# Question
Title: How does the Israel Chess Federation (ICF) update ratings for players who no longer play in Israel?
I just seen an interesting statement about ICF ratings:

> When I moved to England and stopped playing ICF rated chess I was curious as to what would happen to my ICF rating. It stayed in synch with my FIDE rating! The ICF monitors my FIDE games played and updates my ICF rating accordingly.

How does this work?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The first thing to note is that the ICF is not unique in having the capability to take "foreign played" FIDE rated games into account in calculating national ratings.

Before the recent change by the ECF (English Chess Federation) to monthly Elo-style ratings you could if you wanted to write to the ECF grading officer and tell him about foreign played tournaments and request that they be included in your biannual ECF grading. With grading lists only updated once every 6 months this manual process was just about manageable by the moribund ECF which still struggles with 21st century computerization and the modern digital world.

With the new, monthly, rating system this appears to be a bit of a struggle for the ECF. This is what the ECF currently have to say on this:

> With the introduction of monthly rating, the rating team are reviewing the arrangements for the rating of games played abroad. If you have an enquiry of this nature you can email the Manager of Rating, Brian Valentine, to find out how the process is progressing (see https://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ecf-officials/)

With the Israeli Chess Federation, however, I don't need to tell them. They pick this information up automatically. This information is all available on the FIDE's rating website. It can be picked up programmatically by a sufficiently modern, automated chess federation.

Note that, as with all modern Elo-based rating systems, each individual game is rated individually. Games played under different rating systems are all given equal weight.

For an example of how low the FIDE rating of Israeli tournaments goes, here are the tournament details for rounds 3 and 4 of the B league in Tel Aviv for March (rated in April) 2022. The ratings of the players vary between 1062 and 1689.

Here is my FIDE playing record.
Here are the details of my last FIDE rated tournament giving all the details needed for rating calculation.
FIDE even has a record of the PGNs of my games played where the organizers have submitted games to FIDE.

All that is needed to access this information is my FIDE ID. Since most chess in Israel is both FIDE and national rated (the exceptions are usually weak junior tournaments for whom full FIDE rules, e.g. illegal moves losing the game, are not appropriate) the ICF have the FINs for all FIDE registered Israeli players. Automating the process is then a straightforward programming job.

Note that the ICF has no knowledge of my ECF rated games. Before the latest changes in ECF grading / rating the game information was not readily available. It is now. Here is the ECF's record of my last 3 months' ECF rated games. The one problem the ICF would have trying to incorporated this additional information is that they don't know how to interpret ECF ratings.

---
Tags: fide, rating, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible for any titled player to beat a chess engine?
This topic has been discussed before but I want to reopen this thread because of Stockfish vs Nakamura. I watched the series live on chess.com a few days ago

In Game 2, I was hoping to see if Stockfish would blunder on time. But Nakamura wanted to attack. Any titled player could reach the position that Nakamura reached, so it’s not too hard to do it. Here’s the list of the games

With less than a minute left, could Nakamura, in theory, beat Stockfish or any chess engine? Or can it make a stupid move to avoid threefold repetition or something like that? I ask this because I heard that an engine would make any move, no matter how stupid it is, just to avoid losing on time.

---

**Edit**

Nakamura played 3 games against Stockfish last week. In the first 2 games, Nakamura could use Rybka for assistance. Meanwhile, in the third game, he played on his own, but as white, and Stockfish didn't have its H pawn. Effectively, Nakamura was a pawn up.

Nakamura won the first game and lost the other two. The second game was close and he could’ve at least drawn it if he didn't blunder. That’s what the commentator said. I think it was IM Danny Rensch who was the commentator.

---

I hope that you watched the games.

My question is this: Can a GM defeat Stockfish by letting the engine blunder on time, draw by threefold repetition, or draw by the fifty-move rule?

If Nakamura was patient, I think that Stockfish would have been close enough for a draw by the fifty-move rule.

# Answer
> 8 votes
There is no way a strong (2300+) engine will lose on time against a human. It simply does not happen. The human will most likely be the first to lose on the time. A good example of this is Computer4Impossible on chess.com in the bullet portions of the site, where the only way to defeat it is on the board as it never loses on time. Also, I do not think any decent engine would be in danger of losing on time anyways as the general speed and quality of its moves is far greater than a human's.

```
Is it possible for any titled player to beat chess engine?

```

Assumings it's the strongest engine in the world, on completely equal terms, no. Maybe a draw with careful play but a win against is impossible. We have already seen how the top players fared against the strongest engines with the Adams-Hydra and Kramnik-Deep Fritz matches, and those were in 2005 and 2006!

With the assistance of another engine, it is probably still not possible, even if the other engine is identical to the one you are playing against. Think about it. Even if Carlsen had his engine, it would not make any difference. He can not hope to outwit even his own assistant engine (assuming it is also strong, like Rybka.)

The only possible ways a titled player could hope to defeat an assumed strongest chess engine (like Stockfish) would be if they had a stronger engine or if they had some sufficient compensation (at least two pawns).

It would be nice if you could specify your question further, as there are many factors involving such a topic.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In the PAL/CSS Freestyle chess tournaments, the teams of human/engine combos pretty consistently beat the engines which were playing alone, so humans can contribute to the process. If a human tried to play alone in one of those tournaments, he'd probably end up at the bottom of the table though. Human players even world champions tend to make small tactical errors which engines exploit, but if the human has access to an engine to blundercheck, his superior knowledge of strategy/endgames should held him overcome an engine by itself. The PAL/CSS games were at a time control of an hour per game. In blitz, it's hard for a human to take advantage of their positional knowledge though, so slower time controls would probably be better. Correspondence GM Arno Nickel beat Hydra in correspondence games in 2005, and I think the top correspondence GMs could probably still do that today.

From what I saw, Nakamura was pursuing a very specific strategy in those games, trying to clog up the centre with pawns, and then playing waiting moves to try to lure Stockfish into blundering. He did indeed have a draw in the second game, but kind of went overboard with all that maneuvering in the hopes of scoring a win, and it backfired.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think Nakamura can beat Stockfish with time in any case. Stockfish can still play very strong chess even searching for just a second. As long as Stockfish detects it's low on time, it'll play faster and faster.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes it's possible but very unlikely. As strong as modern day engines are, they aren't perfect. I have seen a multitude of instances where the engine thinks for a while and suddenly changes its evaluation when reaching a certain depth. If it's forced to move quickly in time trouble it could make a blunder. Of course, then the GM would have to know it's a blunder and figure out how to exploit it (which could be difficult since the engine itself didn't know at whatever depth it got to).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Answering the question in the comments:

> i'm asking if an engine could lose on time or blunder because of time trouble

Engines "can" lose on time. Inverted commas because it should not happen. If it does happen it means either the engine is not configured correctly, or there's a bug. Game 6 of MVL vs. Komodo featured such an error. To quote the article,

> The Komodo team later stated (about this fairly historic event for computer chess) that it had to do with their server settings, and it would adjust certain parameters to account for Internet lag to prevent it from happening again.

As for whether engines can blunder in time trouble - they can, but engines can already blunder even outside of time trouble, so it shouldn't be surprising. When engines have less time they also search to lower depth, so they will blunder more often too.

---
Tags: engines, grandmaster
---


# Question
Title: What do we know about the statistics of 1-vs-team chess games, like Kasparov vs The World?
Kasparov vs the World was a chess game where Gary Kasparov played against many people on the internet. Gary won. **I am basically wondering if 1-vs-many chess games have been done systematically, and if there are some statistical results from this?** e.g.:

* Practically speaking, if we have N players of Elo rating X each, what is the Elo rating of the combined team (typically)?
* Practically speaking, if we have N players of Elo rating ranging between X - 500 and X + 500, what is the Elo rating of the combined team, typically?

The Kasparov vs the world match suggests to me that Elo (team) is approximately equal to Elo (best player in team) + a small number, but I'd like to know if there are statistics.

Also, there are some limitations to what the Kasparov vs The World match tells us:

1. Gary apparently watched the forum in which his opponents communicated, which wasn't clearly forbidden beforehand.
2. it's not clear to me how serious the opponents took the game, as it was maybe a bit informal.
3. It's only one game.

# Answer
Carlsen had a similar match (https://www.chess.com/news/view/raw-chess-challenge-all-the-info) and there may be well more, but while the questions you ask are very interesting, even if there were millions of such games they would not provide an answer to your questions since 'The World' is anonymous (we do not know the Elo distribution of the players who participated). Another, subtler limitation that you don't mention is that there is a difference between how normal chess games are played (to which Elo ratings apply directly) and these games where players are allowed to take notes, browse forums and written materials, etc. (even if we imagine that they stick to the condition of not using an engine; if you model a certain small proportion of the voting team as using an engine, that could also be an interesting question how much that would impact the combined team's Elo).

It's likely a very different approach is appropriate for huge N (like 'The World' as a team) compared to small N (where they *may* be more data or example games). For tiny N, you might look into consultation games (where two players discuss their moves: here's a list, which for some reason misses what I thought to be the most famous pair of consultation games of all-time, Morphy vs Staunton), which for N=2 player teams seems the best solution. (Obviously, quantifying Elo will be very non-trivial, since most of these are not 2v1 games; you might have to use some kind of play-quality estimate using engine analysis, then follow it up with Elo correlations with play-quality.)

I'm not sure there is a reasonable approach for N\>2, although there is the 'variant' Business chess where apparently teams discuss each move. I'm a little unclear on whether it ultimately comes down to a single game of chess being played from start to finish. Apparently tournaments were held in this variant, so maybe you can look for any available games.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: statistics, elo, team
---


title: The most often played chess game

text:
# Question
Title: The most often played chess game
Offhand, I say the Shepherd's Mate. But let us just consider "serious" tournament play. Still, the game must be rather short to be repeated extremely often. Could be a "Will they ever learn" opening trap or a prearranged draw line. Anyone care to research it in a megabase?

Note that just because Lichess lists 187×10^6 e4 vs. 100×10^6 d4 doesn't mean that an e4 game will be the winner! (By playing always the most often played move on the analysis board, I landed in the Lasker Pelikan Sveshnikov.)

