like to add that this reputation also entails some "hard" benefits.

* In most Opens titled players pay no entry fees. I think I've also seen free accomodation for titled players (or only GMs) advertised. So a GM title at least reduces the cost of purusing your hobby.
* A GM title surely increases your chances of being invited to invitational tournaments with an attractive prize fund. This also creates the opportunity of playing against stronger opponents, thereby improving yourself.
* Maybe most grandmasters can't make a living from playing chess alone. But many can from other chess-related activities such as giving lessons or assisting a stronger player. A GM title translates into higher rates and opens up opportunities.

# Answer
> 2 votes
It's the cachet of a title, and what it represents. You see it in many different ways, each with their own implications and desires. In every case, it gives an implication of elitism and exclusivity.

I have a black belt rank, and it is much the same, in that people see it as a pinnacle of achievement, only attained by a select few. Most of the time if it comes up, I hear "Oh, I took {insert art here} when I was a kid". This is designed to imply that they too, belong to "the club".

For every person that makes to a desired position, there are 1000 or more that started and gave up.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I would question that there is a craze of becoming a GM (or other titled player).

Do you have any proof of this claim?

True there are lots of people playing online, but in general people are doing all kinds of useless activities online. Chess is perfectly suited for playing online as it does not require many resources (no huge graphics as in other games) and has reasonable time scales (if you play blitz). Also it is interesting/difficult enough to have all kinds of coaching/courses online as well.

In the old days in order for many people to become good at chess you needed a certain environment (good coaches, books, but also social recognition). That's what made players from the Soviet Union that strong for a long time. With the internet and appearance of strong chess engines, chess (at the highest levels) is now available to many more people than before. That's why you might see more GM now. Also rating inflation might have an effect on having more rated players now.

# Answer
> -2 votes
> What do i really get out of that - a high paid job? NO - a green card to US? - NO - free sponsorship? PROBABLY NO - huge money? - NO (because once you become GM you have to compete with others similar to you)"

There is a craze of becoming GRANDMASTER because:

1. You can get a highly paid job.
2. You can get a green card to the USA.
3. You get free and good sponsorship. 4.You can also earn a lot of money through coaching, prize winnings, appearance fees, etc. (really).

---
Tags: learning, grandmaster
---