# Question
Title: Playing the French Defense Exchange Variation
In the French Defense Advance Variation, `1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 ...`, there are some clear game plans for both sides, areas where you want a pawn break, where you want to attack, etc.

However, in the French Defense Exchange Variation, `1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5`, things are different. What are white and black's goals? Are there any key concepts or underlying strategies? After developing my pieces, and playing logical attacking and defensive moves, I start to wonder "what I am trying to do?" and I usually don't have a good answer to this question. It feels very strange to play this, and I am looking for some tips and ideas about playing the exchange variation as white.

# Answer
First, a side note: I play the black side of the French Defense almost religiously, and my results against the Exchange variation have traditionally been very good. It's not a variation that's feared by most French Defense practitioners. Neither, for that matter, is the Advance variation, which gives black a very clear plan of strategic counterattack based on undermining the white center, freeing the poor light-square bishop, and sometimes pressuring the white queen-side pawns. There are also lesser-known closed lines of the Advance involving a `...c4` pawn push that, while objectively tend to lead to equality, are very promising for the black player who is more familiar with their nuances than his opponent. If you really want to give French players trouble, consider learning to play (one of) the Tarrasch, Steinitz, or Classical variations.

Anyway, back to your main question. Normally, it's asymmetry of position that informs/determines the respective strategies that both sides attempt to realize. The exchange variation, however, is inherently symmetrical and therefore no clear, overarching strategies present themselves until the symmetry is broken by either white or black. There are a few proactive ways of creating asymmetry in this variation:

1. `4. c4` which usually leads to IQP positions with all the attendant and characteristic advantages and disadvantages. The player with the IQP is advised to play aggressive, attacking chess and avoid liquidation of material (unless doing so yields an obvious benefit), as the IQP could be easily blockaded and made into a major weakness in the endgame.
2. Preparing queen-side castling and launching a pawn storm if black chooses to castle king-side. This is highly double-edged and possibly questionable in its soundness, but a viable choice if you enjoy very sharp games and are confident in your tactical abilities.

Other moves are mostly noncommittal and give black time to develop as he chooses. Ultimately, if neither side breaks symmetry in any substantial way, the game is probably going to revolve largely around control/occupation of the squares e4 and e5. Further, numerous minor piece trades are very likely to take place on the e-file in such situations, leading to drawish positions.

One general piece of advice I'd offer, if you insist on playing the Exchange variation at all, is to delay it by one move and play `3. Nc3` first. In that case, if black opts for the Winawer variation with `3... Bb4`, there's an argument to be made that, after `4. exd5 exd5 5. a3`, black simply doesn't have any great choices (i.e., he must either effectively waste a move retreating the bishop, or cede the bishop pair, when the doubling of white's c-pawns could even be viewed as an asset in many situations because of their superior centralization). On the other hand, if black plays classically with `3... Nf6`, he has lost the possibility of playing the pawn to f6 (often a good choice in many lines of the exchange variation because it helps to control the key e5 square and restrains white's minor pieces).
> 19 votes

# Answer
I am going to describe a system for Black that I play, but you can flip the situation around and play the system for White. I actually saw it played as White first (possibly by Serper?), and I decided to try it for Black. Play `Bd3`, `Qf3`, and `Ne2`, (`c3` and `h3` are probably necessary at some point). I may bring the bishop out to f4 or g5 if allowed. The key here is to bring the e2 knight to f5 via g3. The other knight sometimes comes around via a3 to c2 to e3 to f5. The knight on f5 is very annoying, Black may weaken himself with g6 or give up the two bishops to get rid of the knight. Playing the strategy with Black, I have won at least a few games with sacs on h3 and g2 in these positions. Frequently, White players lack a strategy as you describe and after developing their pieces (`Bd3`, `Nf3`, `0-0` and controlling the e-file), they are unable to coordinate them with any real purpose.
> 13 votes

# Answer
I play the French Exchange with `4. Bd3`. Control of the e-file, and its corresponding outposts supported by the d-pawns (e5 for White, e4 for Black) is paramount. I usually follow on with `Ne2` and `0-0` as White. This allows me flexibility in developing my c1 bishop -- if Black likewise has played `...Bd6`, I often trade off my "bad" bishop with `Bf4`, but in other lines I play `Bg5`.

This being said, I may look into Greg's idea of playing `3. Nc3` first.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Again I know this is an old post but again I cannot resist posting now! I play the French defence as White and Black. However I mainly play 5 min blitz chess and my main White French line is the Advance MilnerBarry Gambit (I'm presently exploring the ADG and Classical French with 3.Nc3). So I need to ask why choose to play the French Exchange as White? I play the French as Black and without a doubt the most boring dull games are usually the French Exchange variation. It has a reputation of being drawish and dull and often played by a lower rated player hoping for a draw and not trying for a win. I guess it has a small psychological impact when Black players see it and think this way and are a little peeved with White for choosing this dull way to play the normally rich French defence.

It is hard for me then to say exactly what White aims for as I don't play it as White but I can say what White tries against me playing against it as black. The essentials are quick development and quick castling and pinning the black knight at Nf6 and throwing the bishops and Queen into a kingside attack. The annoying knight pin can give white chances to attack further in the centre at any stage. Bishop and Queen often put lots of pressure on h7 and beware bishop sacs on h7. White will use the knights to attack on the kingside and even try rook lifts to attack the black king down the h, g and f files. White can try and throw everything into this kingside attack(pawns and all)!

It is generally thought Black should look for asymmetric play but black also needs to develop quickly and castle quickly (and sometimes queenside castle) and not waste any move tempo. Another important point to note is that in the Exchange blacks light squared bishop is no longer a bad bishop with no pawn on e6. Instead it instantly becomes a good bishop and can take part in the game from the start. So White concedes this from the outset, whereas, in most other variations the bad french bishop takes ages to get in the game.