# Answer
> 7 votes
**The most played game: a drawing line**

The most played game in the TWIC database (issues 920 to 1438, containing about 1.8 million tournament games) is the following one, which appears 111 times. I add also a variation of the same (a change in move order) that is the second most played game (87 times). A couple of variations ending a move earlier or a move later also are amongst the most played games, with 38 and 39 repetitions respectively.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 Nbd4 8.
Nxd4 Nxd4 ( 8...d5 9.exd6 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Qxd6 11.Qe4+ Qe6 12.Qd4 Qd6 13.Qe4+
Qe6 14.Qd4 Qd6 {2nd most played game, 87 times} ) 9.Qxd4 d5 10.exd6 Qxd6
11.Qe4+ Qe6 12.Qd4 Qd6 13.Qe4+ Qe6 14.Qd4 {15th most played game, 38 times
} 14...Qd6 {Most played game, 111 times} ( 14...Qd6 15.Qe4+ {14th most
played game, 39 times} ) 1/2-1/2

```

**How I found the answer**

In case anyone is interested, I used a custom made script to parse the games in pgn format and extract the movetext section (the section containing the actual moves and result).

After saving the results as a dataframe in R, I grouped the data by the column movetext (equal games are grouped together), calculated the number of times for each game and sorted in decreasing order:

```
    games <- mdata %>% group_by(movetext) %>%
        summarise(n_times = n()) %>% arrange(desc(n_times))

```

And I only took into account the games where there was at least one move by each of the players. Otherwise, the most played game would be "0-1", black wins because white didn't show up, followed by "1.e4 1-0", white wins because black didn't show up.

---
Tags: history, statistics
---


# Question
Title: How do you analyze this position holistically?
So I was solving a puzzle, and I got it wrong in my first attempt, so I checked with the engine and understood the solution. But I think that I am missing some aspects of the puzzle as I'm able to get the materialistic advantage of the puzzle(according to which, the bar should be +2 as the bishop would take another pawn later) into my head and not the positional one. Please help me finding as to how it is +5.9.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Stockfish (especially recent versions) often gives evaluations that seem impractical to humans (even GMs in some cases). E.g., take a look at Anish Giri's reaction to this: https://youtu.be/Dl08T5b3xKs?t=15161

It would be virtually impossible for Stockfish to not win that position you posted, even if it were playing against an engine of its own strength. You could probably play out thousands upon thousands of games, and the result would always be a White win.

White has an extra 1-2 points in material, some of Black's pieces will be vulnerable after the position opens up from b4, and White is a bit ahead in development. This is enough for Stockfish to win nearly to a certainty. For humans, it's certainly a winning position for White, but not to such a high degree of certainty.

Note that the recent versions of Stockfish usually use a neural network (NNUE) to evaluate positions. This means it's typically not using hand-crafted human heuristics to evaluate positions anymore, which is why the evaluations it gives often seem alien. But evaluating positions this way has certainly increased Stockfish's strength. E.g., largely thanks to NNUE, Stockfish has proven itself to be a stronger engine than Leela (at least for the moment). They used to be a lot more neck and neck.

Here is one of the most fascinating evaluations I've seen from Stockfish 14:

```
r1b2rk1/pp3pbp/4n1p1/1q1N4/7P/4B1P1/PP3PB1/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 16

```

It evaluates the following at around +4. This is despite the fact that the material is currently level. And if you look at the moves Stockfish recommends in its top lines, there are no immediate winning tactics. Sure, White's moves are aggressive, but not overly so. And on the previous move, SF recommended 16.h4.

# Answer
> 3 votes
*"I think that I am missing some aspects of the puzzle..."*

No, not really. The main purpose of puzzles is to train yourself in pattern recognition, so as to find the entry into a line that is either advantageous or not disadvantageous (keeping you in the game).

So, finding b2-b4 is the main thing here, and less so evaluating the position in terms of material points.

Asking: *"help me finding as to how it is +5.9"* is nevertheless a good thing, though, and what will guide you towards the skills needed whenever there is no clearly winning line at hand - blacks blunder Ne7 is unexpected, rare and atypical. In this sense, puzzles won't help much, and you sort of understood this intuitively by making a point about *"holistics"*.

So, what now about these holistics? Well, there is a huge effort needed to sort this one out exactly, because there are tons of lines needing to be examined after b2-b4. For starters, black has 4 'active' ways how to give up the piece with Bxb4, Nxb4, Bxf2 and Nxe5, and a number of 'passive' ways ignoring the threat and let bxc5 happen. They all lead to different follow-ups, which makes it near impossible to tag down a clear reason as to why the evaluation is given as 5+; instead, you'd opt for a general view on things: a piece down, uncastled king, either king or queen needed to protect e7, undeveloped queen side, and open or half open lines to claim for white.

How white can exploit these assets, and more generally, how to win a won game, boils down to techniques, mostly, and they're rarely subject to puzzles.

Still, I'd too expect winning more material down every line, when an authority says it's +5,9, but it is unreasonable to assume one could pinpoint the *why so* for all continuations.

My point thus is that it's much better for mortals to learn and understand general techniques helpful to win a won game than it is to understand evaluations given by engines, and when analysing, to only take them as guidelines (i.e. that there ought to be a way of winning further material down every line) and motivation (of studying such forceful, material winning plays in perhaps a few lines). Holistics in chess is likely still millenials away.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It's not a matter of evaluating the position because the evaluation of the engine is based entirely on tactics.

If we ignored the tactics of the position I would say black is slightly better because of the lead in development and two center pawns to White's one. Also, White's main positional advantage is the e pawn but black can put a lot of pressure on that pawn very easily.

You can see that from the engine evaluation too. Stockfish says black is better is every line except two and in one of those two White's advantage is very small.

Your real question should be how to analyze the specific line beginning with b4. And, the answer would be to play through the tactics until you understand them.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, puzzles
---


# Question
Title: Why is it a draw after check from pawn promotion?
I've been playing against Stockfish, and sometimes I promote a pawn to a piece that immediately puts the opposing king (the only piece on the board) into check, but the computer says at that point that the game is a draw. Why is that?

Edit: Note that I am asking if there is a specific rule in chess regarding stalemate after pawn promotion, other than "the opponent cannot make a move".

Here's an example: I just promoted a pawn to a knight, and Stockfish has said the game is a draw, even though the king in check has moves available.

```
[fen "5N2/7k/8/7K/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 1"]

```

# Answer
> 11 votes
> I am asking if there is a specific rule in chess regarding stalemate after pawn promotion, other than "the opponent cannot make a move".

No, there are no special rules for stalemate after promotion, nor are there special rules for draws after promotion. The only reason promotion affects whether the game is a draw or not is that it changes the pieces on the board.

Article 5, "The completion of the game" in the FIDE Laws of Chess defines how the game is won and drawn. Stalemate is not the only way the game can end in a draw. This is what it says about drawing the game:

> 5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
>
> 5.2.2 **The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’.** This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
>
> 5.2.3 The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game , provided both players have made at least one move. This immediately ends the game.

In the position you give there is no way for either side to checkmate the opponent. Therefore the position is a "dead position" and the game immediately ends in a draw.

Better would have been to promote to a rook. Then the king would still have had a move, Kg7, but checkmate with K+R v K is possible so you could still have won if you knew how to checkmate with king and rook versus king.

# Answer
> 7 votes
This has nothing to do with promotion or check. Just the fact that there's no possible configuration which results in a king and knight checkmating a king. So the position you posted is declared drawn since neither side has any mating material.

---
Tags: rules, fide, draw, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: wish to print posters of the variants of certain openings for my 7-yo
My son is an avid chess player. He has a good chess teacher who prefers to focus on a specific opening and its variants as well as responses while studying with him. So, I wish to get an editable file of chess openings on a branching tree so that my son can visualize the variants his teacher teaches him better. I wish to put it into editable format because I would like to reorganize the tree based on his teacher's order of teaching. Of course, instead of a branching tree, it would be great to have a branching (and sometimes merging back) graph.

I am a mathematician and I also care about (later) finding measures which would predict distance of openings from each other based on some criteria beyond classical approaches. But this is not my primary concern.

My preferred language is `Python` (but should be fine with others) and it would be great to see the openings online on collapsing graphs or if not possible, I am OK with printing on small posters for my visualization.

Of course, it would be great to have the option of nicely including/excluding the bad choices of all these openings. I think it would give anyone who cares a better sense of what they are doing.

P.S. I remember learning Rubik's cube. While people were memorizing the moves, I was trying to understand what kind of transformation do I need for specific goals and why. So, I guess I am trying to do the same with my son's learning of chess. Stop repetitive clutter in learning. While repetitive practice is a core part of learning and mastery of a skill, I have seen many waste their talents with useless repetition.

# Answer
Perhaps you have a look at http://www.chesstree.net since it features the core of what you want nicely.

That project is freelanced, so I see good chances the author helps you out with their source code, if that is needed. From what I understand, it's done in javascript, but that shouldn't trouble you, I guess.

Allow me to mention something heretical: while learning openings is surely important to make progress in general, it's deemed least important by many, because it doesn't help improve ones playing strength. "*Learn endgames instead!*" is what they'll all add, and rightly so. Endgames are the bread and the butter when it comes to improving, and with lacks of understanding them (and critically: pawn structures) there is hardly a point in learning openings. Yes, investing in openings spares one quick losses, and it so helps to encounter critical middlegame and endgame feats more reliably, and so can become a great starting point for studying the latter, but starting from tail and working backwards is what will typically make one improve in leaps, and only give rise to understanding a specific opening as opposed to merely memorizing them. Understanding endgames is thus (imho, but I'll namedrop Artur Jussupow here) the equivalent to your rubics cube logic; perhaps you ask the chess coach for more on this.

Still, I admire your intention and hope you and your son may catch two flies here.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Why did Kasparov resign at 19. c4 in game 6 of the 1997 Deep Blue match?
The game is justifiably famous and is linked here.

