title: Checkmate with two knights?

text:
# Question
Title: Checkmate with two knights?
Is it really possible to checkmate with two knights and king against a king?

There is a mating position with this but no extra tempo to do it in real game.

What are the explanations, why knights cannot create an extra tempo around 64 squares on the board?

# Answer
> Is it really possible to checkmate with two knights and king against a king?

**Theoretically**, the checkmate is possible, but you can not do it in practice **unless the weaker side allows you to**. This is related to a drawback in the way knight moves.

> There is a mating position with this but no extra tempo to do it in real game.
>
> What are the explanations, why knights cannot create an extra tempo around 64 squares on the board?

There are two reasons:

They can not do it because they can **not** move to another square **while keeping the previous one in control** ( like bishop and many other pieces can ) and because **they need too much time to position themselves properly.**

*DEMONSTRATING KNIGHT'S INABILITY TO "LOSE TEMPO" :*

Take the following position as an example:

```
[Title "This position is won with a bishop"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/4B3/8/P7/K1k5 w - - 0 1"]

```

This position is won for White because he can play with bishop **and retain control** over `c2` square ( `1.Bh7`for example ), which will create *zugzwang*. As you say in your question, White will "lose tempo" and force Black to move his king away.

Now analyze this position with a knight instead of a bishop:

```
[Title "If it is White to move this is a draw"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/3N4/8/P7/K1k5 w - - 0 1"]

```

Why is this endgame only a draw? Because White **can not** move **and keep control over `c2` square.** This means that he **can not** create *zugzwang*, or as you say he can not "lose tempo" to force Black king away.

Without the ability to create *zugzwang* you are just not able to corner the opposing king.

*DEMONSTRATING KNIGHT'S INABILITY TO POSITION ITSELF PROPERLY :*

As for the positioning problem, we shall take a look at the below diagrams:

```
[Title "Agile and swift bishop"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1K1N4/3B4/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nb4 Ka1 2.Nc2+ Kb1 3.Na3+ Ka1 4.Bc3#

```

Here, bishop needed **1 move** to reach the mating square. Notice that the endgame **would be drawn**, just as the one with two knights, if bishop was not able to reach `c3` **in one move.**

In the following diagram you will see that knight needs **more moves to reach the mating square**, which enables the weaker side to draw:

```
[Title "Clumsy knight"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1K1N4/4N3/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nb4  Ka1 2.Nc2+ Kb1 3.Na3+ Ka1

```

and here `Ne2` **needs 2 moves** to reach `c2` and deliver checkmate.

Remember this: Knights experience **great difficulties** when they need to reposition themselves between **short distant squares** in a **short notice.** This is **often** impossible task for them. The following example demonstrates clearly what I mean:

```
[Title "Slow knight"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1K5p/6N1/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this position we can see how hard it is for the knight to position himself **fast** to a square **nearby** like `f3` or `g4`. Again he needs **2 moves** to do this and thus he fails to save the game.

## SUMMARY:

Knight's way of moving gives him ability to "do the impossible". He can "jump over" obstacles, his attacks can not be stopped, his line of fire can not be covered or intercepted, but all these beautiful features come with a price. He is **slow and clumsy** when he needs to reposition himself to a square in its proximity, and if player can not "buy" him enough time to do that then knight fails to accomplish this task.

Hopefully this post answers your question. If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 23 votes

# Answer
Wikipedia has a long article on this topic.

> Unlike some other theoretically drawn endgames, such as a rook and bishop versus rook, the defender has an easy task in all endings with two knights versus a lone king. The player simply has to avoid moving into a position in which he or she can be checkmated on the next move, and always has another move available in such situations

Not only it is showing a lot of explanatory examples, but also speaks about really strange paradox Troitzky line which explains how the material advantage for the weaker size can cost him a game. Having one pawn against 2 knights can give white a chance to win.

Also you can read another helpful resource here.
> 8 votes

# Answer
> Is it really possible to checkmate with two knights and king against a king?

It is possible, but it is not ***forced*** unless the position or a mistake from the opponent allows it.

> There is a mating position with this but no extra tempo to do it in real game. What are the explanations, **why knights cannot create** **an** **extra tempo** around 64 squares on the board?

**Very Simple Reason -**

A knight always moves to a square of the **opposite** color. If the knight is on a white square it moves to a black square and if it is on a black square it moves to a white square.

Thus, knight on white square moves to -

```
1. Black square
2. White square
3. Black square
4. White square
...forever

```

In order to create an extra tempo, you would need the capability for a knight to move to a square of the same color twice in a row, but that is not possible. Thus, you cannot create an extra tempo with a knight.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate
---


title: How to start learning chess?

text:
# Question
Title: How to start learning chess?
I have always wanted to learn how to play chess, but I don't know how to start. I downloaded chess apps on my smartphone and PC but I didn't learn anything. I also contacted some local chess clubs to subscribe but they couldn't help me further.

My question is: What should I do to become a good chess player and learn the rules of the game very fast?

# Answer
> 1 votes
This will be a subjective answer (and a self-plug), but I believe that you'll find my website Chesscademy very helpful in learning the ropes. You can watch videos, tackle exercises, and complete quizzes. The educational material is structured such that even someone who has never even heard of chess before can easily get started.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The step from learning the rules to becoming a good player is pretty huge. Try taking one step at the time and feel your way forward. Chess is an amazing world filled with beauty and pain. If a passion awakens within you, then you will be hungry for more and there are tons of resources available both online and offline to guide your way to improved skills. Get a decent beginner's book, that is one possible starting point. Visit the local library and play over the board with people, or just watch for starters.

Chess is more than winning and losing. It is about human interaction, building new bonds, finding something in common. Chess really connects people. I guess what I am trying to say is that the over the board experience, meeting friends and sharing the passion for chess is a huge part of it. Don't just be at the computer and don't restrict yourself to online chess. I think that online chess is just an unfortunate trade-off that has to be done in order to save time in our everyday busy life. At least in the beginning, chess can and should be an over the board experience. With a real chess board in front of you and a nice book in hand.

---
Tags: learning, rules, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Can a threefold repetition be claimed in a blitz game? If so, how?
Can one claim a draw by threefold repetition in a blitz game when no score of the game is being kept? If so, how?

Once, in a blitz game, my opponent was simply trying to run me out of time. At a certain point in the game, I pointed out to him that he brought the same position on the board thrice and so I offered a draw, but he just ignored. There was nothing I could do to PROVE the threefold repetition occured and so had to carry on with the game and eventually lost on time.

# Answer
> 8 votes
It's hard, and I've never seen it done correctly, in the sense that it's the way I was taught it should go:

During slow games, once the players are not writing down their moves anymore because they are close to a game control, the arbiter should write down the moves as well to help with reconstructing the game after a flag falls (say to check if the 40th move is reached), or for claims like this. He *can* do so as well with blitz games, or appoint a temporary assistant to do so for him. It's just not usually done.

So you can stop the clocks and ask the arbiter to start recording moves, or appoint an assistant. In theory I think he should do that, and then when a threefold repetition occurs after that and you claim, the arbiter can check your claim using his notes.

But in practice, I think most arbiters will be too busy and too unfamiliar with these sort of rules to do that.

And of course, if you get the claim wrong, the opponent gets 3 minutes extra on the clock. Pretty hefty in blitz.

---
Tags: rules, fide, draw, threefold-repetition, claim-draw
---


# Question
Title: Is there an objective measure of how "complicated" or "tension-filled" a chess position can be?
Probably most chess players will have the intuitive notion of what kind of positions are not "tension-filled" and what kind of positions are. Usually these are middlegame positions.

Here's an idea of what kind of positions are "tension-filled": In the position there are many pieces that are either hanging or, many times, a piece of lower material value attacks a piece of higher material value (which may or not be defended). Perhaps it could be defined in such a way as "the total value of hanging pieces plus the total value of defended pieces which are attacked by pieces of inferior material value minus the material value of the pieces of inferior material value attacking the defended pieces", or something like this. This is just a "materialistic" attempt to define the concept, since it doesn't incorporate advantages or disadvantages due to positional factors. Perhaps one could consider Tal vs Hecht, 1962 Varna Olympiad at move 21 as an example of a complicated position.

Nonetheless, is there actually an "objective" or "mathematical" way to quantify this idea which can distinguish a position which is not so complicated from one which most chess players would intuitively agree is "complicated"? Has this been done before?

# Answer
To me, a position looks "tension-filled" only when there are many threats on the board and (the important part!) - when these threats are mutual. A position that contains many threats but all of them being made by one player - that's rather realization of huge positional advantage.

I don't know very well the quality notation of moves in English chess books, but in Russian ones some moves get the '**!?**' quality notation, which means "this is a slightly risky move that can give you advantage if your opponent fails to find the right countermove (which is not trivial to find, that's the whole point of the idea), otherwise your position will get worse".
> 4 votes

# Answer
Professional players don't generally quantify this, but it is definitely pretty important. The most common, insider-y word for this kind of thing (in English) is 'sharp', which tends to mean that accuracy is exceptionally important. Sharpness usually lapses after a few moves. Games that remain sharp for longer are considered remarkable. Other adjectives can be applicable, depending on the situation.

As for an objective measure, an excellent starting point would be, IMO, to see how the top choices of an engine look -- for example, if the top 8 choices are all equivalent in evaluation, odds are the position is quiescent. On the other hand, if 2 choices are much better than the rest, *and* if humans would find those 2 choices non-obvious, the position is sharp. If you try to just isolate factors like material, king safety, etc., you are going down a path that logically ends with an intricate evaluation function, which is what engines do.

Also, I think (not 100% sure) that this is actually done by engines themselves -- they want to steer towards volatile positions, and the above is a handy method of identifying them.

Another word used is 'pressure', which has a different nuance of meaning than 'sharp'. Or 'tense' as you mentioned. 'Complicated' can apply to quiet/deep positions, though -- that's more about the number of reasonable options, or the breadth of the analysis tree. For example, Karpov had some very complicated Nimzo-Indians with 8 pawns per side and long, drawn-out maneuvering. And Carlsen has shown that positions we tended to think of as simple and safe can be quite complicated and dangerous. So I think 'complicated' may be different from 'tension-filled' and easier to quantify.

In general, there are lots of qualitative words that strong players use, and this is related to the fact that 'objective measures' of positional characteristics tend to be pretty hard to define, especially in a way that has practical value for human players.

tl;dr -- None that is commonly used, but a good start would be looking at the engine-based evals of move choices, and categorizing the patterns.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: middlegame
---


# Question
Title: endgame with single Bishop or single Knight?
If given the choice should I opt for an endgame with a single Bishop or a single Knight? I understand Bishops increase in value in the endgame but is the disadvantage of covering only half the squares really compensated by increased mobility?

Please consider the below possibilities (with Kings naturally always present and a couple of pawns in each case):

1. Bishop -vs- Knight
2. Bishop and Knight -vs- two Knights
3. Rook and Bishop -vs- Rook and Knight
4. Queen and Bishop -vs- Queen and Knight

My feeling is that in all cases except 1, the Bishop option is better (since the other piece covers the whole board). I known that Capablanca was of a different opinion but I've read that this has not been validated empirically, at least in a statistically significant way.

# Answer
> If given the choice should I opt for an endgame with a single Bishop or a single Knight?

In order to properly answer this question I must point out differences between bishop and knight:

1. Bishop is **a faster piece** and has a **longer range of fire**, **but can cover only half of the board.**
2. Knight on the other hand, is **a slow and clumsy piece** but covers squares **of both colors.** When I say clumsy, I am referring about knight's difficulty to position himself **fast** to the **nearby square.** Another problem with the knight is that he **can not** make a move **and keep previous square under control** which disables him from making *zugzwang*. For examples of what I have stated here please read my answer to this question. I believe those diagrams demonstrated well my statements.

I will quote highly instructive excerpt from the book *Steve Mayer-Bishop versus Knight the Verdict* ( but this regards **superiority of bishop pair** over 2 knights/ knight+bishop ) :

*In contrast to the far-reaching bishop, which can become effective from distance, the knight, in order to become effective, **has to operate in close proximity to the opposing forces.** In order to become **lastingly effective**, it must find **protected squares near the enemy's camp**, mostly squares protected by pawns, in asmuch as other pieces are **in the long run not suitable** for the protection of the knight. It follows therefore that **in completely open positions** without pawns, **the bishop is superior to the knight**, a fact that is confirmed by the results of the endgame theory. Conversely, **the knight is superior to the bishop in closed positions**, on the one hand **because the pawns are in the bishop's way**, and on the other hand because **the pawns form points of support for the knight**, as remarked above.*

Now is the time to address the actual questions:

> Please consider the below possibilities (with Kings naturally always present and a couple of pawns in each case):
>
> 1. Bishop -vs- Knight
> 2. Bishop and Knight -vs- two Knights
> 3. Rook and Bishop -vs- Rook and Knight
> 4. Queen and Bishop -vs- Queen and Knight

## 1. Bishop -vs- Knight

As stated above, **pawn structure and king's position has a paramount importance.**

If there are pawns on both sides of the board and position is relatively open then bishop is usually the better choice. This is especially true if **both sides can make a passed pawn** since bishop can use his speed and long range to stop/slow down opposing passed pawn **while helping his own to advance.** Furthermore, if the position is open bishop/king can easily harass the knight forcing him to **abandon the control of the key squares** due to his short range.

Since this will be a long post let us take a break and enjoy in following demonstration of bishop's superiority in open positions with pawns on both sides:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[White "Stoltz"]
[Black "Kashdan"]
[Event "Hague Olympiad,1928"]
[fen "6k1/p2b1ppp/8/8/3N4/1P5P/5PP1/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kf8 2.Kf1 Ke7 3.Ke2 Kd6 4.Kd3 Kd5 5.h4 Bc8! 6.Nf3 Ba6+ 7.Kc3 h6 8.Nd4 g6 9.Nc2 Ke4 10.Ne3 f5! 11.Kd2 f4 12.Ng4 h5! 13.Nf6+ Kf5 14.Nd7 Bc8 15.Nf8 g5 16.g3 gxh4 17.gxh4 Kg4 18.Ng6 Bf5 19.Ne7 Be6 20.b4 Kxh4 21.Kd3 Kg4 22.Ke4 h4 23.Nc6 Bf5+! 24.Kd5 f3!-+ 25.b5 h3 26.Nxa7 h2 27.b6 h1=Q 0-1