```
[Date "1997.05.11"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "39"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6 8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.O-O fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 b5 12.a4 Bb7 13.Re1 Nd5 14.Bg3 Kc8 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 19.c4 1-0

```

It was a shocking upset at the time because `19. c4` looks completely harmless in this position.

Analyses after the match and around the time predicted the position would be roughly even for several iterations; Kasparov could have held out. Kasparov had battled Deep Blue at least eleven times prior to this match (six times in 1996 and five uptil then in 1997) and had managed to win convincingly against it, albeit with some losses - but this had not deterred him before.

Which is why it is all the more surprising Kasparov gave up at this exact point in the game.

What was going on in Kasparov's head that made him decide he could not possibly continue after c4? Was it simply the idea that Deep Blue must be cheating? Was it some set of lines that made him quail? Were other events around the day eating at him?

I'm completely mystified by this decision, and would love to have some answers!

# Answer
> 4 votes
As this Washington Post article explains, Kasparov was not in good shape psychologically. After losing the second game, he got the idea IBM might be cheating and did not recover.

However, this is not the reason why he resigned. In fact, the game is lost. White has clear advantage. There is an analysis of the game on Chessbase (for some reason partly in English, partly in German) by John Nunn, who provides the following continuation:

```
[Date "1997.05.11"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov"]
[FEN "r1k4r/p2nb1p1/2b4p/1p1n1p2/2PP4/3Q1NB1/1P3PPP/R5K1 b - c3 0 19"]

1...bxc4 ( 1...Nb4 2.Qxf5 bxc4 3.Ne5 ) 2.Qxc4 Nb4 3.Re1 Re8 4.Nh4
Nb6 5.Qf7 N6d5 6.Nxf5 Kd8 7.Nxg7

```

He ends his commentary with the words: "A disaster for Kasparov."

---
Tags: computer-chess, famous-games, resigning, kasparov
---


# Question
Title: How Universal Ratings can become much higher than FIDE ratings
From what I understand Universal Ratings takes into account all Standard, Rapid and Blitz to give a universal rating. But I don't understand how it can be much higher than any of the FIDE ratings. For countries like USA the ratings are more or less close.

For example for a country like Sri Lanka here are the top 10 in the Universal rating list. Also the rankings on FIDE and URS doesn't seem to show any pattern at all

```
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| URS Country Rank | URS Rating | FIDE Country Rank (All) | FIDE Country Rank (Active) | FIDE Standard | FIDE Rapid | FIDE Blitz |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 1                | 2428       | 4                       | 1                          | 2286          | 1699       | 1858       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 2                | 2394       | 22                      | 6                          | 2129          | 1810       | 1749       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 3                | 2381       | 45                      | 8                          | 2024          | 2081       | 2077       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 4                | 2369       | 55                      | 15                         | 1983          | 2001       | 2013       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 5                | 2368       | 53                      | 13                         | 2000          | 2085       | 2062       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 6                | 2368       | 27                      | 7                          | 2079          | -          | 1988       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 7                | 2364       | 20                      | 5                          | 2156          | 1744       | 1631       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 8                | 2324       | 13                      | 4                          | 2195          | 1695       | 1811       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 9                | 2314       | 104                     | 34                         | 1879          | 1758       | 1859       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+
| 10               | 2312       | 57                      | -                          | 1973          | 1882       | 1932       |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+---------------+------------+------------+

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
The answer is clear if you understand how the universal rating is calculated and how different players can be better or worse at different time controls.

Here is the relevant part from the FAQ you linked to:

> **Q1: What are the major differences between the URS™ and the Elo system that is currently used by FIDE?**
> The URS™ recognizes that there is useful information about a player's over-the-board chess strength in all game results regardless of the time limit, and can therefore more effectively estimate a player's Classical chess strength by also considering their results at games played at faster time controls. **As the speed of play increases, the URS™ assigns less and less importance to the game results relative to games played at slower time controls**
> Furthermore, the URS™ is a weighted performance rating, calculated across several years of previous game results for all players. Older games are given less importance than more recent games, by applying an exponential decay rate

Now check out the URS top 5 with the FIDE top 5. Here is the URS top 10 with URS ratings, FIDE ratings and FIDE rankings:

**URS Rank Player URating FIDE Ranking Standard Rapid Blitz**
1 Carlsen 2860 **1** 2864 2847 2832
2 Nakamura 2821 **11** 2760 2837 2850
3 Ding 2807 **2** 2806 2836 2788
4 Caruana 2793 **4** 2783 2766 2847
5 So 2793 **6** 2775 2779 2742

The big stand out is Nakamura. He is 11th in the FIDE rankings but 2nd in the URS rankings. The reason is very simple. His rapid rating is a *lot* higher than his standard rating and his blitz rating is even higher. So these push up his URS rating well above his standard rating.

The other anomalous entry is Wesley So who has a URS rating above all 3 of his FIDE ratings! How is that possible. Well, if you look at his recent history you will see that almost a year ago his blitz rating was 2861. He has since had two bad blitz tournaments that reduced his blitz rating by almost 120 points. URS is giving him some credit for that earlier very high rating.

---
Tags: fide, rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: What are the ideas behind Grob's Attack (1. g4)?
What are the strategic ideas of the Grob's Attack?
Is it meant to initiate a kingside attack?
Or is it meant to grab space on the kingside and use that space to maybe initiate an attack in the center or on the queenside?

# Answer
**Disclaimer**

The ideas behind 1.g4? are not sufficient to justify such a weakening first move.

**The grand scheme**

In an ideal world, White's strategic aim after 1.g4 is to build as much pressure as possible on the light squares in the center:

* They will fianchetto their light squared bishop, aiming at e4, d5 and even b7.
* Pressure can be reinforced with c4, Nc3, and sometimes Qb3, d3 or e4.
* Black's most natural defender of the light squares is a knight on f6. However, an early ...Nf6 will be ousted by g4-g5, kinda justifying White's first move.

**The trick**

But the main reason some White players are attracted to the line is that they gamble on their surprised opponent going for natural moves and stumbling into the Grob gambit's trap:

```
[FEN ""]
1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 c6?! 4.Qb3

```

when all of a sudden the pressure on d5 and b7 gives White a huge initiative.

Note that all the moves played fit the grand scheme of attacking the light squares !
> 12 votes

# Answer
I dont know that there are any deep positional ideas behind it. Its mostly a tactical opening intended to be used as a surprise.

Positionally, I think the idea is just to develop quickly and put pressure on d5. Thats really about it.

It really comes down to what is the independent significance of g4 as opposed to g3 or d5 followed by g3. There isn't any. You could say it prevents f5 but black isn't really threatening anything with f5.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, grob
---


# Question
Title: What is a good PGN software for dealing with buggy PGN files?
I'm scanning old club zines. Apart from a colleague of mine who has the habit of hübnering up nested annotations with a mix of {\[()\]} (if done correctly, this should be no problem for PGN standard, since {} defines a comment regardless of additional brackets) there is also easily a ( mistaken for { in OCR or the other way round, or I forget to change () (in the zine) to {} or vice versa.

Here is a random example of a bug from today:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. g3 c5 3. c3 cxd4 4. cxd4 d5 5. Nc3 Bf5 {comment} 6. Qb3 Nc6 7. Nf3 {comment} 7...Na5 8. Qa4+ Bd7 9. Qd1 {comment) 9...e6 10. Bg2 Bd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Ne5 {comment} 12...Rc8 {comment) 13. Bg5 Nc4 {comment} 14. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Nxc4 Rxc4 16. e4

```

As you observe, two closing ) should be }. (Spotted them *both* in the source code?)

Here are some options I already tried:

* My usual PGN software is ChessPad, which said "Bxf6 illegal move". But the error happened far before that.
* Caissa Online PGN (my other favorite tool) gives total nonsense.
* Lichess doesn't accept it at all.
* I'm too lazy at the moment to write a Python parser.
* Brian (comment below) suggested "abusing" the CSE PGN tool. Guess what, indeed it barfs exactly where it should (at the first error), and would be a viable option if I can't find the bug. I'm still not happy with writing a "fake" question just to parse my PGN files.

Thus I would like you to suggest good standalone PGN software which nails down the error(s) in buggy PGNs exactly where it happens, as the CSE parser seems to do. This includes illegal moves due to typos, which are also frequent. (Clearly, this is tricky: a naive approach in the given example might pair the first closing bracket with the one still open after Qd1, and thus find as "next" move 12...Rc8 and protest there.)

# Answer
Have you tried Scid? I tested your pgn on Scid v. 4.7.0 (Database/Import File(s) of PGN games...) and these are the results:

1. When importing the game it provides the following message:

> Importing from test.pgn...
>
> Imported 1 game.
>
> PGN errors/warnings:
>
> (game 1/line 6) Invalid Result tag: ?
>
> (game 1/line 8) Error parsing the tag pair FEN ""
>
> (game 1/line 9) Failed to parse the move: Bxf6
>
> (game 1/line 10) End of game, ignored the part after the last error.

2. And this is the parsed game:

Not perfect, but better than Caissa and LiChess. And if you have a bunch of games to import, it doesn't crash and tells you which ones are buggy.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I note that the accepted answer doesn't really address your question. Understandable, as your question probably was vaguer than you might have thought.

First, what is a buggy PGN file? I would define it as one that doesn't fulfil the requirements of the PGN specification. (The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable\_Game\_Notation links to a version of those requirements.)

But as the PGN specification mentions four or five different file formats, it's also a question of which of those you refer to. The most probable is the "Export format", which is intended for files output by software, as intended for interchange, as well as archiving.

Then, that particular format is incredibly strict. If you list the requirements, you'll find that line separators must be line-feed only (with some under-documented exceptions), and you'll find that movetext representation must use the most compressed notation, in which some spaces are forbidden. Section 8.2.1 says that space character must only appear between two adjacent symbol tokens. That means that movetext such as "3. d5 (3. Kf6" is buggy: '(' is not a symbol token, so the space between it and 'd5' is incorrect. Similarly, numeric annotation glyphs (those $1 that are found in annotated PGN games) are not symbol tokens either, so "1. e4 $1" (corresponding to "1. e4!"( is illegal. No space is allowed between e4 and $1!)

To add to that, PGN insists on byte equivalence: A PGN file, written by two different pieces of software are not allowed to differ by one single byte.

In addition those requirements, you may find that many PGN files found "in the wild" claim to be UTF-8 encoded. That is not allowed by PGN (which only allows ISO 8859-1 ... which requirement actually is impossible to fulfil), so those files immediately qualify as 'buggy PGN files'.

And there are instances where the PGN standard itself doesn't know what a token is or not ... which is as situation no standard specification should ever allow to remain.

So ... what *is* a buggy PGN file? My attempt at definition above leads to most PGN files out there being buggy in one aspect or another. (It would be interesting to create a number of test files that have such bugs, and see if some particular software finds them or not.)

My own software for dealing with buggy PGN is very simple. Once I find that whatever software I use has problems (typically found when the expected number of games differs from those actually accepted), I run the program

```
print "Send back to originator, and complain"

```

A number of attempts at correcting PGN started, but as far I know they were never finished.

A program called "PGNtrim" (? I think) claimed to do some cleaning up of bad PGN files, but I noted that after feeding a file of more than 69000 games, more than 1000 of them were silently dropped. It did identify an extraneous '}' in a game, though. (I find a very old forum thread on that program that ends up recommending using scid instead, so ... perhaps you got the best answer, after all.)

(Added: If the errors you found are due to hand corrections, the file immediately changes from "Export format" to "Import format". And so you should need to run the file through a suitable program to transform it to Export format ... in theory. In practice I know of no such software.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: software, pgn, recommendations
---


title: Chess set for championships

text:
# Question
Title: Chess set for championships
I would like to buy a chess set used in championships of the highest quality. How are chess sets classified ? I do not want a recommendation but rather a trade mark.

Also, I do not know what means this:

Color : A

Color : B

? What color is recommended and what is the difference between color a and b ? ?

# Answer
> 3 votes
# Championship boards

For international or continental championships, FIDE's regulations state that wooden boards should be used¹. Additionally they ought to be electronic chessboard that autosense moves and interface to chess clock and computers; here, look for the DGT prefix.

¹ FIDE rules, 3.1. Material and colour: For the World or Continental top level competitions wooden boards should be used. For other FIDE registered tournaments boards made of wood, plastic or card are recommended. In all cases boards should be rigid.

# Colours A and B

A stands for the dark, B for the light colour. Common dark-light combinations are black and white, brown and white, green and lime, ultramarine and azure, as well as buff and cream. Opinions differ on what combination is best; many prefer a pastel green and lime for its ease on the eyes. The main thing is to have a high contrast between dark and light squares to help colourblind players.

# Piece set

Recommended are DGT pieces that are styled in a variation on the staunton model, that is with a robust knight. Top notch is to supply an additional third knight, bishop and rook as well as a second queen for each sides promotions.

# Trade mark links:

(tbc)

House of Staunton

Chesshouse

Digital Game Technology DGT

---
Tags: chess-set
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to estimate my ELO without joining an organization or anything?
I would like to know if it's possible to get a rough idea of what my ELO is and how accurate those methods are.

For example, I did one of those "chess tests" and the results it gave me didn't quite seem right. I did the one on ELOMeter.net, and got the following:

> Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1464, with a 95% confidence interval of \[1302...1627\].

That doesn't sound right. Based on how things have been going for me on chess.com, it seems very high. Believe me, I'd LIKE to be higher on the ELO scale. But the result I got from ELOMeter.net didn't seem right.

If I were to look at the United States Chess Federation rankings, I'd probably rate myself roughly either a G (600–799) or an F (800-999).

# Answer
Puzzles are a notoriously bad estimator for ELO. (Tried myself, wild fluctuations.) You could run whole games by you through an engine (moar input =\> moar output) and check the accuracy of your moves. There is a whole scientific paper dedicated to how valid this method is.
> 13 votes

# Answer
If you have online chess ratings, you can get a very rough estimate here, but you should expect that a significant deviation to your real rating is possible (+-200).
> 7 votes

# Answer
Puzzles are not very good for getting a close approximation of your ELO, for a variety of reasons. The are some websites that allow you to play games with a computer rated at a certain ELO, playing a few of these games (with the clock, and in proper match conditions) can help get a reasonable estimate of your ELO. Obviously the more games you play the better an estimate you can get. For instance if you can consistently beat a computer rated at 1300 ELO but consistently lose to a computer rated 1500 ELO, you’d know your somewhere around the 1400 mark.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Already posted this link as a comment, but since this question isn't closed anymore I'll leave it in an answer too:

ethanlebowitz.github.io/RatingConverter/index.html

Does a decent job of approximating what someone's FIDE rating would be, given their Lichess ratings. You mentioned chess.com though, so not sure if you also play on Lichess.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: elo, mathematics
---


# Question
Title: The number of legal positions after n plies
What is the number of legal positions after n plies for n=1 through 5? I know that for n=1 it is 20.

# Answer
> 12 votes
Such counting of moves is called perft and it is used for testing move generation of chess engines.

You can find a table with your answer up to n = 15 here: https://www.chessprogramming.org/Perft\_Results

# Answer
> 3 votes
A very rough approximation you can use is to multiply by 30 for each half move. Since in an average chess position, the number of possible moves tends to be in the ballpark of around 30 (of course, not for the starting position, but for chess positions in general). This should give you the answer within an order of magnitude or two. For an exact solution though, see Miguel's answer.

---
Tags: opening, mathematics
---


title: How to get faster on the clock?

text:
# Question
Title: How to get faster on the clock?
I am a slow but strong player. I can get into winning positions against masters but there is just one problem:

I always run out on time!

The amount of games that I have lost on time while on winning position has now become unbearable. I usually stick to rapid games. One unfortunate instance was when I nearly beat a WFM in a Nimzo-Larsen with the white pieces, but had to draw because there was 30 seconds on the clock.

**What is the best way to become faster? Is there a way to get faster? Would alloting 10-15 seconds per move be acceptable in a rapid game?**

# Answer
> 3 votes
Have an opening rep you can play quickly.

Get a time advantage early and maintain it.

Create problems for your opponent so they have to use their time.

Use your opponent's time to think.

Work on basic tactics (one to two move) and focus on seeing them quickly. What I used to do is take a basic tactics book and run through it 7 times (or more) and each time cut the time it takes to go through it in half. Kind of a modified De La Maza system.

You should know basic endgames and be able to play them quickly. For example, time yourself in a KQ vs K and work to improve those times.

---
Tags: time-management
---


title: Piping Stockfish input

text:
# Question
Title: Piping Stockfish input
I'm trying to write a Linux command line UCI interface for Stockfish. My program writes a bunch of commands to a text file and then tries to pipe them to Stockfish via the command line. My problem is, whenever I try to analyse a position, the program exits almost immediately:

sf.txt:

```
position startpos moves e2e4
go movetime 5000

```

output:

```
~$ stockfish < sf.txt
Stockfish 261014 64 by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
info nodes 0 time 2
bestmove a7a6 ponder (none)

```

As you can see, the program exits in 2 ms instead of waiting for the analysis to finish. Has anyone delt with this issue before? Is there a preferred way of interfacing with Stockfish?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Edit: I think the main problem is that the uci protocol is a dialog. You have to wait for the "readyok" output from the engine before you can issue another command. Probably you just cannot forcefeed all commands in one go.

To quote the uci protocol:

"\* all command strings the engine receives will end with '\n', …"

Possibly you just forgot about that in your second line.

# Answer
> 6 votes
**Solution**: Use 'expect' script as shown below. Tested with stockfish\_8\_x64\_modern.

> BlindKungFuMaster: "I think the main problem is that the uci protocol is a dialog." **I agree!**

```
#!/usr/bin/expect

spawn ~/stockfish_8_x64_modern

expect -timeout 1000  Linscott

send "setoption name Ponder  value false \r isready \r"

expect -timeout 1000  readyok

send "setoption name Hash    value 2048 \r isready \r"

expect -timeout 1000  readyok

send "setoption name Threads value 8    \r isready \r"

expect -timeout 1000  readyok

send "setoption name MultiPV value 4    \r isready \r"

expect -timeout 1000  readyok

set row8 "rnbqkbnr"

set row7 "pppppppp"

set row6 "11111111"

set row5 "11111111"

set row4 "11111111"

set row3 "11111111"

set row2 "PPPPPPPP"

set row1 "RNBQKBNR"

send "position fen $row8/$row7/$row6/$row5/$row4/$row3/$row2/$row1 w KQkq - 0 1 moves e2e4 \r isready \r"

expect -timeout 1000  readyok

send "go infinite \r"

expect -timeout 999999  readyok

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
look into python-chess package. It includes a protocol for interacting with engines.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The problem there is that stockfish process quits as soon as the input stream is closed. And that happens instantaneously, because the input stream is equivalent to a `cat` command. As a result, Stockfish never gets a chance to run the search tree. So Stockfish just outputs the very first move in it's list (which is `a7a6` in your example).

The simple solution is to delay the input stream with a `sleep` until Stockfish is done with it's analysis. That can be done by using two commands to generate Stockfish's input stream. Example:

```
( cat sf.txt; sleep 5001; ) | stockfish

```

That works nice if you know the exact amount of time Stockfish will take, which is 5000 seconds in your example (notice I added 1 second just to be on the safe side).

However, when you are limiting the search by nodes or by depth (such as in `go depth 30`), you don't know how much time Stockfish will take. In such case, the trick above won't be optimal, as it will either interrupt too early or keep sleeping for too long. So, instead you can use a more elaborated solution, which includes sending Stockfish's output to a file and making the input process wait for the `bestmove` string to show up on that file:

```
(
    echo "setoption name Hash value 1024";
    echo "setoption name threads value 10";
    echo "position fen 'rn3rk1/pbppq1pp/1p2pb2/4N2Q/3PN3/3B4/PPP2PPP/R3K2R w KQ - 6 11'";
    echo "go depth 30";
    (grep -m 1 "bestmove" <(tail -f analysis.txt))> /dev/null
) | stockfish | tee /dev/stderr > analysis.txt

```

Yeah, it is literally catching it's own tail, but it does get to an end. :-)

Explanation:

* `tail -f` watches the Stockfish's output file
* `grep -m 1 "bestmove"` filters the watched file until that string is found, then quits
* `> /dev/null` is to prevent grep's output to be resent to Stockfish
* `| tee /dev/stderr` is optional, for you to see Stockfish's output in real time

---
Tags: stockfish, programming, uci
---


# Question
Title: Is testing an opening by having a computer play against itself viable?
Recently, I got into a brief argument with a colleague when I mentioned that I wanted to use an engine playing against itself to generate a larger sample size for a rare sideline.

His argument was that human chess and computer chess are two different things, which made sense. Humans don't scan for every possible legal move, and don't use brute calculation like computers do.

However, there may not be a time when masters decide to play a given line, meaning that rare lines would have fewer games played. There would be no other way to build a larger dataset other than playing games yourself or waiting for other people to play it.

Another factor to consider is how seriously people take TCEC openings.

**Is the difference between humans and computers substantial enough to dismiss opening testing with an engine playing against itself? Would the use of computer games be a flawed sample size for determining the validity of a move?**

# Answer
> 11 votes
If you're concerned about whether an opening is objectively good, then using computer games is a good approach. Computers don't play perfectly, but they are by far our best option. You could also check out correspondence games from ICCF, which involves people sometimes having days to figure out each move, and they can use an engine. These games, as well as TCEC games, are some of the strongest games available.