```

Notice how Black used his bishop to create *zugzwang* with `5...Bc8!`. That is something knight can not do-\>bishop moved to `c8` **and kept `f5` square under control.** This resulted in White king being forced to allow opposing king to penetrate. **This is usual motif in this type of ending. Side with the bishop uses *zugzwang* to penetrate with the king.** Next, notice how Black played `7...h6`, `8...g6` and `10.f5!` to **undermine knight's position.** This game well illustrates what quotes from *Steve Mayer's* book about knight needing **stable pawn support** in order to be **permanently effective.** Finally, notice how knight was **too slow to position himself properly** for stopping the passed pawn after `13.Nf6+`.

Here is an example of bishop overpowering knight when both sides have passed pawns and position is open:

```
[Title "Liverpool-Glasgow, correspondence"]
[fen "8/2n5/5k1p/P1p4P/4K1B1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Be2 Ke6 2.Bc4+! Kd6 3.Kf5 Nd5 4.Kg6 Ne3 5.Be2 c4 6.Kxh6 c3 7.Bd3 Ng4+ ( 7...c2 8.Bxc2 Nxc2 9.Kg6 Nd4 10.Kf6! Ne6 11.a6!+- ) 8.Kg5 Ne5 9.Bc2 Nc4 10.a6 1-0

```

An important weapon when fighting with bishop against the knight is "domination" and is demonstrated below:

```
[Title "Bishop dominates the knight"]
[fen "K1k5/8/8/8/2B5/8/8/2n5 w - - 0 1"]

```

Here is another example where bishop overpowers the knight when pawns are on both wings using "domination":

```
[White "Goldberg"]
[Black "Tolush"]
[Event "Moscow, 1949"]
[fen "8/pk3p1B/1p1p1P2/2pP2p1/2n5/P1P3P1/7P/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1.h4! gxh4 2.gxh4 Ne5 3.Bf5! Nf3+ 4.Kf2 Nxh4 5.Be4!+- Kc7 6.Kg3 Ng6 7.Bxg6 fxg6 8.f7 1-0

```

In open games with pawns on both sides bishop is almost always to be preferred than a knight. **This is the case with 90% of endgames.** I know others will disagree, but I state this based on my experience and experience from analyzing grandmaster games: **Always prefer bishop than a knight in the endgame.** Why? Knight is better than a bishop **only** if the side with the bishop has **severe defects in its position and no counterplay whatsoever.** I have never seen practical position from a grandmaster game where knight dominated the bishop **after both sides played reasonably well.** As stated in the quote above from *Steve Mayer's* book, knight needs **secure strongpoint** and must be **in close proximity** of the opponent in order to be efficient. Also, the oposing bishop **must be restricted** which requires **a lot of pawns** on the board **which is not characteristic for the endgame**. To prove my point I am choosing an example where side with the "bad bishop" and isolated pawn manages to hold a draw:

```
[White "Flohr"]
[Black "Capablanca"]
[Event "Moscow, 1935"]
[fen "8/1p2kppp/p3b3/3p4/3N4/4P3/PP3PPP/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kd2 Kd6 2.Kc3 b6 3.f4 Bd7 4.Nf3 f6 5.Kd4 a5 6.Nd2 Bc8 7.Nb1 Be6 8.Nc3 Kc6 9.a3 h6 10.g3 h5 11.b4 axb4 12.axb4 Kd6 13.b5 g6 14.Na4 Kc7 15.Nc3 Kd6 16.f5 gxf5 17.Ne2 Bd7 18.Nf4 Be8 19.Nxd5 Bxb5 20.Nxb6 Bc6 21.Nc4+ Ke6 22.Nb2 Bb5 23.Nd1 Be2 24.Nf2 Bf1 25.Nd3 Bxd3 26.Kxd3 Ke5 27.Ke2 Ke4 28.h3 Kd5 29.Kf3 Ke5 1/2-1/2

```

This endgame has been heavily analyzed and the last time I checked the verdict was it is a draw. Here White had an advantage and still was unable to win. He had **better king**, better minor piece and **better pawn structure.** Still, knight was unable to outmaneuver the bishop because he is slower and "clumsier".

## 2. Bishop and Knight -vs- two Knights

**You need to know rules of the knight endings in order to make the right decision.** In a nutshell the side with space advantage usually wins.

The principle in endings with two minor pieces is **to exchange opponents most active piece, thus transposing into the favorable endgame.** Stronger side avoids pawn exchanges, weaker side strives towards pawn exchanges.

## 3. Rook and Bishop -vs- Rook and Knight

**Heavily favored for the side with the bishop.** If you can keep **both rooks or both bishops** it becomes **nearly decisive** advantage. For practical example look at Fischer-Tal,Curacao 1962. There are more examples from *Fischer's* games like Fischer-Petrosian,Candidates match 1971 or Fischer-Taimanov,Candidates Match 1971. Although there were 2 rooks and a bishop it is still good example of how you should play this ending.

## 4. Queen and Bishop -vs- Queen and Knight

Generally speaking, the advantage goes to the side that can attack opposing king. In practice, side with the knight **usually has the advantage.** Knight's ability to attack squares of both color **is more important here** than bishop's speed since queen is so powerful that it can **both defend and attack** thus giving knight **enough time to position itself offensively.** Still, I must repeat that all depends on a position and ability to attack opponents king.

If you have questions leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 12 votes

# Answer
**1. Bishop -vs- Knight**

The pawn structure decides. If the bishop side has pawns on opposite colors to the bishop =\> the opponent has pawns on the same color as bishop =\> bishop can attack the enemy pawn base =\> bishop is better. Still, the bishop side should not have too many weak pawns, so that the king can do the protection job properly. The knight is worse at catching passed pawns, so check for a possibility to get a passed a-pawn or h-pawn when facing a knight. The bishop is faster at changing focus from e.g. kingside to queenside. All these things must come into consideration.

**2. Bishop and Knight -vs- two Knights**

The same considerations as for point 1 will be handy. For the bishop side, the knight will offer a chance to force enemy pawns to move forward (to stand on the same square color as the bishop). For the knight side, having two knights makes it easier to attack the same pawn twice or weak pawns on both flanks. Also, the chance of landing a nice fork increases. If the pawn structure is favorable, bishop and knight will be stronger.

**3. Rook and Bishop -vs- Rook and Knight**

As a rule, the R+B is a stronger team. But again, the pawn structure decides if the enemy has pawns that are possible to attack with the R+B team. Rook activity and king safety comes to mind. The R+N team can make dangerous attacks on the enemy king and pick up pawns in the process. So look at the pawn structure and king safety.

**4. Queen and Bishop -vs- Queen and Knight**

Q+N is usually more dangerous because they can make efficient attacks on the enemy king. Here, the bishop's inability to control opposite colored squares is an important downside. The Q+N can force the enemy pawns forward to the same color as the enemy bishop and then use those weak squares to attack the enemy king.

Edit 2014-04-10: Just recorded a game with Q+B versus Q+N and won with the Q+B team. A lot depends on how well the enemy king is protected by pawns. If you are interested, check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx4W5Jj-z0g
> 9 votes

---
Tags: strategy, endgame, knights, bishops
---


title: Midgame Ideas in the Caro-Kann

text:
# Question
Title: Midgame Ideas in the Caro-Kann
Most of the writing I've found on the Caro-Kann online simply makes vague assertions about how "Black's endgame is better" or how White should try \[some dubious move or other\] to get a good attack in club play.

Is that all there is to this opening? I've been trying it out, and I find myself unsure of **how to proceed in the midgame**, on either side of the table. As Black, should I really just try to trade down to an endgame immediately? As White, have I no alternative but to try something speculative to keep Black from getting to his desired ending position?