However, if you're interested in how good an opening is *practically* (i.e., for human OTB play), then it depends on what you mean. Personally, I'd think an opening is practically good if it is fairly sound objectively, but also something I'd be comfortable playing in an OTB game.

Both of these requirements are somewhat subjective - e.g., what is "fairly sound objectively"? Some amateurs might say anything between 0.00 and -1.00 is fine for their Black opening, while super GMs may not be satisfied with anything worse than -0.20. Even more subjective is whether an opening is comfortable for you, since this comes down to playing styles.

To that end, it could be worthwhile to have an engine play against itself to figure out how good an opening is objectively. Although, there will likely already be enough games out there (TCEC, correspondence, high level GM games). You can also see how well an opening scores amongst all players in big databases, such as TWIC or the Mega Database. This could give an indication of how easy it is to play an opening, for people who aren't professionals or anything.

# Answer
> 4 votes
What you are after is called a novelty, or better: **novelties**.

That's formally (a) new move(s) in a certain position, but let's instead focus on an alternative, albeit slightly off, definition:

> A (prepared) novelty is a move that's in your book, and hopefully missing in your opponents.

What's your book, alternatively your repertoire then?

> Your book is, again roughly, the sum of what you know by heart and are willing to play.

How comes you are willing to play a certain line? - Well, you studied the line: you know the ins and outs of every reply your opponents could play; you understand *why* some replies are losing and *how* to punish those; *why* other replies are fine and *how* to proceed; which procedings can lead to *what* imbalances, pawn structures, endgames.

And that's exactly where engines come in handy. Nota bene that before our age, when this was being done with brainpower alone, the concept was still the one mentioned above! You investigate, summarize, memorize.

The investigation part is what you'd like to outsource now, and please feel free to do so! However, the follow-ups are still heavy workloads in summarizing (sort of translating into terms understandable to humans, the *whys* from above) and memorizing (sort of the *hows*). Thus, great idea, but the flip side is just that oh so many lines will take massive workloads to fully comprehend.

In essence: The difference between humans and computers is substantial enough to exactly build a repertoire upon it - if you're willing to do the comprehensional workloads.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I will not be able to answer your question fully but can guide you here. There is a field of Machine Learning called Reinforcement Learning which deals with this exactly. There has been an example case of a computer playing checkers against itself for a long time and ultimately learning to play better than the programmer itself. I suppose that similar RL Models would be existing for Chess too, you could look for it and it might help you.

---
Tags: opening, engines, statistics, database
---


title: StockFish under WIndows 8 doesn't work

text:
# Question
Title: StockFish under WIndows 8 doesn't work
I'm trying to run StockFish under WIndows 8.1, but I'm just getting the prompt as copied below. Also, Winboard Load First/Second Engine doesn't work: nothing is happening. How can I run StockFish ?

# Answer
> 4 votes
> StockFish under WIndows 8 doesn't work

This is false.

I think you misunderstand what Stockfish is. It is not a runnable program. It is an engine which plugs in to a GUI. I am writing this reply on W8.1 where I run both Scid vs PC, which is a free download, and an old copy of Fritz both with Stockfish as the main engine plug in.

Here is a screen grab of Fritz

Note that some configuration is required in the GUI to use the engine. It's a while since I last did it but I think it may be more complicated for Fritz than for Scid vs PC, which I think just requires copying the engine to the right directory and then telling Scid what is going on.

Here is my Scid configuration for Stockfish:

I think that your problem is really that Winboard doesn't work with the UCI protocol used by Stockfish and many other engines. I think Winboard works with the XBoard protocol. In which casae you need something to sit between Winboard and Stockfish and do the conversion.

That looks like you need Polyglot. Here is what it says:

> Polyglot is open source, licensed under the GPL, and is able to run on various operating systems, which allows to run UCI engines not only under Windows with its native chess GUIs, but also under Linux and Mac OS using XBoard.

---
Tags: stockfish, winboard
---


title: Is the Marshall Attack a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Is the Marshall Attack a draw?
I have been experimenting with the Marshall as of late.

Most master games in the three main lines 11...c6, 11...Nf6, and 11...Bb7 seem to lead to a draw.

While this isn't necessarily a bad result with black, especially against a higher rated opponent, one has to wonder if there are any lines that offer better winning chances.

Are there any ideas that haven't been explored as often (maybe 11...Nb6, 11...Nf4, 11...Be6), or should I just stick to the Chigorin variations?

# Answer
Most GM games in the Marshall end in draws since it's been analyzed to death, so GMs are booked up on theory for many many moves. It's basically like both players using an engine until say move 30, and then playing on their own. Playing out a dead equal position on move 30 is likely to end in a draw, since there's not as much character left in the game. A normal chess game starts on move 0 and is also objectively equal, but there are higher chances to make mistakes due to the increased complexity.

To be fair, there are some lines where White can play a risk-free game even at the expert/amateur level. E.g., some variations have well-known possibilities for an early forced draw. Or maybe White can get a middlegame/endgame position that only he has chances to win. But I don't think the Marshall falls into this category. Black has excellent compensation for the pawn, and he is the one attacking. Of course, he *must* attack in order to prove compensation for the pawn, but I digress.

If you're worried about your opponent being booked up on theory, you could play lines like the Chigorin or Zaitsev, as these tend to be more closed and strategical. But if your opponent knows a lot of theory, then chances are they'll know how to get a slight advantage in these lines. Nowadays in the Ruy Lopez, Black's best systems are the Berlin, Marshall, Open variation, and perhaps the Arkhangelsk. I'd recommend learning the Marshall and one other system on this list, making it more difficult for opponents to prepare for you. If that's not a big concern then just playing the Marshall alone is enough.
> 5 votes

# Answer
The best way to play is to come up with your own ideas. Anyone can memorize a single line which means a 900 can play like a GM as long as you stay in the lines they've memorized.

How do you come up with unique lines?

First, I like getting the general idea of an opening and then playing it in blitz. Ive come up with good lines doing that. Just play what you would normally play and sometimes you stumble into great moves.

Also, looking at win% and engine evaluation can help you find lines that are overlooked. For example, my main line in the Evans gambit is a move I found from Stockfish but has never been played in a tournament. SF considers it the best move and gives white a small edge.

You can also sort lichess' database by rating. Look for trappy lines that are common. My main d4 defense came out of me discovering a trappy line that's the most common line vs \<2000 players. I've built an entire system out of that that's a super solid line but can transpose to very aggressive lines. Also, ridiculously easy to learn.

And, looking at old lines and rehabilitating them. An example might be Damiano's defense. Most people assume white is winning easily but its actually playable as black if you know the lines. Silman had an article on his website back in the day.
> -3 votes

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


title: Countermove without notation

text:
# Question
Title: Countermove without notation
Quoting the FIDE rules (E8.1§3): "A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another."

Quoting any arbiter: "(unprintable)"

This is practically asking for it, especially in time trouble phases, when it can be weaponized against a player low on time. In a tournament just played, I had two cases where this got discussed.

To avoid any opinionated formulation, please use the comment function if you want to deal with the aspect "Is counterblitzing bad sportsmanship?". Instead, I ask the objectively answerable:

* Had the rule been different in earlier times, especially possibly in the form "*each* move must be notated *immediately*?" Specifically, did the invention of the Fischer mode (meaning you must then notate even in time trouble) change anything? (EDIT: With respect to counterblitz - the 10.2. aspects were nicely summed up in Brian's answer below)
* Did the FIDE rule commission comment on why not the simpler "*each* move" rule was chosen? (Not that probable, but maybe some protocol says something.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
> did the invention of the Fischer mode (meaning you must then notate even in time trouble) change anything?

Most certainly. It meant the virtual demise of the infamous "10.2". This in turn meant that the job of the arbiter became much easier and the game became much fairer.

"10.2" does live on in the FIDE Laws of Chess but it has moved from the "Laws" to the "Guidelines", specifically "Guidelines III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes" and it is likely to disappear altogether in the next version.

First what is a "quickplay finish"?

> III.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.

What are the unjust rules in this case?

> III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
>
> III.5 If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12.2). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means:
>
> III.5.1 If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

So, in this case it is not the play of the players which decides the game but the decision of the arbiter, who is often a much weaker player than either of the two players, who decides the result of the game. Note that neither player has broken any rule nevertheless the arbiter can bring the game to a premature close on the grounds that the game cannot be won by "normal" means.

By extending the game time allotted by 30 seconds every time a player makes a move (Fischer mode) the game becomes much fairer because the players decide the game not the arbiter.

---
Tags: rules, fide, history, notation, time-control
---


# Question
Title: What do the dollar, plus, brackets and hash symbol indicate in chess moves notations?
I have a doubt about the notations of writing down moves. Also, all these examples are from real games in the database so I don't think the players were analyzing by trying out different moves etc. I would like to understand what these symbols indicate.

**Q1**: Consider these moves: `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb4+`. What does the + sign at the end of `Bb4+` indicate?

**Q2**: In the following moves `17.Nxg6 Rf7 ( hxg6 18.Qxg6+ Kh8 19.Qh7#) 18.Nxe7+ Qxe7` there is something written inside brackets which seems to indicate move 18 and 19. Also there is a hash sign inside the bracket. But after the bracket is closed, we have move 18 again. What does this indicate?

**Q3**: In the following example, there is a dollar sign after move 6: `6.Bc4 Be7 $2 7.Qb3 Na5 8.Bxf7+ Kf8`. What does these indicate?

# Answer
Q1: The + means the move gave check to the enemy king.

Q2: The brackets indicate variations. So 17...hxg6 is a variation to the main move 17...Rf7. It starts at move 18 after the closing bracket since then the 17...hxg6 line ends, so it goes back to the main 17...Rf7 variation.

Q3: I was actually unfamiliar with what the $ symbol means before looking it up now. Apparently it's a numeric annotation glyph. Basically a way to briefly write some type of annotation, rather than using English. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeric\_Annotation\_Glyphs#main

And for applications of this with chess software: Does anything actually use numeric annotation glyphs (NAGs)?

So for example, $2 means "poor move or mistake", or more simply, the "?" symbol that everyone is familiar with. The reason for using $2 after a move, rather than just adding a "?", seems to be due to issues with representing a pgn file for a computer to understand.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: analysis, notation, best-practice
---


# Question
Title: How to find 'Thermopylaes' with engines?
# Motivation

*“You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one."* – Michail Tal

I am looking for ways to systematically find lines where one player is forced to find series of precise moves.

# Background

The battle of Thermopylae was fought in 480 BC between the Achaemenid Persian Empire under Xerxes I. and an alliance of Greek city-states led by Sparta under Leonidas I.

During two full days of battle, the small force led by Leonidas blocked **the only road** by which the massive Persian army could traverse the **narrow pass**.

The performance of the Greek defenders is well known as an example of the advantages of **training, equipment, and use of terrain** as force multipliers.

# Glossar

In chess, I consider a 'thermopylae' to be an only-move that must be found by ones opponent in order to not blunder away their game. Similar to the historic example, it is **a narrow pass**, an **only road**, and when studied and prepared at home, it gives rise to a possible advantage through **training, equipment, and use of terrain**. (You get the point...)

# Example 1

Consider the **equal** position given below where Qd1 is a thermopylae from blacks view since both Qd2 and Qd3 (and every other move of course) lead to a significant advantage for black.

```
[fen "rqr3k1/3n1ppp/bp2pb2/1N1p4/PP1Q1P2/2P1BR2/4B1PP/R5K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Example 2

In the **equal** position below, white needs to find Be4 to not blunder away the game. If this is found, the game 'widens' after Ke6, but remains 'narrow' after Nb4, asking again for precise moves from white.

```
[fen "r4r2/5k2/3p4/2pn4/2R5/p7/2B2PPP/1R4K1 w - - 0 35"]

```

# Question

Is there a way to (have engines) systematically go through tabiae (the ends of opening lines) and extract lines that lead to such thermopylaes, possibly a multitude of these down a certain line? (I understand this will include a number of trivial recaptures and forced moves, but I'll go with that.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Your concept of "Thermopylae" is just what chess player call a "forced move". The problem is, smost forced moves are trivial (for example, recaptures or moving out of check), while others can be hard to find. The number of alternatives does not always determine the difficulty of a position.

Engines are not designed to estimate how hard to find a move is for a human. You could certainly try to tweak the evaluation function so that lines containing lots of forced moves get a bonus, but this doesn't mean the new engine will be harder to play against. Rather, it'd be an engine that likes playing some sort of "hope chess".

As Federico Poloni suggests on his comment, every puzzle collection is a collection of "Thermopylae", so sites like Lichess that generate puzzle based on games played by their users are certainly doing a scan of this sort.

Still, the vast majority of those puzzles are terribly easy, so it looks like this method wouldn't be particularly useful for opening preparation, specially if we take into account that current opening theory will hardly ever end right before a hard-to-find forced move. After all, who would have a line on his repertoire that requires him to find an outstanding move on the spot or else get a lost position?

---
Tags: engines, endgame, tactics, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Which GM said something along the lines of "I can beat any chess engine; just give me time enough (to prevent blunders)"
So I guess I read this long time ago -most probably in the 2000s, when engines started to beat humans. I just have no idea who said it, but I guess it was not a top player at that moment (say Kasparov or Kramnik), but more like some veteran GM.

Just to add more context: the date in which this GM made this statement is very important. I'm sure it was before 2010. On those times engines were stronger than humans (Fritz beat Kramnik on a classical match in 2006), but mainly because of being way superior in tactics. But their evaluation wasn't that good yet. For example, they were very materialistic, and their strategical understanding had some flaws. I guess this GM made the statement based on the idea that he'd need more time to prevent blunders, but that his understanding of the game was way stronger than that of engines.

# Answer
GM Larry Kaufman said something along those lines in a 2019 interview: (emphasis added)

> The main reason Komodo is a thousand or more Elo stronger than I am is that it searches so much further ahead in nearly every line than I could possibly do. Perhaps **if I spent 24 hours per move on a game (moving pieces around freely, but not consulting any engine) I could play as well as Komodo plays a blitz game**, but that's just a guess. Note that this does not apply to NN engines, which (in pure form) don't have any human knowledge input.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines, history, quotations
---


# Question
Title: How to respond to the Taimanov attack in the Benoni?
```
 [FEN ""]
  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+

```

How can black respond in the following position?

# Answer
**8...Nfd7** is the most popular line among Grandmasters.

Bareev vs Topalov 2002, 0-1

Bostari vs Polgar 2011 0-1

**8...Nbd7** is extremely risky and requires thorough preparation. White does seem to get at least a minimal endgame advantage in the 8...Nbd7 line with best play by Black. Since the advent of strong engines, Grandmasters have avoided it and I would recommend avoiding it as well.

**8...Bd7** is just bad and White easily gets an advantage.

I provide some sample lines -

```
     [Event "8...Nfd7 is Black's best move"]
     [Date "2014.10.26"]
     [FEN ""]

     1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. Bb5+
     Nfd7 (8... Nbd7 9. e5 dxe5 10. fxe5 Nh5 11. e6 Qh4+ 12. g3! (12. Kd2?! fxe6 13.
     dxe6 O-O 14. exd7 Bxd7 15. Bxd7 Rf2+ 16. Nge2 Rd8=) 12... Nxg3 13. hxg3 Qxh1 14.
     Be3 Bxc3+ (14... O-O 15. exd7 Bxd7 16. Bxd7 Rfe8 17. Bxe8 Rxe8 18. Qe2 Bh6 19.
     Kf1 Bxe3 20. Qg2) (14... Qg2 15. exd7+ Bxd7 16. Bxd7+ Kxd7 17. Qg4+ Kd8 18.
     O-O-O) 15. bxc3 a6 16. exd7+ Bxd7 17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18. Qg4+ f5 19. Qf3 Qxf3 20.
     Nxf3) (8... Bd7? 9. e5 dxe5 (9... Qe7 10. Qe2 dxe5 (10... Nh5 11. g4) 11. d6)
     10. fxe5 Nh5 11. Nf3 O-O 12. Bxd7 Nxd7 13. g4) 9. a4 O-O (9... Qh4+!? 10. g3 Qe7
     11. Nf3 O-O 12. O-O Na6 13. Re1 Nb4) 10. Nf3 Na6 11. O-O Nb4 12. Re1 a6 13. Bf1
     Re8

```
> 6 votes

# Answer
...Nbd7 is not a good continuation since there is too much theory relating to this line. Besides, it is better for White. The safe line is ...Nfd7, which opens up the diagonal for the Bg7. A common mistake here is White not playing a2-a4, because if not, Black can get his queenside majority into action with ...a6 and ...b5.
> 0 votes

# Answer
The best idea is to not play c5 until white commits to Nf3. There are dozens of ways to transpose into these lines. As an example, you play 1.d4, Nf6 2. c4, e6 and now if white plays 3. Nc3 you go into a Nimzo but if 3. Nf3 you can play the Benoni and avoid the Taimanov.

The alternative is to spend a few weeks analyzing the Taimanov in depth and come up with a really good novelty.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Trapped by this strange opening line, how to proceed?
I play this kid that does strange things in the game. I thought in this following game that he was using the Pirc defense as Black, when it opened `1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3`. Then he goes off with `3...d5`. It seems that I get trapped by this kind of (to me) irrational thing. Any advice on how best to proceed?

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5

```

# Answer
I have never seen this idea before, but it is not as stupid as it looks.

There are basically three options for white:

* Play the Veresov, i.e. 4.f3. In that case black will argue that he has the black side of a Caro-Kann-Fantasy variation and that he will at one point play c5 in one move, regaining the tempo lost with d6-d5.
* Play exd5. In that case black will say that he has a Scandinavian defense and that compared to the line 1.e4 d5 2.ed Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxd5 there is no 4.c4 kicking the knight from d5 and establishing a nice space advantage.
* Play e5. In that case black will probably play 4...Ne4 and you can try to be tricky with 5.Nce2, trying to catch the knight with f3. Taking the knight directly with 5.Nxe4 is also possible, but there is probably no way to quickly assault the weak pawn on e4.

I think 4.e5 is the most principled option, but it is no refutation. You'll get a very complicated fight were the most you can hope for is that your opponent has to be more careful than you.
> 4 votes

# Answer
4.e5 looks like the move here, because d6-d5 makes this move possible and because the Nf6 has no good squares. A few possible lines after 4. e5:

(1) 4...Ne4 5.Nxe4 (other moves like 5.Bd3 or 5.Nce2 should also give White an edge, but 5.Nxe4 looks most principled because Black will struggle to save the pawn on e4) 5...dxe4 6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 e6 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.h4 h6 10.h5 Bh7 11.Bc4, and even if Black can somehow hold the pawn on e4 (unlikely), he has a miserable position with a huge space disadvantage and a bad Bishop on h7. This position is somewhere between very bad to losing for Black.

(2) 4...Nd7 5.Nxd5 and White wins a pawn "with compensation" (i.e., White also has a positional advantage due to his strong center). Black can play on, but he is already completely lost in a theoretical sense.

(3) 4...Ng8 is obviously miserable, as White has gotten two strong pawn moves (e2-e4-e5) for free, and Black will struggle to develop his Kingside sensibly because both his Be7 and Ng8 want the e7 square. This position is bad for Black, although it's perhaps not possible to say Black is losing: as someone mentioned above, Black cannot afford to waste so much time in the opening and stands much worse here.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I actually had a game with a GM a few years ago, which went 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 d5 (I was White). This line is somewhat dubious for Black, but it's playable since after 4.e5 Nfd7, White has essentially wasted a tempo on f3. The pawn is no good there, and a tempo must be spent advancing it further to f4. Nevertheless White still has the better game.

But against 3.Nc3, 3...d5 is just a clear mistake. On 4.e5, 4...Nfd7 can't even be played since it would hang the d5-pawn. In the case of 4...Ne4, 5.Nxe4 dxe4 6.Be3 leaves Black with a seriously weak e4-pawn. Finally, 4...Ng8 wastes too many tempi to give Black a satisfactory game, and he could be getting wiped off the board soon.
> 2 votes

# Answer
He just lost a tempo, taking two moves to get his pawn to d5 when he could have done it in one move. Losing time is particularly bad in the opening when you could be using it to develop pieces. You can use your "free" move to give your "e" pawn additional support or advance it to e5 gaining additional space as well as a tempo on his N, which will be forced to move again. Even taking the pawn isn't out of the question, since you're still left with a center pawn and lots of open lines for development. Don't panic and just make sound moves.
> 1 votes

# Answer
My first thought was "Black has elected to play against the Blackmar-Diemer a move down?" I'm firing off the top of my head here, with little time for deep analysis.