I see the Advance Variation (`2.d4 d5 3.e5`) most often, so let's restrict the conversation to positions arising from that line.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/2p5/3pP3/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

```

# Answer
> Most of the writing I've found on the Caro-Kann online simply makes vague assertions about how "Black's endgame is better" or how White should try \[some dubious move or other\] to get a good attack in club play.

That is not entirely true. This is the case when White overextends himself **without any compensation** which occurs only if he **misplayed the position.** In normal case both sides have good chances in an endgame.

> Is that all there is to this opening?

Definitely not!

> I've been trying it out, and I find myself unsure of how to proceed in the midgame, on either side of the table.

Caro-Kann has lots of **typical middlegame positions** that require creative thinking and good positional play **from both sides** in order to **reach decent endgame.**

Not knowing them "makes your life unbearable" and you will most of the time find your opponent crushing you seemingly effortlessly. Therefore you must learn typical middlegame plans for both sides. Only then, you can start thinking about endgame. And for the record, the endgame holds chances for both sides. Yes, White often overextends with pawns **but gets active pieces, especially king, in return** which compensates and sometimes matters more than a healthy pawn structure.

If you need help with these post a new question and notify me via comment. I will try to help.

> As Black, should I really just try to trade down to an endgame immediately?

No! Just trading down will not help. **Who can guarantee that your opponent will accept the trade?**

Against such policy I deploy a neat trick:

As soon as I notice that my opponent starts to offer exchanges too often I lure him into a won endgame for me. **In a nutshell**, the point is to accept the exchanges **that are favorable for you *as much as you can*** so **he thinks** that this will turn into an easy draw. Once he offers bad piece for your good one you **just decline the exchange** and now you are left with a better piece against worse one which results in an easy win.

This is a standard approach strong players use. Chess would be a poor game if equality could be reached by simply exchanging.

As Black, your main goals are to exchange **2 minor pieces** and **neutralize opponent's space advantage** by performing `c5` or `e5` break. Those are the exchanges you seek in order to cripple White's attacking potential. **Prefer to exchange bishops for bishops and try to leave the knights on.** After that you need to evaluate when is suitable for you to enter endgame and when you can stay in the middlegame and start attacking opponent's weaknesses.

> As White, have I no alternative but to try something speculative to keep Black from getting to his desired ending position?

As White, you **can steer the game to a better endgame for you** as most strong players do.

It is highly unlikely that your attack will end with a mate **against skillful defense** but if you **maintain pressure** you can transpose into endgame where your pieces **are more active** which should give you a small but lasting advantage. Also, in most lines White has **3 vs 2 queenside pawn majority** which ensures **better pawn endgame** for him. Active pieces coupled with this pawn majority usually win the game as Black needs high technique and precise play in order to hold this type of endgame. The benefit of this approach is that White **can not lose** the game, but Black usually draws with correct play.

> I see the Advance Variation (2.d4 d5 3.e5) most often, so let's restrict the conversation to positions arising from that line.

This variation sums up my previous statements very well.

First off, middlegames can be **ultra sharp** if White chooses *Nunn-Shirov attack* and "the last man standing" will have a won endgame most of the time. In this line tactical awareness and combinational skill are important. **This is the line your resources referred to.** If Black defends successfully the endgame is usually won for him. However, White can create such a strong pressure and choose to **enter a better endgame.**

Endgames where activity count the most involve rook and knight endgames. Especially in knight endgames space advantage is important.

Second, it can also become positional encounter if White chooses *Short line* and simply try to maneuver "around `Bf5`" in which case a complex struggle awaits both of you. Creativity and positional skill is important in that line. **Both sides need to be carefull when entering endgame.**

Since this topic is to broad to be covered here, I will provide **brief explanations** and recommend resources for studying at the very end of my post.

## NUN-SHIROV ATTACK

White has 2 plans here:

1. Playing `Nf4` at some point, planning a sacrifice on `d5`. The usual setup is `O-O-O` \+ `Qe2` \+ `Bg2`.
2. White plays `Nd4` preparing `f4` and `f5`. This one is considered more dangerous than the above plan.

Both lines lead to very sharp struggle and one mistake on any side can lose the game.

## SHORT LINE

One of the most dangerous tries for White. He simply plays naturally, organizing his pieces **to exploit `c5` break.** If Black plays too slow he will be suffocated, yet if he opens the game White will have an advantage since he is better positioned and better developed. Still, Black players were able to find a way to reach full equality by preparing `f6` instead of `c5`.

---

## CONCLUSION:

Caro-Kann defense is a passive opening for Black that requires **patient play in order to equalize.** Black reaches full equality **over time.** White needs to do something with his greater space and aggressive pieces if wishes to win. He can opt for ultra sharp lines or play positionally, aiming for favorable endgame or simply smothering Black.

This is a vast topic to cover here but these books helped me when I needed to learn to play the Black side:

*Joe Gallagher-Starting Out the Caro-Kann*

*Peter Wells-Grandmaster Secrets the Caro-Kann*

*Cyrus Lakdawala-The Caro-Kann move by move*

*Lars Schandorff-Grandmaster Repertoire 7 Caro-Kann*

Start with Gallagher's book and then try one written by Lakdawala. Once you get some experience playing this opening with both colors you can read the rest.

Hopefully this helps. Leave a comment if you have a question or need further help.

Best regards and good luck.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I am not an expert on this line for either color. But as far as I know, black can also try to play a sort of "delayed French" as follows

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5!?

```

It isn't really French defense yet, because the black e-pawn is still on its initial square. Yet, on the other hand, this could offer black additional options since the light squared bishop can go to f5 or g4. In my view, the French structures offer black more dynamic options. White has committed by playing e4-e5 and the d4-square can now be attacked. Black also has the thematic f7-f6 break. There is a question here on Chess SE that deals with the French advance variation.

Probably good for white and black to know about this option...!
> 2 votes

# Answer
In the Caro-Kann white has a ton of choices. It depends on your style to choose what is best for you. Usually white tries to expand and get as much space as possible. That gives him attacking chances in the middlegame, but a worse pawn structure at the ending.

In the advance variation white may choose classical attacking ideas with c3 or 4. Nc3 with a tactical madness.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, strategy, middlegame, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: How to deal with Stonewall Attack 'counter'?
I've been trying out the Stonewall Attack opening and have had quite a lot of success with it. My main problem arises when my opposition doesn't castle on the king side and instead moves their king towards the queen side. It tends to be lower ranked players who do this, but I always find the games a lot tougher than when they castle their king, as I have good control of that side of the board.

My question is, what would your advice be on proceeding if this occurs? The game turns really messy, and I feel like I have less control. I am quite a new player so please bear that in mind :D.

# Answer
> 2 votes
No opening approach is equally well suited to all responses. The Stonewall does often allow for an active king bishop, an active knight on e5, an open f-file, and the promise of a g-pawn advance against a castled King. On the other hand, it means a diminished role for the queen bishop and (if things don't work out according to plan) the queen knight, and it gives White a backward e-pawn and some central holes. White's center can easily become weak without a lot of piece protection there. You'll want to be mindful of these tradeoffs when using this "telegraphed" opening.

I first learned about the Stonewall from a book by prolific author Fred Reinfeld called How to Think Ahead in Chess. He devoted almost half of this small book to this opening, basically endorsing it wholeheartedly for the beginning player and failing to discuss its drawbacks. He even encouraged the reader to stick as closely as possible to a specific move order and a predetermined set of opening- and middle-game objectives. An extraordinarily bad set of advice, on later reflection.

EDIT: You asked for advice about adapting to a Black king move to the queenside. You might want to try to make the most of your f-file strength, going after the f-pawn and penetrating the Black position on f7. If black creates good counterplay with a c-advance and good hits against your center, you may be able to avoid serious problems by exchanging pieces and setting up a chance to liquidate your e-pawn before it becomes an endgame liability.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, stonewall-attack
---


# Question
Title: Are there brute force engines which examine all possible moves to each depth?
Are there chess engines that carry out brute force search, looking at all possible moves to each depth? An engine like this could be used to generate for solutions to tactical puzzles where the key move gets pruned by engines with selective search.

# Answer
The answer is yes and no.

http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/\_/technical/artificial-intelligence/chess-programming-part-iv-basic-search-r1171 Has a pretty good explanation on how chess engine works.

In Chess, for example, a typical branching factor in the middle game would be about 35 moves. That is, after every move, there will be around 35 possible valid moves.

Using a "smart brute force algorithm" (aka Min-Max search), the time complexity of the algorithm is O( B^n ). That is, you need around that B^n operations n-ply search.

An 8-ply search of a chess position would need to explore about 1.5 million possible paths! That is a LOT of work. Adding a ninth ply would make the tree balloon to about 50 million nodes, and a tenth, to an impossible 1.8 billion! A typical game has 30-40 moves, so you will need to search for 30^35 - 40^35 positions.

Assuming your CPU is running at 3GHz, and it takes only one clock cycle to analyze one position, it will take more than 1x10^42 years to complete the search. So short answer is no.

However, endgames with small number of pieces have been thoroughly analyzed, and can be determined if mate is possible. By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (According to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame\_tablebase)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, theory, engines
---


# Question
Title: How do I get to the next level of chess skill?
I learned chess when I was about 5 years old and my brother and I went through a huge chess phase where we had many of the major openings fully committed to memory and competed in a few tournaments throughout the Bay Area. We took a break for a few years and then sort of revamped our game, going to a few more tournaments and starting to read some of the more famous chess books and what not. I left for boarding school, so we've both nearly stopped playing. I'm starting to get back into it and want to know if you have any recommendations of any interesting chess books I should read, online sites I should check out (other than chess.com and instant chess), or really anything to improve my game. Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions!

# Answer
> 6 votes
When I was in the same situation, Jeremy Silman's How to reassess your chess helped me a lot. It made me reconsider the basics of the game. I now have a much better undertanding of what goes on during a game, and I got from 1700 to 2000 Elo in the process. Just don't take his method too literally (he recommends making up "dream positions", which is just not my thing).

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you want to get better then start playing a lot. Play play play. Enter in tournaments when you can. Sure, study books ... but for some people that can be tedious and a passion killer. Compete, be competitive, play strong people. Like they said above ... since every game is written down ... analyze analyze analyze your games and improve. This will guide your study and motivate your study. Then you can come on here with part of your game and people can say ... "this is the problem". Hope that helps. I used to play a lot and you can see me at http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com\_wrapper/Itemid,181/ and entering Gang, Damon so I know something of what I'm saying.

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Kraemer vs Bacrot, 2013. Is this same-color bishop endgame won for black?
In the game GM Martin Kraemer vs GM Etienne Bacrot, 2013, we reach the following endgame with black to move:

```
8/3b1pkp/6p1/8/p7/7P/1P2BPPK/8 b - - 0 40
[White "Martin Kraemer"]
[Black "Etienne Bacrot"]
[Date "2013"]
[WhiteElo "2520"]
[BlackElo "2705"]

```

It looks almost balanced to me, which makes me think it should be a draw. Nevertheless, black went on to win. Crafty evaluates the position as -0.34 (35 ply).

*Question*: Is this same-color bishop endgame actually won for black?

# Answer
> Is this same-color bishop endgame actually won for black?

Black has faster king, but he has **permanent weakness** in view of the `a4` pawn.

His bishop is bad and kingside pawns are on the same color he is. Although kingside pawn formation can be changed to suit the bishop, he will still be unable to attack the opponent because **White can also change his kingside pawn structure to favor his bishop.**

Furthermore, White king is **fast enough** to cut off opposing king with joined cooperation of his bishop and pawns.

Since Black king is faster, Black will be able to exchange weak `a4` pawn if this one becomes a problem, thus the position will result in a draw.

```
[Title "Kraemer-Bacrot,2013"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/3b1pkp/6p1/8/p7/7P/1P2BPPK/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kf6 ( 1...g5! 2.Kg1 Kf6 3.Bc4! Be6 4.Bb5! Bb3 5.Kf1 Ke5 6.Ke2 Kd4 7.Kd2 Bd5 8.g3 Bb3 9.h4 f6! 10.Bd3! h6 11.f4! gxf4 12.gxf4 Bd5!? 13.Bc2 Bb3 14.Bd3= ) 2.Bc4! Be6 3.Bb5! Bb3 4.Kg1 Ke5 5.Kf1 Kd4 ( 5...g5!? 6.Ke1 Bd5 7.g3 Bb3 8.Kd2 Ke4 9.Bc6+ ( 9.Bd3+ Kf3 10.Ke1 h6 ( 10...h5 11.Be2+ Kg2 12.Bxh5 Kxh3 ) 11.Be2+ Kg2 12.Bf1+ Kh2 13.h4 gxh4 14.gxh4 f6! 15.Kd2! Kg1 16.Ke1 Kh2= ) Kd4 10.h4= ) 6.Ke1 Kc5 7.Be8! Bd5 8.g3 Kb4 9.h4! Kb3 10.Kd2 f6 ( 10...Kxb2 11.Bxa4 ) 11.Kc1 Bf3 12.Bf7+ Kb4 13.Kd2 Bg4 14.f4 Bf3 15.Bg8 h6 16.Bf7 Be4 17.Kc1 Bd3 18. Kd2 Bf5 19.g4 Bxg4 20.Bxg6 Be6 21.Bd3 Bf7 22.Kc2 Bc4 23.Be4 Bb3+ 24.Kd2 Bg8 25.Bd3 Bd5 26.Kc2 Bb3+ 27.Kd2 Be6 28.Kc2 Bf7=

```

No matter what Black tries to complicate the game, thus creating winning chances, we see that White can simply decline the offer and keep things simple which results in a draw.

Hopefully this answers your question. If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: What is the best move in this situation?
This is my first post on CSE, so I appreciate any guidance on how to frame my questions from now on.