It's an interesting position, but I can't help but think it's already lost for Black, somehow. White can throw away a move in the opening, Black shouldn't be able to. With Black throwing away a move like that my instincts are to go for rapid development and open lines, when the lack of a move will be the most painful.

My first thought would be Be3, electing to actually play the gambit if Black finally accepts the pawn. But that may not be to your taste (if you don't know the typical positions and tactics, it can be dangerous). I'm not fond of Bd3 here, for some reason. If I just wanted to get out of this into normal, basically equal waters I might try capturing the d-pawn and playing out the exchanges.

Bg5 on the surface looks interesting. You'll need to beware of the possible check-and-fork (Qa5) but your threat to win the pawn outright should net you a very weak Black pawn on e4 that White can play against at leisure, probably eventually winning it (Nge2-g3 comes quickly to mind as one way to play for it -- your opponent has thrown away a move, so you shouldn't feel too badly about taking two to place your Knight on a useful square). One advantage of Bg5 on this is it clears the way quickly to castle long, when you'll either be able to also bring Queen and Rook to bear on the weak e-pawn (if your opponent chooses that path) or have your king in safety as you rip open the center and go hunting for the enemy king.

(Some wild lines are dancing through my head about this; you might end up in positions similar to the wilder side of the semi-slav but with having played Nc3 instead of c4.)
> 0 votes

# Answer
In the example you cited, it was not a "strange" opening but an inferior opening. The "kid" (beginner, actually), started with a "Pirc" defense (fortify the dark squares), and changed his mind by "transposing" into a "French" defense (fortify the light squares). Except that he wasted a move by moving the d pawn twice, instead of using one of those moves to play e6.

You should understand what he's done, that is, he's gotten an inferior French defense. You might play 4. e4xd5, Nxd5; 5.Nxd5 Qxd5 6. c4 Q moves, and Nf3 to get a superior opening.

His other opening moves may follow the same (bad) principles, and if they do, you should learn to take advantage of them.
> 0 votes

# Answer
There's nothing special about this line. If you understand basic opening principles, e5 should be automatic followed by maybe Ne2 and c3 etc. These moves should be ingrained in your brain. If you're actually thinking, then you don't understand how to play the opening,
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Richard Rapport to switch federations to Romania - what are the rules?
Richard Rapport started his first game in the Candidates today still under the Hungarian flag despite reports a month ago that he and his Serbian wife were going to switch federations to Romania and he might even play the Candidates under the Romanian flag.

According to Hungary Today back in late May:

> The father of the Hungarian chess player confirmed this information when asked by 24.hu. He said:
>
> The main sponsor of the Superbet Chess Classic Romania 2022, Sacha Dragic, Serbian-born billionaire and owner of the Superbet company, has made him an irresistible sponsorship offer that would give him a real chance to win the world title in the coming years. As far as I know, Ricsi has made up his mind and accepted the offer, which also includes a future seat at the table in the Romanian colors.”

What are the rules for players changing federation like this?

# Answer
> 4 votes
The rules are described in Transfer Regulations & Rules of Eligibility for Players (effective from December 01, 2020).

Basically there are three components:

1. First, the player must have a connection (not just some billionaire paying them a lot of money) with the new federation. I couldn't just decide that I would like to play in an Olympiad and, say, the Turks and Caicos Islands has a team that is weak enough for me to get in so I would like to transfer federation to them.
2. Second, an administrative fee has to be paid to FIDE
3. Like in football (soccer), a transfer fee has to be paid to the old federation. In the case of strong players an additional "compensation" fee has to be paid. Although these do not apply in cases where human rights are involved - e.g. Russia or Iran, or where the player has never represented their federation in a FIDE event (e.g. continental or higher event).

So,

> 1.1. A player may initially be registered by a Federation only if he or she has citizenship, naturalization or residency in the country of that Federation.

Rapport has Hungarian nationality and, according to his Wikipedia entry (not always the most reliable) is resident in Belgrade, Serbia with his Serbian wife. Before he can transfer federation to Romania he will either have to establish residency in Romania or the Romanians will have to grant him nationality. As far as I can see residency can be for as short a time as a month, maybe even a few days. A utility bill is enough to demonstrate residency.

> 3.1. All transfers shall be the responsibility of the new Federation and must be submitted to the FIDE Secretariat on the prescribed form in Annex A “Notification of change of Federation” together with the supporting documentary evidence of date and place of birth, citizenship and residence. **A Notification Fee of € 50 is payable for all transfers**.

This is cheap and reflects the current administration's promise to stop ripping off players. In the previous rules it was €250!

> 4.1. When the last representation date is 5 years prior to the transfer date or earlier, then the eligibility date is set 1 year after commencement of residency in the new federation without payment of the Transfer Fee and the Compensation Fee.
>
> 4.2. When the last representation date is less than 5 years prior to the transfer date, then the eligibility date is set 2 years after commencement of residency in the new federation without payment of the Transfer Fee and the Compensation Fee ( subject to 2.6.3 above ).
>
> 4.3. A FIDE flag player who has never been registered with a National Federation is eligible to participate in FIDE events immediately after the transfer date.

So, if Rapport wants to represent Romania within 2 years of his transfer then the transfer and compensation money will have to be paid to Hungary. If most of us here want to transfer federations then no such money will be required, just the €50 fee to FIDE.

Where the length of residency in the new federation is 12 months or less, as in Rapport's case, the transfer fee is €5000. This drops through the various titles to €500 for a WIM or untitled player rated 2100 or over.

The compensation fees are rather more eye-watering. They depend on rating and go from €50000 for a 2700+ player like Rapport down to €1000 for a 2100-2199 player.

Bottom line, Sacha Dragic will have to pay the Hungarian federation €55,000 and FIDE €50.

The Hungarian can object to the transfer, but it will cost them €500.

> 5.1. Any objection or protest regarding transfers that is submitted to the FIDE Secretariat must be accompanied with a fee of € 500, which shall be refundable if the protest is upheld. The FIDE Presidential Board shall decide upon all protests.

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Can you recommend a variation in the English opening for a technical player?
I'm looking to study the English opening. To cut down my homework, I would like to focus on one or two variations.

Why am I interested in the English opening, I hear you cry? Mostly because I want to vary my games a bit\*. I'm a fan of 1. d4 and 1. c4 has transpositional possibilities to 1. d4 openings.

**Can you recommend a variation of the English opening that suits my playing style?**. Any references to books, videos, top players who employed the line etc. are appreciated too.

---

Player background

* Rated 2100 Elo
* Technical playing personality. Preference for positional, intuitive moves and the endgame
* Currently using queen pawn openings, e.g. Slav Mainline Dutch, Queen's Gambit Accepted: 3. e4, Queen's Gambit Declined: Lasker Variation
* As Black I use the Caro-Kann and Slav
* Have experimented with the English Botvinnik system, but I don't like how Black can get easy equality

---

\*Oh, I'm also English too...

# Answer
> 7 votes
It's a good question. Just a quick answer with some thoughts to give you some starting ideas, hopefully to be improved later.

I've always liked the English exactly for its rich transpositional possibilities, they're endless aren't they?

Your intent to divert towards d4 lines via the English is very common. For example Magnus Carlsen often employs it to avoid main theory lines (it's very hard to prepare against 1.c4). So make sure you look into his games on 1.c4. Some exemplary games off the top of my head:

One of the 2013 world championship matches (specially because you're a d4 player and you seem to like endgames): Notice how by move 7 we've reached a completely off-book position, though very natural to play for white:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "WCh 2013"]
[Site "Chennai IND"]
[Date "2013.11.15"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D31"]
[WhiteElo "2870"]
[BlackElo "2775"]
[PlyCount "115"]
[EventDate "2013.11.09"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "IND"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2013.11.18"]

1. c4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 c5 7. a3 Ba5 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ng4 12. O-O-O Nxe3 13. fxe3 Bc7 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Qxd8+ Bxd8 16. Be2 Ke7 17. Bf3 Bd7 18. Ne4 Bb6 19. c5 f5 20. cxb6 fxe4 21. b7 Rab8 22. Bxe4 Rxb7 23. Rhf1 Rb5 24. Rf4 g5 25. Rf3 h5 26. Rdf1 Be8 27. Bc2 Rc5 28. Rf6 h4 29. e4 a5 30. Kd2 Rb5 31. b3 Bh5 32. Kc3 Rc5+ 33. Kb2 Rd8 34. R1f2 Rd4 35. Rh6 Bd1 36. Bb1 Rb5 37. Kc3 c5 38. Rb2 e5 39. Rg6 a4 40. Rxg5 Rxb3+ 41. Rxb3 Bxb3 42. Rxe5+ Kd6 43. Rh5 Rd1 44. e5+ Kd5 45. Bh7 Rc1+ 46. Kb2 Rg1 47. Bg8+ Kc6 48. Rh6+ Kd7 49. Bxb3 axb3 50. Kxb3 Rxg2 51. Rxh4 Ke6 52. a4 Kxe5 53. a5 Kd6 54. Rh7 Kd5 55. a6 c4+ 56. Kc3 Ra2 57. a7 Kc5 58. h4 1-0

```

But it must be admitted that Magnus makes these endgames look easy when for us it's a nightmare to convert.

Personally I really like the Catalan and Larsen transpositions, so I would definitely recommend those. The Catalan and all its variants are very natural to play (with sound endgame structures, because you always have a choice how you commit your central pawn strcuture, unlike most other d4 lines).

Two other examples that come to mind, are the two times Magnus employed 1.c4 vs Nakamura in classical chess:

One leading to a Catalan with a delayed d4:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "8th Tal Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2013.06.22"]
[Round "8.5"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Nakamura, Hi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A13"]
[WhiteElo "2864"]
[BlackElo "2784"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "2013.06.13"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[EventCategory "22"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2013.06.24"]

1. c4 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Nf3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 b5 7. Qb3 Bb7 8. O-O Nbd7 9. d4 a6 10. Ne5 Qb6 11. Be3 c5 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. d5 e5 14. a4 b4 15. Nd2 Bd6 16. Nc4 Qc7 17. f4 O-O 18. Rac1 exf4 19. Bxf4 Bxf4 20. gxf4 a5 21. e4 Rae8 22. e5 Ba6 23. Rfe1 Kh8 24. Nd6 Re7 25. Qe3 Qd8 26. b3 g5 27. Kh1 Qb8 28. Qf2 gxf4 29. Qxf4 Bd3 30. Re3 Bg6 31. Rf1 Rxe5 32. Rxe5 Qxd6 33. Re8 Qxf4 34. Rxf8+ Kg7 35. Rxf4 Kxf8 36. d6 Ne5 37. Bf1 Bc2 38. Bb5 f5 39. Kg2 c4 40. Bxc4 Be4+ 41. Kg3 Nxc4 42. bxc4 Ke8 43. c5 Bc6 44. Rxf5 Bxa4 45. Re5+ Kd8 46. Re7 Bc6 47. Rc7 1-0