Here is my question: I want to know what the best move is in this sitiation.

```
  [FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 e6 3.d5 ?

```

I was playing Black, and I won this game, but by moving my pawn to d5. a very dangerous situation will be created that can be irritating until the end of the game.

I understand that we should not allow such scenarios, but my specific questions are:

1. How to defend in such scenarios theoretically?, and on the other hand,
2. What lines could White play to win this game (if such a thing is even possible)?

# Answer
> 2 votes
> but by moving pawn to d5 a very dangerous situation will be created that can be irritating until the end of the game.

It can be dangerous to ***both*** sides. Positions of these type are generally characterized as the **Benoni Defense**. They are unbalanced and offer more chances for complicated play. So you may or may not want to avoid such positions depending upon how comfortable you are playing such positions.

> How to defend in such scenarios theoretically?

A good idea for Black is to immediately take on **d5**, followed by moving the pawn to **d6**, blockading the pawn on **d5**. A sample line of development for Black may go like this -

```
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 c5 2. d4 e6 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5 d6 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Be2 O-O
  8. O-O Na6 9. Re1 Nc7 10. a4 b6 11. Bc4 a6

```

The strongest player to consistently play this opening successfully was Bent Larsen. I recommend you take a look at the following games of Larsen to see how Black not only defends this position but also manages to seize the initiative.

Alberic O'Kelly de Galway vs Bent Larsen 0-1 1967

Svetozar Gligoric vs Bent Larsen 1/2-1/2 1969

Wolfgang Unzicker vs Bent Larsen 0-1 1970

Miguel A Quinteros vs Bent Larsen 0-1 1974

Incidentally, even Garry Kasparov once tried this idea in his early days.

Yuri Balashov vs Garry Kasparov 1/2-1/2 1979

> What track could white take to win this game almost surely (if such a thing is even possible)?

It is not known yet whether White can forcibly win in this line. Strong players continue to use this line, although it is not popular at the highest level; but that might simply be because of reasons like taste rather than the objective quality of the position.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: I want to give chess tutorials, which software should I use?
I think that I am a enough good chess player to teach chess. So, I want to create a website and post chess videos in it. So I want a software that helps me teach chess like for example see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfjsMXlcek This video was given by thechesswebsite.com. Note the software that he uses, I asked him about it but he is not replying so I want your help. Thanks in advance.

# Answer
Just based on ease of use and aesthetic appeal I'd recommend the free ChessBase Reader which allows you to easily draw arrows on the board and highlight squares. To record your videos you can use free screen capture software such as oCam.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Why did Black play Ra8 in this situation?
I am reading `Kasparov Teaches Chess`, and I had a problem about this situation below:

```
[FEN "R2K1B1R/PPP5/5P1P/3PP3/3N1pB1/3p1np1/pppb1qbQ/r2k1r2 b - - 0 1"]

```

Black plays Ra8? next, why? I think it's better not to leave the queen unprotected.

**Sorry I may not have made myself clear. Kasparov gives this variation to demonstrate a certain response is a bad move. I know Ra8 is bad. But if there aren't good choices, you can't say this variation is actually bad, isn't it?**

This is the original board situation:

```
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pb2bppp/1p2p3/1Bp5/3PP3/P1P2N2/2Q2PPP/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... Nc6 2.Ne5 Rc8 3.Qa4 Qc7 4.Qxa7 Ra8? 5.Bxc6+{White Wins}

```

And by giving such a variation Kasparov made a conclusion that Nc6 is a bad move. What if Black don't play Ra8? He can still possibly make equal trades, and thus Nc6 isn't really bad?

**The point is, why is Nc6 a bad move?**

# Answer
> Why Black play Ra8 in this situation?

He wanted to trap the White queen.

> I think it's better not to leave the queen unprotected.

You are correct, Black made a blunder, and now loses the game:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2r1k2r/Qbq1bppp/1pn1p3/1Bp1N3/3PP3/P1P5/5PPP/R1B1K2R b - - 0 1"]

1...Ra8 2.Bxc6++- Qxc6 ( 2...Bxc6 3.Qxc7+-) 3.Nxc6! Rxa7 ( 3...Bxc6 4.Qxb6+- ) 4.Nxa7+-

```

Your question is not entirely clear but I hope this post answers it. If you need help or you have further questions leave a comment.

## EDITED IN RESPONSE TO THE OP EDIT:

> The point is why is Nc6 a bad move?

`Nc6` is a bad move because it allows **a decisive pin** along the `a4-e8` diagonal. The fact is that `Bb7` is badly posted to defend the knight on `c6`. If he were at `d7` then `Nc6` would not be pined and Black would be fine.

After `Nc6` White is able to exploit the bad positioning of the `Bb7` to net himself a pawn on `a7`, **and still keep the pressure on `Nc6`.** After White captures on `a7` we have **the second pin on `Qc7`** which paralyses Black. Now he must castle, but then White can win a piece:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2r1k2r/Qbq1bppp/1pn1p3/1Bp1N3/3PP3/P1P5/5PPP/R1B1K2R b - - 0 1"]

1...O-O 2.Bxc6 Bxc6 3.Nxc6! Qxc6 4.Qxe7 $18 Qxe4+ ( 4...cxd4 5.O-O ) 5.Be3 Qxg2 ( 5...cxd4 6.cxd4 Qxg2 ( 6...Qd3 7.Rd1 $18 ) 7.Kd2 $18 ) 6.O-O-O $18

```

I have checked the lines with the engine. If you have any doubts you can run these positions through the engine yourself. The point is that center is fixed, and White can defend himself by exchanging rooks on the `c-file`. Furthermore, bishop defends well too, and queen can come fast to defense. Black may be able to make a pressure **but it will not be a permanent one.** White will untangle eventually and convert his extra piece.

If you still have doubts you can post the position as a new question and we can see if other members can spot something that I did not.

## END OF EDIT

Hopefully this helped.

Best regards.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Preparation of chess openings and all about chess?
I am an enthusiastic player of chess...and a full time working professional...

I have following questions regarding chess to develop my game:

1. How to prepare fundamental opening lines to play as white or black...which openings to start with?
2. How to master the well established book openings for various games along with their approaches/ideologies/commentaries...
3. Please tell me which best books to refer or which chess software to be purchased...for doing so? I won't mind purchasing the same or getting premium memberships, if any??
4. I am good at playing middle games with tactics and exploiting opportunities...but always lose time in opening phase and generally lost the game due to time overruns...i tried playing 10 min live games on chess.com
5. What is all about chess engines...repertoires...pgn etc.
6. How to play further on an independent computer and to record my moves for further analysis after having played with book openings..?
7. Please tell me about ratings??? how a player becomes IM, GM so on so forth...

Is there anybody who can truly help to get answers to these questions or suggest me some readings or website references to get solved the same...thanks in advance to all of you who can please help me out...

# Answer
> 3 votes
> I am an enthusiastic player of chess...and a full time working professional...

This makes your job more difficult. There are lots of material out there, but you will need to manage your time to coordinate your work and chess studying.

> How to prepare fundamental opening lines to play as white or black...which openings to start with?

It depends on your preferences, but no matter which opening you choose, you can get a good insight of it from *Starting Out* series.

If you wish to play King's gambit just find *Starting Out King's Gambit* book and so on.

These books describe general moves, tell you if certain line requires **thorough study** or if you can just get by with general opening principles. They also mention typical endings and middlegame structures characteristic for the opening.

All in all I find them to be a great starting reference for a beginner.

> How to master the well established book openings for various games along with their approaches/ideologies/commentaries...

Once you learn the basics, you will need stronger opening books and you will need middlegame/endgame books.

For this you will need to ask a separate question here and people will be able to recommend you something. At this moment it is too broad and opening-dependable.

> Please tell me which best books to refer or which chess software to be purchased...for doing so? I won't mind purchasing the same or getting premium memberships, if any??

For learning software, you could use *ChessBase*. They also offer **videos that explain openings/endgames/middlegames...**

*Fritz*, *Houdini*, *Rybka* are some of the strong chess engines. You could also get *Stockfish* as **it is free** and is strong as well.

> I am good at playing middle games with tactics and exploiting opportunities...but always lose time in opening phase and generally lost the game due to time overruns...i tried playing 10 min live games on chess.com

Knowing your openings will solve this problem.

> What is all about chess engines...repertoires...pgn etc.

I do not understand this one.

> How to play further on an independent computer and to record my moves for further analysis after having played with book openings..?

Any engine does this automatically as far as I know. The game only needs to be saved and you can replay it. I think that it is auto-saved by default.

You also have an option for engine to analyze your game which is good to see where did you go wrong.

During play there is an option to "turn on the Coach" where engine can warn you if you made a bad move or can suggest a move if you are in doubt.

Still, it is best to pick an engine and ask this as a separate question.

> Please tell me about ratings??? how a player becomes IM, GM so on so forth...

As far as I know, you need 2400 rating and to fulfill IM norm. For GM you need rating greater than 2500 and also 3 title norms. More about this can be found in this Wikipedia article.

> Is there anybody who can truly help to get answers to these questions or suggest me some readings or website references to get solved the same...thanks in advance to all of you who can please help me out...

I think I just did :)

Welcome to Chess SE, I hope this answer helped you a little.

In the future try to ask questions that can have short answers so you can avoid negative points. You can start by reading through the help section in your upper right corner. I would start with the tour.

Best regards and good luck in your study!

---
Tags: beginner
---


title: What are the capture rules in shogi?

text:
# Question
Title: What are the capture rules in shogi?
OK, I've never really played much chess, but shogi is more appealing to me. Now my question is, how does capturing work? Like what piece can capture what? I've tried online and some pieces can capture what others can't. So is there some rule on it?

# Answer
I'm not sure what you're referring to. In shogi, any piece can capture any opposing piece, there are no restrictions like what you're speaking of. Be aware that all pieces capture the same way they move, though. There's no such thing as moving in one way and capturing in another (like the chess pawn, moving forward and capturing diagonally). See the Wikipedia shogi page for a full set of rules. If you have a more specific example of what you're wondering about, please post it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, shogi
---


title: Names of all Gambits

text:
# Question
Title: Names of all Gambits
I am interested in knowing the names and moves for all named gambits in chess.

If anyone has such a list or knows where I can find one please do pass it on to me. Please be sure to include names of gambits that black plays as well as white and all counter gambits.

# Answer
I think your best bet will be the ECO (or Encyclopedia of Chess Openings)

The following is a complete list of all gambits in the ECO.

* **Polish Gambit** 1. e4 b5
* **Wing Gambit** 1. e4 c5 2. b4
* **Ware Gambit** 1. a4 e5 2. a5 d5 3. e3 f5 4. a6
* **Birmingham Gambit** 1. b4 c5
* **Schuhler Gambit** 1. b4 c6 2. Bb2 a5 3. b5 cxb5 4. e4
* **Wolferts Gambit** 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 c5
* **Englund Gambit** 1. d4 e5
* **Budapest Gambit** 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5
* **Benko Gambit** 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5
* **Staunton Gambit** 1. d4 f5 2. e4
* **Smith-Morra Gambit** 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3
* **Danish Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
* **Vienna Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4
* **King's Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. f4
* **Quaade Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Nc3
* **Kieseritsky Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Nf3
* **Rice Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. 0-0
* **Elephant Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5
* **Latvian Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5
* **Irish Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nxe5?
* **Halloween Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?!
* **Blackburne Shilling Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4
* **Italian Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4
* **Rousseau Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f5
* **Evans Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4
* **Blackmar–Diemer Gambit** 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3
* **Queen's Gambit** 1. d4 d5 2. c4
* **Grünfeld Gambit** 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 0-0
> 5 votes

---
Tags: gambits
---


# Question
Title: What are the options for solving puzzles online and tracking progress?
I am looking for an advanced set of puzzles and the ability to track progress, similar to chessok (which looks good, but is not free, and the selection of puzzles is limited compared to their offline courses). My skill level is \>2000 ELO. Are there any alternatives to Chessok?

# Answer
ChessTempo allows for unlimited solving of tactics problems with a free membership. It has a large database of problems drawn from games, and it tracks your solving statistics along with your individual tactics rating. Also, you can track your progress on two sorts of problems: untimed, or where the elapsed time for solving factors into your performance rating.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess Tactics Server is quite competitive. It measures your performance based not only on the correctness of your solution, but also how long it took you to solve the problem. It maintains a leaderboard, so you can see where you stand in the whole world (among the active players) as well as in your own country.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, training
---


# Question
Title: White seems better. How could I have capitalized?
```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "25"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Be2 d5 8.O-O Qc7 9.f4 Bc5+ 10.Kh1 d4 11.Na4 Ba7 12.b3 Ne7 13.Bd3 O-O 14.Qh5 f5 15.Ba3 Rf6 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Nb2 Rh6 18.Qe2 Bc5 19.Rf3 Bd6 20.Nc4 Bc5 21.Ne5 Qc7 22.Bc4 Kf8 23.exf5 exf5 24.Re1 Bd7

```

# Answer
> White seems better. How could I have capitalized?

In my opinion, White has a decisive advantage here. He has a better pawn structure and a safer king, and all of his pieces are splendidly centralized.

Black on the other hand has pieces scattered all over the place, his bishops are restricted (but well posted for defense), and his queen is a bit clumsy on `c7` but can be repositioned to a better square in a few moves.

At first, I wanted to play `1. Rh3` to remove the only defender of the kingside `Rh6`. That turned into an endgame where my minimal advantage fizzled out.

But then I found a new way to attack by opening the center with `1. c3!`. This catches Black unprepared for combat as his `Ra8`,`Qc7` and `Bd7` are poorly placed. Since the White pieces are faster, it should not take them too much time to\*decisively reposition themselves.

After checking this extensively with the engine, I have confirmed my conclusions.

Since the number of lines is vast, they will not fit here if I try to just copy/paste them. Therefore I will supply illustrative lines from the engine's first analysis.

If you need more efficient demonstrations, I suggest running each line separately through the engine, or posting a new question with the sub-variation you have a problem with.

Without further delay, here are the lines:

```
[fen "r4k2/2qb2pp/p1p4r/2b1Np2/2Bp1P2/1P3R2/P1P1Q1PP/4R2K w - - 0 1"]

1.c3! dxc3 ( 1...Be8 2.cxd4 $18 ) 2.Rd3 Be8 ( 2... Be6 3.Bxe6 Rxe6 4.Rh3 h6 5.Qc4 Qe7 6.Rxc3 Bb4 7.Ng6+ Rxg6 8.Rxe7 Bxe7 9.h3 a5 10.Re3 Rf6 11.Re6 c5 12.Rxf6+ gxf6 &18 ) 3.Qc2 Ba7 ( 3... Rd8 4.Rxd8 Qxd8 5.Qxf5+ Qf6 6.Ng6+ Rxg6 7.Qxc5+ Qd6 8.Qf5+ Qf6 9.Qc8 Qe7 10.Rxe7 Kxe7 11.Qc7+ Bd7 12.Qe5+ Kd8 $18 ) ( 3... Rh5 4.Rh3 Qc8 5.Rxh5 Bxh5 6.Qxc3 Qd8 7.b4 Bd4 8.Qd3 Bxe5 9.Qxf5+ Qf6 10.Qxh5 g6 11.fxe5 gxh5 12.exf6 Rd8 $18 ) (3... Bb4 4.Rh3 Bg6 5.Rxh6 gxh6 6.a3 a5 7.axb4 axb4 8.Qf2 Qd6 9.Qb6 Re8 10.Qb7 c5 11.Qa7 h5 12.h3 c2 $18 ) (3... Ra7 4.Rh3 g6 5.Rxh6 Bb4 6.Rh3 Ba5 7.Qe2 Qe7 8.Qf2 c5 9.Nxg6+ Bxg6 10.Rxe7 Rxe7 11.Kg1 Rc7 12.Rd3 Re7 $18 ) ( 3... Ba3 4.Rh3 Qe7 5.Rxh6 gxh6 6.Qxc3 Qg7 7.b4 Bc1 8.Qd4 Ra7 9.Qd6+ Re7 10.Rxc1 h5 11.Re1 a5 12.Bf7 Bxf7 $18 ) (3...Rf6 4.Qxc3 a5 5.Qc2 Bb4 6.Red1 Ra7 7.Qf2 h6 8.Qe3 Be7 9.Re1 Qb7 10.Nd7+ Qxd7 11.Rxd7 Rxd7 12.Qe5 Bf7 $18 ) (3... Qc8 4.Nf3 Qb7 5.Ng5 Bd7 6.Rh3 Re8 7.Nxh7+ Rxh7 8.Rxe8+ Kxe8 9.Rxh7 Bd4 10.Rh8+ Ke7 11.Qe2+ Kd6 12.Rd8 c2 $18 ) 4.Rh3 Qd6 5.Rxh6 gxh6 6.h3 Kg7 7.Qxc3 Bd4 8.Qg3+ Bg6 9.Nf3 Bf6 10.a4 c5 11.Re6 Qd1+ 12.Kh2 h5 13.Nh4 Rf8 14.Rxa6 Qc1 $18

```

Hopefully this helped. If you have any questions or remarks leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Here's the continuation per Stockfish at 5 minutes per move. The thing that strikes me first is how many moves it takes for White to secure the mate. @Always is spot-on with his "why white is better" comments. But still... 43 moves to win a "won" position!

Stockfish liked @Alway's `c3` well enough but still preferred `Qd3` by about half a pawn.

I have a few short variations in the moves to show how very very close Black is to losing instantly. This is because his King is exposed. White's gotta be feeling very confident, having his King snuggled away...

`6. cxd4` removes black's only credible threat, except for the back-rank mate. Now Black's wretched pawn structure and inferior piece placement gives White a fun game.

After `9... Qe6` Black superficially has it together. He's got two pieces on c4, Q+R are lined up pinning the Knight on `e5` (exploiting White's weak bank rank), the `f5` and `h6` pawns are defended. The issue is that Black's Queen is overloaded and the Bishop on d5 is misplaced. The simple `10. Bd3` shows this. Now the `f5` pawn is about to fall with tempo. Black has no means to defend it. His exposed King runs instead. With `11.Bxf5` the game really is over. White has to adopt a grade-school-complexity plan of just trading off pieces as he'll be able to make passed pawns on both wings of the board. To survive, Black needs to play like a GM.

With `12. Qd3` White lines up on the `h7` pawn. Black snags the `d4` pawn, hoping to decoy the Queen so Black can eat the Bishop on `f5`. White is having little of it and saves his Bishop with tempo, offering Black the opportunity to exchange a lot of pieces, which is deadly for Black. Black has little choice however. `14. Nxd7` *with tempo* adds insult to injury.

After `17... Qg4` Black is fairly doomed, but he's tricky. He still has the `Qg2#` threat as well as exploiting White's bank rank with `Qd1+`. White *really* wants that Queen off the board.

`20. Re2` is a common super-efficient computer move. The Rook simultaneously defends `g2`, blocks the diagonal leading to `d1`, and threatens mate on `e7`. Black's response is to expose his King. :-P

`22.h3` removes forever the threat of the backrank checkmate and does so *with tempo*. The Queen must leave and finds only 2 squares where it can save the Bishop.

After White's 27th move, Black is nearly in Zugzwang. There's aren't any good moves left, no credible threats to be made.

`33... Kc7` is because of the White's threat to pin the Black Queen with `Rd3`.

That'll do ;-)

```
[fen "r4k2/2qb2pp/p1p4r/2b1Np2/2Bp1P2/1P3R2/P1P1Q1PP/4R2K w - - 0 1"]

    1.Qd3 (1.c3 dxc3 2.Rd3 Be6 3.Bxe6 Rxe6 4.Rh3 Rh6 5.Qc4 Bd6 6.Rxh6 gxh6+2.78) Re8 2.Rh3 Qd6 3.Rxh6 gxh6 (3... Qxh6?? 4.Nxd7#oops) 4.c3 Bb6 (4...dxc3? 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Nxd7+ Kg7 7.Rxe8 h5 8.Bd3 Bxf4 9.Re7+ Kg6 10.Re6+ Kg7 11.Bxf5 Bg5 12.Rxc6 Bf4 13.Rxc3+11.5) 5.Rd1 Re7 6.cxd4 a5 7.Qc3 Be6 8.Qf3 Bd5 9.Qh3 Qe6 10.Bd3 Ke8 11.Bxf5 Qf6 12.Qd3 Bxd4 13.Bd7+ (13.Qxd4? Qxf5) Rxd7 14.Nxd7 Qg7 15.Rd2 (15. Qxd4?? Qxg2#DOH) Bc3 16.Rc2 Kxd7 17.Qxc3 Qg4 18.Qd4 (18.Qg3?? Qd1+DOH) Ke6 19.Qe3+ Kd6 20.Re2 Be6 21.Qe5+ Kd7 22.h3 Qg6 23.Qxa5 Qf6 24.Qa7+ Kc8 25.Qa8+ Kd7 26.Qb7+ Kd6 27.Qb8+ Kd7 28.a4 Qd4 29.Kh2 Qd5 30.Qb7+ Kd6 31.Qxh7 h5 32.Re3 Qc5 33.Qe4 Kc7 34.Qxe6 Kb7 35.Qd7+ Kb6 36.Qd8+ Ka6 37.Re8 Qa7 38.b4 Qf7 39.Qa8+ Kb6 40.Rb8+ Kc7 41.Qa7+ Kd6 42.Qxf7 h4 43.Rd8# *

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
Just my opinion:

25.Bxa6 Be6 (preventing 26.Qc4, threatening mate and winning the Bishop on c5) 26. Bc4 Re8 (26...Rxa2 27.Bxe6 Rxe6 28.Ng6+) 27. Qd3 Bd6

etc...
> 2 votes

# Answer
You can win a pawn with **25. Nxd7 Qxd7 26. Be6** forking the queen and the pawn. The queen can't defend the pawn. However, after **26... Qe7 27. Bxf5 Qxe2 28. Rxe2** it is not clear if White has enough advantage to win. The pawn structure definitely favors White.
> 2 votes

# Answer
First of all, here's some complementary analysis of the whole game using Stockfish DD 64 SSE4.2

```
    [Event "Complementary analysis of whole game"]
    [FEN ""]

    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Be2 (7. Bd3
    $1 d5 8. O-O Nf6 9. Re1) 7... d5 8. O-O Qc7 9. f4 $6 (9. Re1!) 9... Bc5+ 10. Kh1
    d4 $2 (10... Ne7 $1) 11. Na4 $1 Ba7 12. b3 (12. c3! dxc3 13. bxc3 Bb7 14. c4 Nf6
    15. Bf3 c5 16. e5 Nd7 17. Bxb7 Qxb7 18. Be3) 12... Ne7 13. Bd3 (13! c3 dxc3 14.
    Ba3 c5 15. Qd3 Bb7 16. Rac1 O-O 17. Rxc3) 13... O-O 14. Qh5 (14! Ba3 c5 15. c3)
    14... f5 15. Ba3 Rf6 16. Bxe7 (16. Qe8+ $1 Rf8 17. Qxe7) 16... Qxe7 17. Nb2 (
    17. exf5! exf5 18. Rae1 Be6 (18... Qd6 19. Re8+ Rf8 20. Rfe1 Bd7 21. R8e7) 19.
    Bxf5) 17... Rh6 18. Qe2 (18. Qg5 $1) 18... Bc5 19. Rf3 (19. Nc4 $1) 19... Bd6
    20. Nc4 Bc5 21. Ne5 Qc7 22. Bc4 (22. exf5 $1 exf5 23. Ng4 $3 Re6 24. Bc4 fxg4
    25. Bxe6+ Bxe6 26. Qxe6+ Kh8 27. Qxg4) 22... Kf8 23. exf5 exf5 24. Re1 Bd7

```

**Basic Idea - Win material. Exchange bishop.**

Win the pawn on **a6** and exchange off the light squared bishops. Then the knight on **e5** will be stronger and Black's pawns on the light squares will be weaker.

Thus, a simple line seems to be -