```

The second leading to a Larsen (1.b3) type of middlegame: (with black playing the Dutch)

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "2nd London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2010.12.11"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Nakamura, Hi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A10"]
[WhiteElo "2802"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "2010.12.06"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2010.12.13"]

1. c4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e3 Bg7 6. Nge2 O-O 7. O-O e5 8. b3 Nbd7 9. d3 c6 10. Ba3 Qc7 11. Qd2 Re8 12. Rae1 Nc5 13. h3 e4 14. dxe4 Nfxe4 15. Qc2 Nxc3 16. Nxc3 Be6 17. Rd1 Rad8 18. Bb2 Bf7 19. Rd2 a5 20. Rfd1 Be5 21. Ne2 a4 22. b4 Nd7 23. Bd4 Nb6 24. Bxb6 Qxb6 25. Rb1 Qc7 26. Nd4 Rc8 27. Rc1 Qe7 28. Rd3 c5 29. bxc5 Rxc5 30. Qxa4 Rec8 31. Rb1 Rxc4 32. Qd1 b6 33. Nb5 R4c5 34. Nxd6 Bxd6 35. Rxd6 Bxa2 36. Ra1 Rc1 37. Rxc1 Rxc1 38. Rxg6+ hxg6 39. Qxc1 Qd6 40. h4 Bf7 41. h5 Kh7 42. hxg6+ Kxg6 43. Qc2 b5 44. g4 Qe5 45. gxf5+ Kg7 46. Qe4 Qd6 47. Qh4 Bc4 48. Bf3 Qf6 49. Qxf6+ Kxf6 50. Be4 Ba2 51. f4 b4 52. Kf2 b3 53. Bd5 Kxf5 54. Kf3 Kf6 55. e4 Kg6 56. Ke3 Kh5 57. Kd4 Kg4 58. f5 Kg5 59. Ke5 1-0

```

Here's another 1.c4 into Catalan, though it was only a rapid: Notice how white intentionally delays the pawn to e3 committment until black has made a decision with the b4 bishop (8...Bc5 now you repond with e3. Otherwise, with the black e4 pawn, a preemptive e3 would weaken your light squares). This is a good example of what I meant earlier with "not committing too early" with the pawn structre you want to achieve.

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Amber Rapid"]
[Site "Nice FRA"]
[Date "2008.03.22"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A20"]
[WhiteElo "2733"]
[BlackElo "2799"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "2008.03.15"]
[EventType "rapid"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[EventCategory "21"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.24"]

1. c4 e5 2. g3 c6 3. d4 e4 4. d5 Nf6 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qe7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. a3 Bc5 9. e3 d6 10. Nge2 cxd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. cxd5 Nd7 13. O-O Nf6 14. Bc3 Bg4 15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. b4 Bb6 17. Bxe4 a5 18. bxa5 Rxa5 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qb1+ g6 21. Qxb6 Rfa8 22. Qd4 Qf3 23. Nc3 Re8 24. h3 Bf5 25. Qf6 Kg8 26. Rab1 Rxe3 27. Rxb7 Bc8 28. Qd8+ Kg7 29. Qxc8 Rxc3 30. Rxf7+ Kxf7 31. Qd7+ Kf6 32. Qd8+ Kf5 33. Qxa5 Rxa3 34. Qb4 Ke5 35. Qd2 Rd3 36. Qg5+ Qf5 37. Re1+ Kxd5 38. Qxf5+ gxf5 39. Kg2 Ra3 40. h4 Kd4 41. h5 d5 42. h6 Ra7 43. Kf3 Rh7 44. Re6 Kc3 45. Rc6+ Kd3 46. Kf4 Rf7 47. Kg5 Ke2 48. Rd6 1-0

```

Here's a crazy one: a 1.c4 turning into a Caro-Kann leading into a IQP middlegame:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Corus A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2009.01.31"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Smeets, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B10"]
[WhiteElo "2776"]
[BlackElo "2601"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "2009.01.17"]
[EventRounds "13"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2009.02.02"]

1. c4 c6 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. cxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 e6 8. O-O Be7 9. d4 O-O 10. Re1 Bd7 11. Bd3 Rc8 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. Ne5 Bf6 14. Bf4 g6 15. Qb3 Na5 16. Qb4 Be6 17. Bh6 Bg7 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. h4 Re8 20. h5 f6 21. Nf3 b6 22. Bb5 Re7 23. Re2 Rcc7 24. Rae1 Kf7 25. Qd2 Qf8 26. Qf4 Bf5 27. g4 Bc8 28. b4 Nb7 29. Bc6 1-0

```

The list can go on, but it's up to you to carefully study these games and figure out which ones really suit your style of playing, no one can know it better than yourself. As for the English-Botvinnik system, I'm surprised you don't like it, it's a sharp weapon specially in faster time controls, just watch how Nakamura plays it frequently in blitz. I recently read this article on the Botvinnik variation on chess.com, it may change your mind.

Another very interesting use of the English is to dodge the Grünfeld, as it is also pointed out on the wikipedia page, e.g.: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4... But there are many such examples and that's why the English is so much fun to play.
Finally, there's one response that I dislike the most vs 1.c4, and that is 1...e5 leading sometimes to a reversed Sicilian...This is an example of black making use of the versatility of the English. But even if black decides to not play the Sicilian, a simple plan with e5 Nf6 Bc5 d6 a6 and tucking the bishop back to a7 is not obvious to face as white. So make sure you have a line (or at least some ideas) vs this.

This was just to give you some ropes. You will have lots of fun playing the English opening, and the more you play it the more resourceful you'll become with it, and hopefully you'll grow to appreciate its unique potentials. Enjoy!

# Answer
> 3 votes
I started playing the English a short time ago, too. I used to play the London System before, and I found that at a certain level I had to fight for equality as white. I think my playing style fits yours too and I was advised to move to the English opening with g3. I'm currently rated 1912 ELO by FIDE, in case this info is useful for you.

With this repertoire in mind I've found the books by Mihail Marin "The English Opening" from the Grandmaster Repertoire series extremely useful. Despite its name (Grandmaster Repertoire made me think they would be too advanced for me) I found these books fit my needs perfectly, Mihail's explanations of plans and structures are clear and easy to understand and he builds a complete repertoire based in 1.c4 and 2.g3.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Most people try to transpose into their d4 defense to reduce study time and for the most part, if white refuses to play d4 the lines are fine for black.

The symmetrical is probably okay but I try to avoid symmetrical lines.

e5 is the principled "correct" move. Its basically a reversed Sicilian. If you're a 1e4 player it shouldn't be hard to come up with something that mirrors what you play vs the Sicilian. I Usually play a reversed closed or great snake depending on the move order

---
Tags: opening, books, queens-gambit, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: What are White's main ideas in the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez?
I was wondering what are the main ideas for White are in the exchange variation, Ruy Lopez opening.

```
[fen "r1bqkbnr/1pp2ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]

```

# Answer
> 4 votes
Of course there are many ideas in this variation, but the single biggest one is to play d4 and trade the d-pawn for Black's e-pawn, then take advantage of the fact that it is much easier for you to make a passed pawn with your 4-to-3 advantage on the kingside than it is for Black to make a passed pawn with her 4-3 advantage on the queenside (because of her doubled pawns). If all the pieces get traded off and you end up in a pawn endgame, it is going to be very tough for Black. Naturally she will try not to let that happen.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The main idea, in the exchange variation of the Ruy is "exchange." White will play d4 next, followed by offering the exchange of queens in order to head for an early endgame. That's because he's traded away his light squared bishop, his best attacking piece.

The "classic game" for this opening was played in 1914 between world champion Emmanuel Lasker and future world champion J.R. Capablanca.

In "Chess Fundamentals," Capablanca noted that immediately after the queen exchange, "The reader should note that if all the pieces were exchanged, White would be practically a pawn ahead and therefore have a won game."

White relentlessly strove for the exchange of pieces in the game and won.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Its a fairly simple idea. White gets a 4-3 pawn advantage on the kingside and can create a passed pawn but, even though material is equal, black cant do the same on the queenside because of his doubled pawns. If you took all the pieces off the board, this is a completely won endgame for white.

Black has the 2 bishops and needs to use them to neutralize White's endgame advantage. White wants to trade off one of Black's bishops in order to take away Black's 2 bishops advantage. If white does that effectively it's just a matter of trading off all the pieces and going straight to the endgame

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


# Question
Title: What type of notation is "B3", as used by Lasker?
In Logical Chess: Move By Move by Irving Chernev (1957), in Game 3, it reads

> Emanuel Lasker, World Champion for 27 years, says of this move, “In my practice I have usually found it strongest to post the knights at B3, where they have a magnificent sway.” Here ‘B3’ refers to the squares c3 and f3 for White, or c6 and f6 for Black.

What type of notation is this "B3" Emanuel Lasker mentioned?

# Answer
> 10 votes
This is **descriptive notation**, a composition where the letter B stands for *bishop* and the number 3 for the *third* rank from either players view. Thus, as mentioned in your box, B3 may refer to the squares c3, f3, c6 and f6.

More conclusive for the specific squares is the inclusion of Q or K for queen(side) and king(side), so the square c3 is QB3 (read: queen's bishop three) from white's or QB6 (queen's bishop six) from black's view. An overview is given by the picture below.

A white's knight move *to* c3 (Nc3) in descriptive notation is N-QB3 (read: knight to queen's bishops three / third).

Descriptive notation has generally been given up upon, because confusion can arise, as each square has two names. This problem doesn't exist in algebraic notation.

---
Tags: history, notation
---