```
   [Event "Basic Idea"]
   [FEN "r4k2/2qb2pp/p1p4r/2b1Np2/2Bp1P2/1P3R2/P1P1Q1PP/4R2K w - - 0 25"]

   1. Bxa6 Be6 2. Bc4 Re8 3. Bxe6 Rhxe6 4. Qd3

```

This gives white a small advantage.

**Basic Idea with Optimizations -**

In the previous idea, Black's rooks are too strong. With some calculation, it can be shown that White can exchange the rook on **h6** and also ***damage Black's kingside pawn structure and then proceed with the basic idea***. Black cannot really avoid this, as the variations show -

```
    [Event "Basic Idea With Optimizations"]
    [FEN "r4k2/2qb2pp/p1p4r/2b1Np2/2Bp1P2/1P3R2/P1P1Q1PP/4R2K w - - 0 25"]

    1. Qd3 $1 Re8 (1... Rf6 2. Rh3 h6 3. g4 $1 fxg4 (3... Re8 4. g5 Rd6 5. gxh6 gxh6
    6. Qg3 Be6 7. Rxh6) 4. Nxd7+ Qxd7 5. Qh7 gxh3 6. Qg8#) (1...
    Bc8 2. Rh3 Qd6 3. Nf7) 2. Rh3 Bc8 (2... Rxh3 3. Qxh3 h6 (3... Be6 4. Bxe6 Rxe6
    5.  Qxf5+) 4. Ng6#) 3. Rxh6 gxh6 4. Bxa6 Be6 5. Bc4 Bxc4 6. Qxc4

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: What are black's possible plans in the exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit?
I've reached this position, or something similar, a zillion times as both black and white (main line exchange queen's gambit):

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Be7 7.Bd3 O-O 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9. O-O

```

As white, I typically employ the plans: (a) a minority attack with the a- and b-pawns, (b) put the bishop behind the queen on the b1-h7 diagonal and create weaknesses in black's kingside \[more effective if black has played h6\], or (c) aim the push the e4-pawn.

As black, I feel planless. Hence...

*Question*: What are black's possible plans in the exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit?

The things that spring to mind are the ...c5 push (leading to a black IQP game), or ...b6 followed by ...Bb7 and ...c5 (although it always seems difficult to locate the queen after these moves).

# Answer
> 18 votes
> Question: What are black's possible plans in the exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit?

I think the positions could be classified into two main types depending upon where White develops the **g1** knight - **f3** or **e2**.

**A) Black's ideas when White develops Knight on f3**

**1) Knight mavouvere - d7-f8-e6-g7 followed by Bf5!**

A very interesting idea was introduced in the game Reshevsky vs Stahlberg, 1937. Instead of "automatically" castling, Black first mavouvers the knight to **e6**, thereby saving a tempo and prepares to play **g6** followed by **Ng7** and **Bf5**! In his DVD on the Queens Gambit, Garry Kasparov considers this to be Black's main idea of solving the problem of the bishop on **c8** and also exchanging White's strong bishop on **d3**.

```
  [Event "Knight manouvere d7-f8-e6-g7 followed by Bf5!"]
  [Date "1937"]
  [White "Reshevsky"]
  [Black "Stahlberg"]
  [Result "1/2-1/2"]
  [FEN ""]

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 c6 8.
    Qc2 Nf8 9. Bd3 Ne6 10. Bh4 g6 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Kb1 Ng7 13. h3 Bf5 14. Bxf6
    Bxf6 15. g4 Bxd3 16. Qxd3 Ne6 17. h4 c5 18. dxc5 Bxc3 19. Qxc3 Rc8 20. e4 Rxc5
    21. Qa3 Qd6 22. exd5 Rd8 23. Qxa7 Rxd5 24. Rxd5 Qxd5 25. Qe3 h5 26. Re1 hxg4
    27. Ne5 Ng7 28. Qe4 Qxe4+ 29. Rxe4 f5 30. Rc4 Kh7 31. Kc2 Re8 32. Nd3 Ne6 33.
    a4 Kh6 34. Rb4 Re7 35. Rb6 f4 36. Rb4 g5 37. hxg5+ Kxg5 38. Rb5+ Kh4 39. Re5
    Nd4+ 40. Kc3 Rxe5 41. Nxe5 Ne6 42. Nd3 f3 43. b4 g3 44. fxg3+ Kxg3 45. a5 Nf4
    46. Nc5 Kg2 47. Ne4 Nd5+ 48. Kb3 Nc7 49. Kc4 Ne6 50. b5 Ng5 51. Nd2 f2 52. a6
    Ne4 53. axb7 Nxd2+ 54. Kc3 f1=Q 55. b8=Q Qc1+ 56. Kd3 1/2-1/2

```

**2) Traditional plan of equalizing with Ne4.**

This is a very solid idea for Black to equalize. It leads to an exchange of pieces and stops White's ideas of pushing **e4**, thereby neutralizing White's positional advantage.

A sample line is

```
  [Event "Traditional plan of equalizing with Ne4"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Qc2 O-O 8. Bd3
  Nbd7 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Ne4

```

Note that this is a general idea and could be played in many different move orders. Here are some sample Grandmaster games where Black successfully used this idea to equalize and then even went on to win the game.

Pavel Eljanov vs Yuriy Kryvoruchko, 2013 0-1

Athanasios Mastrovasilis vs Mikhail Gurevich, 2007 0-1

**3) Prevent minority attack with a timely b5 and invite White to overextend.**

If Black doesn't employ the earlier ideas, then Black has to passively defend the position a bit longer. However, this often has the added psychological ploy of inviting White to overextend in his/her efforts to win from their "better" position. I found this Grandmaster game where Black manages to prevent the minority attack and White ends up overextending and actually losing the game.

Pavel Maletin vs Vladimir Malakhov, 2008 0-1

```
    [Event " Prevent minority attack with a timely b5 and invite White to overextend"]
    [Date "2008"]
    [White "Maletin"]
    [Black "Malakhov"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [FEN ""]

    1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be7 8.
    Bd3 O-O 9. Qc2 Re8 10. h3 Nf8 11. Bf4 Be6 12. O-O Bd6 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. Rab1 a5
    15. a3 N6d7 16. Rfc1 Rec8 17. Ne2 b6 18. b4 axb4 19. axb4 b5 20. Nf4 h6 21. Qd1
    Nb6 22. Ne5 Nc4 23. Qh5 Rc7 24. Bc2 Ra2 25. Ned3 Rca7 26. Bb3 R2a3 27. Rd1 Bc8
    28. Nc5 g5 29. Nfd3 Bf5 30. Qf3 Bg6 31. Rbc1 Be4 32. Qe2 Bxd3 33. Rxd3 Ne6 34.
    Bxc4 bxc4 35. Rxa3 Rxa3 36. Qb2 Ra7 37. b5 cxb5 38. Qxb5 Kg7 39. Rb1 Rc7 40.
    Qb2 Qc6 41. Rc1 Nxc5 42. dxc5+ f6 43. Ra1 Qxc5 44. Qb8 Rf7 45. Ra8 Qf8 46.
    Qxf8+ Rxf8 47. Ra5 Rd8 48. g4 Kf7 49. Kf1 Ke6 50. Ke2 h5 51. gxh5 Rh8 52. e4
    dxe4 53. Rc5 Rxh5 54. Rxc4 Ke5 55. Rc5+ Kd6 56. Rc3 Rh8 57. Ra3 Ke5 58. f3 f5
    59. fxe4 fxe4 60. Kf2 Kf4 61. Kg2 Rb8 62. Ra2 Rb3 63. Ra8 Rb2+ 64. Kf1 Kf3 65.
    Rf8+ Kg3 66. Rf5 Kh4 67. Re5 Rb3 68. Rxe4+ Kxh3 69. Re1 Kh2 70. Re2+ Kh1 71.
    Re4 Rf3+ 72. Ke2 Rf5 0-1

```

**B) Black's ideas when White develops Knight on e2.**

This is actually a more critical line than the **Nf3** variation. In his aforementioned DVD, Kasparov claims that the results with **Ne2** are in favor of White and looking at the games at the highest level, I have to agree with him.

Searching through a database, I found that the highest rated player to play this setup with Black was Ivanchuk against Carlsen in 2009. In that game Ivanchuk had to resort to **passive defense** and Carlsen missed a move which could have given him a decisive advantage.

Carlsen vs Ivanchuk 2009 1/2-1/2

Yusopov beat Portisch in this line way back in 1986 by **first defending passively and then embarking on a kingside attack**, although this cannot be suggested as a "general idea", so use this with caution.

Portisch vs Yusopov, 1986 0-1

```
  [White "Portisch"]
  [Black "Yusopov"]
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Passive queenside defense followed by kingside attack"]
  [Result "0-1"]
  [Date "1986"]

   1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Bd3 O-O
   8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O c6 10. Qc2 Nf8 11. Rab1 Be6 12. b4 a6 13. Na4 N6d7 14. Bxe7 Qxe7
   15. Nc5 Nxc5 16. bxc5 Rad8 17. Rb2 g6 18. Rfb1 Bc8 19. Nc1 Rd7 20. Nb3 Ne6
   21. Na5 Nd8 22. Qd1 h5 23. Qf3 Kg7 24. h3 h4 25. Qf4 Rc7 26. Kf1 Rh8 27. Rb3 g5
   28. Qh2 f6 29. R1b2 Nf7 30. Ke1 Re8 31. Kd1 f5 32. Re2 Qd8 33. Rb6 f4 34. exf4 Rxe2
   35. Kxe2 Qf6 36. Rb4 gxf4 37. Kd2 Re7 38. Qh1 f3 39. Kc3 Ng5 40. gxf3 Qf4
   41. Rb1 Nxf3 42. Nb3 Kf8 43. Rd1 Ng5 44. Nd2 Rf7 45. f3 Nxh3 46. Re1 Ng5 47. Re2 Re7
   48. Rxe7 Kxe7 49. Qe1 Be6 50. Qb1 h3 51. Qxb7 Bd7 52. Qa8 h2 53. Qh8 Nh3

```

**1) New Idea - knight maneuver d7-f8-e6 followed by bishop to b7.**

Nubairshah Shaikh vs Arvindh Chithambaram 2013 0-1

I came across a recent interesting game by India's rising star Arvindh Chithambaran. The idea, as I understand it, is to maneuver the knight to **e6**, develop the bishop on **b7** and then invite White to trade the dark squared bishops. Black can also play **f5** considering the fact that the knight on **e2** cannot really get to the outpost created on **e5**.

```
   [Event "knight maneuver d7-f8-e6 followed by bishop to b7"]
   [Date "2013"]
   [White "Shaikh"]
   [Black "Chithambaram"]
   [Result "0-1"]
   [FEN ""]

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8.
    Qc2 Nf8 9. Nge2 Ne6 10. Bh4 g6 11. O-O O-O 12. f3 b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Kh1 Rc8
    15. a3 Nh5 16. Bf2 f5 17. b4 Bd6 18. f4 b5 19. Ng1 a5 20. Rb1 Nf6 21. Bh4 Ra8
    22. Nf3 Qe7 23. Bxf6 Qxf6 24. Ne5 Qe7 25. Qb2 Ra7 26. Rfc1 Rfa8 27. h3 Ng7 28.
    Rc2 axb4 29. axb4 Ra6 30. Qc1 Ne8 31. Ne2 Ra3 32. Qd2 R8a6 33. Kh2 Nf6 34. Nc1
    R3a4 35. Rcb2 Nd7 36. Nxd7 Qxd7 37. Bc2 Ra3 38. Nd3 Qe7 39. Bb3 Kg7 40. Nc5
    Bxc5 41. dxc5 Ra8 42. Qd4+ Qf6 43. Rd2 Re8 44. Kg1 Re4 45. Qxf6+ Kxf6 46. Bc2
    Rexe3 47. Kf2 Bc8 48. Bd1 Re4 49. Bf3 Rxf4 50. Re2 Be6 51. Rbe1 Re4 52. Bxe4
    dxe4 53. Rb2 Bd5 54. Rbb1 Ra4 55. h4 f4 56. g3 Ra2+ 57. Re2 fxg3+ 58. Ke3 Ra3+
    59. Kd2 Ke5 60. Re3 Ra2+ 61. Kc3 Kf4 62. Ree1 e3 63. Ra1 Rxa1 64. Rxa1 g2 65.
    Re1 Kf3 66. Kd4 Kf2 67. Ra1 e2 0-1

```

**2) Preventing the Ne2 line altogether by playing an intermediate move 3...Be7!?**

```
    [Event "Black plays 3...Be7!? and White is unable to get both Bg5 and Ne2"]
    [FEN ""]

    1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7!?

```

**3...Be7** puts White in a dilemma because White cannot get in both **Bg5** and **Ne2**. White has to try **Bf4**, but then Black's kingside is not pressured as much as after **Bg5**. In some lines, Black can once again follow the same plan of knight maneuver to **e6** followed by **g6** and **Bf5**.

```
     [Event "Sample lines after 3...Be7"]
     [FEN ""]

     1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. cxd5 (4. Bf4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 c6
     8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. O-O Qc8 12. h3 Qb7) (4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 c6 6.
     e3 Nbd7) 4... exd5 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. e3 c6 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Qc2 Re8 10. h3
     Nf8 11. O-O Ne6 12. Bh2 g6

```

*P.S. This is definitely the longest I have spent answering a single question on chess.stackexchange.com!*

# Answer
> 9 votes
## INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT INFORMATION:

Exchange variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined can be reached via many move orders so there is no point in posting theoretical lines here since they will not fit ( they are too broad ). The best way to answer this question is to **actually explain how to play positions that arise.** To start explaining this line, the below pawn structure must be considered :

```
[Title "Typical pawn structure"]
[fen "8/pp3ppp/2p5/3p4/3P4/4P3/PP3PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Central formation is fixed, so pawn breaks must be considered in order to evaluate which player stands better, if any.

Black has only one pawn break -\> `...c5` but that will leave him with isolated `d-pawn`. Owner of such pawn stands weaker in pure pawn ending but in middlegame has good compensation in view of active piece play and pressure.

**Black can not obtain satisfying position with the isolated `d-pawn` because of the following:**

1. White is usually ahead in development;
2. White has strong pressure on `c-file` with `Rc1` \+ `Qc2`;
3. White easily exchanges pieces which reduces Black’s attacking chances;

As for White, he has central pawn break `e4` that might leave him with isolated `d-pawn`, but unlike Black, **in some lines** he can actually obtain fully satisfactory position. Still, most of the time playing with isolated pawn is not very rewarding for White.

**Since both sides have no satisfactory breaks in the center, we need to consider play on wings.**

White **absolutely dominates** in this aspect. Practice has seen White successfully operating on queenside ( *minority attack* ) and on kingside ( `f4` push ). Black usually can’t use his queenside pawn majority effectively, since he will create a backward pawn on `c6` which usually costs him the game.

Since he can’t strike in the center and queenside, Black must seek chances on kingside. Since pawn storm with `...f5` fails, Black tried with piece attack against opposing king which gave decent results. White started to play slowly and after preventing the kingside attack went on to continue with his plans.

That is why Black adopted the following plan : **Black keeps his pieces centralized, and positioned to counter/prevent opponent’s action.** He will try to generate kingside play by attacking there **with pieces first.** After White makes a pawn move **with pawns in front of his king,** Black launches pawn storm.

The last nuance, **that is very important**, is the position of the White’s king knight. If posted on `f3`, lines are harmless for Black, but if on `e2` then Black will defend for a long time.

Now is the time to move on the next section that explains concrete plans for both sides.

## TYPICAL PLANS:

*1. Central breakthrough;*

*2. Kingside initiative with `f4`;*

*3. Queenside initiative-minority attack;*

*4. Opposite-side castling;*

*5. Short Endgame;*

*6. Alatortsev variation;*

> 1.Central breakthrough;

With `Nf3` this is not dangerous for Black. As soon as White plays `Rae1` with the idea of `e4`, Black responds with `...Ne4!` and gets equal position:

```
[Title "Black equalizes with White knight on f3"]
[fen ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 c6 6. Qc2 Be7 7. e3 O-O 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rae1 Ne4!

```

However, with `Ne2` things are **critical for Black.** Black’s main idea is to play `...c5!` in order to **further weaken dark squares in White camp,** especially `a7-g1` diagonal. Knight on `f6` is rerouted to `b6`.

The reason why this sub-variation is not a mainline is because Black successfully uses various move orders to dodge it. So far nobody found a solid equalizer, and White enjoys permanent, but slight, advantage. Since there is no solid equalizer, the only thing I can recommend is to study **most up-to-date literature** on this subject. I recommend you *Lars Schandorff-Playing the Queens Gambit (2012)*.

> 2.Kingside initiative with `f4`;

This plan is played with `Nf3` setup. The point is to restrict Black’s white bishop and maintain space advantage. Game Petrosian-Beliavsky, USSR championship 1983 is the first time this plan was tried ( if I am not mistaken ). Usually Black plays `...f6` and posts bishop to `f7`, achieving solid position with equal chances.

> 3.Queenside initiative-minority attack;

**This plan is good only with `Nf3`. With `Ne2` it fails.**

White plans to play `b4-b5-bxc6` to create backward pawn on `c6` and isolated `a-pawn`. Then he will use the `c-file` to put pressure on `c6` and will eventually capture the `c6` pawn. The ideal pawn structure for White is shown in following diagram:

```
[Title "Minority attack pawn structure"]
[fen "8/p4ppp/2p5/3p4/3P4/4P3/P4PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Since Black is too late with `...f5` counterplay he concentrates on **exchanging bishops ( positions with "knights-only" are good for Black;** Black posts a knight on `d6` where it controls `b5+c4+e4+f5` squares; good illustrative game is Bobotsov-Petrosian,Lugano 1968 ).

In order to exchange white bishop Black tried maneuver `Nf8-e6-g7-Bf5` and to exchange black bishop he usually plays `...Ne4` at some point. Practice showed that plan with `Nf8-e6-g7-Bf5` is too slow ( but might be valid **if White’s action is slow** ), so Black turned his attention to other possibilities.

In practice, plan with `..a5` proved best. Since White will play `a3` in order to achieve `b4` Black can slow down minority attack by simply ignoring it for a moment **because `a3` pawn will hang**, or can exchange on `b4` ( which will reduce the number of weak pawns he must defend -\> this idea can be implemented with `...a6` as well, since both moves usually lead to the same position after Black exchanges with `...axb4` ) and then play `...b5!` to stop minority attack.

The backward `...c6` pawn will be shielded by a knight on `...c4` and Black will put pressure on `b4` pawn with queen and rook. He will also posses `a-file`, which will give him sufficient counterplay. **Black must prevent `e4` push and must not allow `Ne5` in order for this plan to work.**

*An important note: If White exchanged black bishop for `...Nf6` ( and you have played `...a6` ) then after White plays `b5` you may want to play `...a5!` to prevent `Nc3` to reach strong `c5` square. Black bishop **must** go to `d6`.*

Another plan Black has is to respond on `b5` with `....cxb5+...a5!` followed by `...Nb6` or `...b6` ( `b6` square **must be blocked** ) which will create passed pawn on the `a-file`. This is not common to see, but sometimes is the only way to play so I am mentioning it.

The last plan is probably the best, and can be combined with others: Black will respond on `b5` with `c5!`. Although he will have isolated pawn, he will be able to harass White’s `b5` pawn, and after `...cxd4` or `dxc5` the `c3` knight will be under pressure, and White queen can be subjected to annoying pin as well.

```
[Title "Plan with ...a5, a3 pawn hangs"]
[fen "r1bqrnk1/1p2bppp/2p2n2/p2p2B1/3P4/P1NBPN2/1PQ2PPP/1R3RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 Bd6! 2.b5 Bxa3 3.bxc6 bxc6

```

It will be harder for White to attack `a-pawn` since his pieces are no t well posted for that task. Black can easily defend the `a-pawn` since his pieces are flexibly posted. Being temporarily a pawn up, Black can return one pawn in order to **favorably simplify the position.**

```
[Title "Plan with ...a5, blocking b5"]
[fen "r3r1k1/1p1nqp1p/2pn2p1/p2p4/3P4/P1NQPN2/1P3PPP/1R3RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 axb4 2.axb4 b5

```

Black will post a knight on `c4`, rook goes to `a3`. God example is this game. This plan can be achieved also with `1....a6 2.b4 b5`, with the same rules applying. You will have to choose a proper moment to open `a-file`...

```
[Title "Stopping Nc5 after Bxf6"]
[fen "4r3/pp2bppp/2p2n2/3p2B1/1P1P4/2N1P3/P4PPP/1R6 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bxf6 Bxf6 2.a4 a6! 3.b5 a5! 4.bxc6 bxc6

```

This idea is very important once White exchanges black bishop for your knight. **In positions with `...a6`,** you must not allow `Nc5`!

```
[Title "Passed a-pawn"]
[fen "r7/1p1n1ppp/p1p5/3p4/PP1P4/4P3/5PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.b5 cxb5! 2.axb5 a5!

```

Now you have passed pawn, **but remember to play `...b6` or `...Nb6`!** The point is to control the `b6` square or else you will stand worse.

```
[Title "The ...c5! push"]
[fen "r1r5/1p2bppp/2p5/3p4/1P1P4/2N1PN2/2Q2PPP/1R6 w - - 0 1"]

1.b5 c5! 2.dxc5 ( 2.Qb3 cxd4 3.Nxd4 Ra3-+ ) 2...Rxc5

```

Although you get isolated `d5` pawn, White's pieces are awkwardly placed so you get good compensation in view of your piece activity. Furthermore, the pawn on `b5` is weak, and your pieces are well placed to defend your isolated pawn and attack White `b5` pawn.

> 4.Opposite-side castling;

Works for White in both setups, but is not considered that dangerous with `Nf3` since Black can simplify the position with timely `....Ne4!` jump. **With `Ne2` setup you must immediately launch pawn storm.** In both cases you must know theory well, which I will not cover here since it is too broad.

> 5.Short endgame;

If Black is happy with a draw, he can play slightly worse, but equal, endgame:

```
[Title "Short endgame"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Bf5!? 7.Qf3 Bg6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Qxf6 gxf6

```

> 5.Alatortsev variation;

This line was invented so Black can dodge Exchange variation with `Ne2` and is very effective in it.

The fact that in the last 3 or 4 candidates tournament Black played “Queen gambit type of openings” with `...Be7` move order “speaks” a lot ( hopefully now you grasp the difficulty of Black’s position in lines with `Ne2` ).

The beauty of this line also lies in the fact that White can’t enter favorably into some lines with `Nf3` either, which will be demonstrated in the diagram below:

```
[Title "QGD White tries to reach Nf3 mainline "]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7! 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bg5 c6 7.Qc2 ( 7. e3 Bf5! 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Nbd7 10.O-O O-O 11.Rab1 a5! 12.a3 Ne4! 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.b4 b5! $15 ) g6! 8.e4!? ( 8.e3!? Bf5 ) dxe4! 9.Bxf6 ( 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Be6!? ) Bxf6 10.Qxe4+ ( 10.Nxe4 O-O!?= ) Kf8 ( 10...Qe7!?= ) 11.Bc4 Kg7 12.O-O Re8 13.Qf4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Rxe6 15.Rfe1! Qd6! 16.Qxd6 Rxd6 17.Re8 Rd8 18.Rxd8 Bxd8 19.Re1 Nd7=

```

Therefore White plays `Bf4` instead of `Bg5` and that became the main line.

Black’s most solid approach seems to be `...Bd6` in response to `Bf4`. However, in practice `...Bf5` is the main line. White then responds with `g4` or `Ne2+g3` chasing the bishop away and launching kingside pawn storm afterwards. Lines are complex and sharp, so I will not cover them as they are too broad but Schandorff’s book, recommended earlier, covers this line well.

## SUMMARY:

As Black, you try to generate kingside attack with pieces that will force a weakness in pawn structure around White king. Once that happens you launch a pan storm or simply finish the attack with a mate.

If White is faster on the queenside, you fight minority attack usually with `...a5` or `...a6`, and try to get counterplay on the `a-file`. Post a knight on `c4` and if you have a black bishop he goes to `d6`.

For detailed coverage of this line, the best book is *M.Sadler-Queen’s Gambit Declined (2000)* and for current theory you should get Schandorff’s book.

If you have further questions leave a comment. Good luck!

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Brainteaser: What is the one thing a queen cannot do that all other pieces can do?
A simple brainteaser - A queen cannot do something all other pieces can do. What is that?

**April 18 2014 9:15 PM GMT. EDIT:** In this context, by "doing" I mean making a move that leads to the desired result.

# Answer
I'll have a go at saying the queen is the only piece that cannot reveal a discovered check.
> 18 votes

# Answer
1. A Queen cannot be captured when static by an attacking King.
2. A Queen cannot capture a piece more valuable than itself.
3. A Queen cannot move to create a discovered check.
4. A Queen cannot sacrifice itself for a higher valued piece.
5. A Queen cannot initiate a double check.
> 11 votes

# Answer
The queen **cannot** not be where the queen starts when the game begins.

All other pieces **can** not be where the queen starts when the game begins.
> 7 votes

# Answer
A queen can not start the game on a square of the other color. All other pieces can, and in fact, do.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Be the piece that moves away and makes a discovered check!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Is there a name for this attack against Sicilian defense?
Sometimes against Sicilian Najdorf (or french) defense I play like this:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf5 Bxf5 8. exf5 d5 9. Bg5 d4 10. Ne4 Be7

```

My plan in this opening is somehow playing like Yugoslav attack, specially by opening an open line in queen side and pushing pawns into the king side of black and going for O-O-O, but I usually fail against players with rating in my range in normal game but usually I win against player with similar rating to me in blitz game by use of this handmade opening.

**Question:** Is there a name for this opening? Is it a very weak opening? and more important than this, if I don't want to play passive against e5 in different variation of Sicilian (e.g, when my knight is at d4) what should I do?

P.S: Maybe Be3 seems to be silly, but my intention is motivating to pushing e5 (by black), to use open line of f7 by my white bishop later in the game. Many players are thinking about possible fork pawn, or they see weakness in my move and they do e5.

# Answer
**6. Be3** against the Najdorf Sicilian is called the English Attack.

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

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

```

**6. Be3** is no weak move! It is a strong move and has been played by World Champions like Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand.

In your game, after **6...e5** you played **7. Nf5**. But **7. Nf5** is known to be a weak move, becaue Black has the strong reply **7...d5**. One sample variation is as follows -

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

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf5 d5
   8. Bg5 d4 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nb1 Qb6 11. Nd2 Qxb2

```

You mentioned that you would like to put more pressure on Black's kingside, but in the English attack you cannot do that immediately. Note that the Najdorf Sicilian is a very robust opening and it's not easy to immediately put pressure on Black's kingside (as I briefly also mentioned here). In the English Attack, the pressure is slowly built up with a sequence of moves like **f3** and **g4** as this line demonstrates.

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

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6
   8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4

```

You should go through some of the games provided on the link I gave you to see how this attack works.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Actually I don't prefer Nf5 as it gives black a strong center, instead, Nf3 or Nb3 should be better.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Is there a concept of 'good' knight and 'bad' knight?
We've all heard about the concepts of 'good' bishop and 'bad' bishop.

```
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/2np4/2b1p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 5"]

```

In the position above, the white knight at f3 does not have access to either of the centre squares d4 or e5. Can this knight be considered a 'bad' knight? Is it best to have developed it to f3 or would e2 be a better square for this knight?

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'll answer this in three parts: the literal question, the concept of badly-placed pieces, and the particular example you give.

1. Bishops are the only piece for which the nomenclature "good" and "bad" is idiomatic. That is because the set of squares a bishop can theoretically travel to is inherent to it; a dark-squared bishop can never ever go to a light square, so if the position is such that you'd like to have a bishop on light squares, you're out of luck and your bishop is "bad". On the other hand, if you have a badly-placed knight (or queen, or rook), there's almost never something preventing you from theoretically eventually repositioning it on a good square. So people generally don't use the term "bad knights". (People sometimes speak of endgames with a "good knight versus a bad bishop", but this is more a figure of speech meant to call attention to the fact that the bishop is bad and the knight cannot be.)
2. Pieces can of course be badly placed, but except in the case of a bishop of the wrong color, they are just referred to as badly-placed pieces. In fact an excellent strategical rule of thumb is to always consider improving the position of your worst-placed piece.
3. However, in the position you present, the knight is doing just fine on f3. It supports an eventual d4 (probably with the support of a pawn on c3), which if played at the right time could be very powerful, opening up the center. It puts pressure on Black's pawn on e5, dissuading him from playing the analogous move ...d5. And in some circumstances it could jump to g5, putting pressure on f7 or h7 (especially after Black has castled).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Well, generally a knight on the

1st or 2nd rank is defensive

3rd rank or 4th rank is theoretically "normal", and can be used defensively & aggresively.

5th rank is considered superior to a bishop

6th rank is the most devastating and might force your opponent to sacrifice an exchange to get rid of it.

7th rank is not as good as those on the 6th

8th rank basically needs to get out of the rank :D

# Answer
> 1 votes
The "goodness" or badness" of a knight is measured by how many squares it can reach, whether or not the opposition controls it. If you somehow put Black's queen on d4, the knight on f3 can capture it.

The knight on f3 is "good." It can move its theoretical maximum of eight squares. A knight on one of the corner squares, h1, is "bad." It can move only two squares. A knight on e2 would have only six theoretical moves, not as good as being on f3, unless there were some other, strategic reason (e.g., supporting a knight under attack on c3.

---
Tags: opening, strategy
---


title: Chess traps without positional loss

text:
# Question
Title: Chess traps without positional loss
Most of the common chess traps are ill advised (at least in standard games), as you sacrifice better moves.

Traps that I have tried out with some success are the fishing pole, and the blackbourne shilling gambit. But common for these common trap plays, is that if spotted, I am left in a bad position.

In fishing pole, black often play black bishop and forces me to pin my knight. In blackbourne gambit, the opponent often simply take the knight rather than the poisoned pawn.

Are there any common chess traps, without a positional loss, that are worth studying?

# Answer
The following traps do not lead to any positional loss for the side setting the trap. It's obviously not an exhaustive list-

**A common trap in the Sicilian**

```
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. Be2 Nxe4?? 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxe4

```

**Queen's Gambit Elephant Trap**

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. d4. d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Nxd5?? Nxd5 7. Bxd8 Bb4+ 8. Qd2 Kxd8 9. e4 Bxd2+

```

**Trap in the Alapin Sicilian**

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 e6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nxd4?? 8. Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Qxd4

```

**Cambridge Springs Trap**

```
  [FEN ""]
  1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 7. Bd3?! dxc4 8. Bxc4 Ne4 9. Qc2?? Nxg5 10. Nxg5 Qxg5

```

**Trap in Sveshnikov Sicilian**

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Nd5 Nxd5 8. exd5 Ne7 9. c4 a6? 10. Qa4 axb5 11. Qxa8 (10...Qd7 11. Nxd6+)

```

**Trap in the Philidor defense**

```
  [FEN ""]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4 Be7? (4... Ngf6? 5. dxe5 Nxe5 6. Nxe5 dxe5 7.
    Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4+ 9. Qd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2) 5. dxe5! dxe5?? (5... Nxe5 6. Nxe5
    dxe5 7. Qh5 g6 8. Qxe5) 6. Qd5 Nh6 (6...Nf6?? 7.Qxf7#) 7. Bxh6 O-O 8. Be3

```

**Ruy Lopez Noah's Ark Trap**

```
   [FEN ""]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 (4... d6 5. d4 b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4
    exd4 8. Qxd4?? c5) 5. Bb3 d6 6. d4 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?? c5 9. Qd5 Be6 10.
    Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5 c4

```

**Siberian Trap in the Smith-Morra Gambit**

```
    [FEN ""]

    1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 Qc7 7. O-O Nf6 8.
    Qe2 Ng4 9. h3?? Nd4! 10. Nxd4 (10. hxg4 Nxe2+) (10. Qd1 Nxf3+ 11. Qxf3 Qh2#) 10...
    Qh2# 0-1

```

**Trap in the Rauzer Sicilian**

```
    [FEN ""]

    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. f4
    h6 9. Bh4? Nxe4! 10. Nxe4 (10. Bxd8 Nxd2 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Bc7 Nxf1) 10... Qxh4+
    11. g3 Qd8

```
> 15 votes

# Answer
Seeing excellent answer by Wes, I would like to add Albin Counter Gambit trap. Albin Counter Gambit is played on the highest level of chess.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. e3? Bb4+ 5. Bd2 dxe3 6. Bxb4?? exf2+ 7. Ke2 fxg1=N+!

```

Information about a trap can be found here. The trap is interesting also because it allows one of the fastest possible underpromotion (to a knight).
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, positional-play, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How should I play wiith White and Black in the Sicilian Dragon?
How should I play with White and Black in the Sicilian Dragon?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7

```

# Answer
**My personal opinion:**
If you are really annoyed of your opponents opening preparation of *early dragon* then just avoid it in the beginning. There is a friend of mine who crammed the dragon at length. I was extremely annoyed. To avoid the dragon I started to play Morra's Gambit. Morra's Gambit is quite effective. It can take your opponent out of the opening. You can try Morra Gambit if you are an attacking player otherwise do not go for it. You need to play quite sharp in Morra's Gambit. If you lose your tempo then the Gambit will go in vain and the opponent will get a clear advantage of 1 pawn.

**Short answer:**

If you want to deal with the position after `6...Bg7` then you will have to learn the theory. The main options are `7.Bc4,Be2,f4,f3`. Other option are `7.Bb5+`, even moves like `7.a3,a4` or `7.h3,h4` are playable. `7.h4` is quite attacking and `8.h5` can be sacrificed for a open file. `7.g3` is also playable but it seems like a dull move because `Bg2` won't be very effective because black's Night can soon jump at `g4`.

In `7.Be2 or Bc4` line sometimes after some moves there is an option of retreating the bishop on `f1`.

There is so much theory that a full fledged book can be written.

In some lines you may go for opposite castling but you will loose your small opening advantage. It will be still playable because the game will become highly tactical and attacking for both the sides. If you are good in tactics you can try this.

If you do not like very much Black's dark bishop on `g7` then you can double your bishop with Queen(`7.Qd2`) and force Black to trade the bishops. Again doing this will give up your opening advantage.

If you are not playing at GM level then small opening advantage doesn't matter. Infact the whole opening doesn't matter.

The **real answer** to your question is read a book of dragon variation and use latest stockfish engine to analyse different lines :-)
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4, or 1. Nf3? Which opening move has given the greatest scoring percentage for White in World Championship Matches?
Which opening move out of **1. e4**, **1. d4**, **1. c4** and **1.Nf3** has given the best scoring percentage for White in World Championship matches? What are the percentages?

# Answer
**1. b3 has the greatest scoring percentage** (100%), although it's statistically insignificant because it only appears in one game out of 1,506.

The successful openings played more regularly are:

**Nf3 (61.7%, 102 games)
c4 (59.3%, 129 games)
e4 (57%, 631 games)
d4 (55.4%, 632 games)**

That data's compiled after downloading all 1,506 World Championship games from 1886 to 2013 from the chessgames.com WCC archive. Here's what Scid's Tree Window shows:
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening, statistics, world-championship
---