I'm not sure which present day GM's favour this opening as white but apparently it was a favourite of old master J H Blackburne. From the black side a notable game was Tatai vs Korchnoi 1978 0-1.

My final recommendation is do not play it as White! Instead choose the Classical, Winawer,Tarrasch, Advance or even the KingsIndian attack! If you do persist in playing it bon chance! :-)
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, french-defense
---


title: What are some chess songs?

text:
# Question
Title: What are some chess songs?
What are some songs about chess?

Historical songs; pop songs; singalong songs, hymns, anthems; whatever you can find.

# Answer
One Night in Bangkok- Murray Head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9cNtrrCP0E&feature=kp

A cover of Adele's "Skyfall" with a chess-themed music video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiXJQ0SG888
> 4 votes

# Answer
Vennaskond - Malemaja staar (translates to "Chess House star", I think) is an Estonian song from 1993 about GM Jaan Ehlvest. Too bad my Estonian is not very good, so I can't translate the lyrics. :)
> 4 votes

# Answer
There are two parts of "Chess Crown's Honour" by Vladimir Vysotskii (in russian language).

1st one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbJX8A1DZGk
> 3 votes

# Answer
Andrei Rodionov & Boris Tikhomirov - Chess Computer (Synth-Pop)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0xflCP9aOo
> 2 votes

# Answer
Yes ~ I've Seen All Good People: Your Move (1971)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1I4Q6Px\_78
> 2 votes

# Answer
checkmate, by Apathy immediately comes to mind
> 2 votes

# Answer
Dirty Work by Steely Dan contains what seems to be a chess reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghcsrblhn7A&feature=kp
> 2 votes

# Answer
"The Ballad of Bobby Fischer"

This song is played at the end of the Bobby Fischer Against The World Documentary

http://youtu.be/84TI3wnZqUg
> 2 votes

# Answer
If you like rap:

dj muggs vs. gza the genius "Grandmasters" (it's a full-length album)
> 2 votes

# Answer
"It's no sacrifice" - Elton John
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: In correspondence games, is it considered cheating to get an engine evaluation of the current position?
Is it considered cheating to simply get an engine score for the current position in an ongoing game without looking at any of the generated lines? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but just curious (and yes, I'll admit to doing this before in casual games!).

# Answer
> 3 votes
From Wikipedia's article on Correspondence Chess: "*However, the influence of computer assistance remains controversial in both official and casual play, and consensus on the issue of whether to allow computer aid is still lacking*" It depends on the organization. Although I think looking at just the evaluation is fine, there is no definite rule on engine use, as in correspondence it can be extremely hard to detect who's using an engine when the players are given so much time to analyze their games. In casual games between your friends it should be perfectly fine, but on a website or through an organization, you should ask them.

# Answer
> 0 votes
For example, knowing whether to look for win or a draw can give a significant boost to your playing strength. You won't lose because you played for a win in an endgame when there was none, you won't miss any combinations you might have etc. Therefore I think it should be explicitly mentioned in the rules if they getting only the score from an engine is okay but using engines to find moves is not.

And of course: If the rules of the place where you are playing allow you to use engines, it is allowed. If they prohibit using engines, it is not allowed. If they don't say, you should ask someone who knows about that particular organization/website.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes it is !

And not only doing engine evaluation, but I would include:

* Looking at games (videos, .pgn),
* Reading (books, magazines) game analysis, strategy,
* Check for a mate in x moves with the engine,
* Study opening traps,

that matches the opening (or ending) that you are playing in your correspondence game.

You can still read/train/study chess, but at the first moment you realize that you can benefit directly in the game you are playing, you must stop and look somewhere else.

Advice: just wait till the game is over. Then you can do all analysis you want, you will feel a lot better, and learn much more.

---
Tags: engines, correspondence-chess, cheating
---


# Question
Title: In the USA, if you achieve a USCF rating of 2200 and gain the National Master title, what happens if your rating then goes below 2200?
Is the "National Master" title awarded for your entire life? Or do you lose the title if your rating goes below 2200?

I've heard that to get the title of National Master for your entire life you have to have a rating of at least 2200 for 300 games (that seems to be a lot!). Is this true? And is it 300 consecutive games (if your rating goes below 2200 before the 300th game you'll have to restart from the beginning) or simply 300 games not necessarily consecutively (it doesn't matter if your rating goes below 2200 a few times) ?

Oh and what about the FIDE titles "Candidate Master" and "FIDE Master"? Are they awarded for life?

# Answer
There are actually three different distinctions in the USCF system that have to do with a 2200 rating.

First is the National Master title. It is awarded to anyone who has ever had an established (not provisional) rating of over 2200. Once a player is a National Master, they have the title for life no matter what happens to their rating. The NM title has no effect on rating floor other than the 2000 floor which a player receives for having crossed 2200.

The second and third are both called Life Master, confusingly enough. To distinguish between them, they are usually referred to as Life Master and Original Life Master.

Life Master is part of the norms system which was introduced in 2008. To gain the title, one has to have 5 performances in USCF tournaments that qualify for "M" norms and have achieved an established rating over 2200. To see a player's norm history, click on the link next to "Highest USCF Norms-Based Title Earned (in events since 1991)" on their member page then click on Norms History. This title also has no extra effect on rating floor.

Original Life Master has been around for a long time. It is achieved by starting 300 games (not necessarily consecutively, as far as I know) with a rating above 2200. Once a player has started the 300th game, they are given a lifetime floor of 2200. To my knowledge, this is the only way to get the 2200 floor-2300 gives you a 2100 floor but 2400 does not raise it.

Candidate Master is a FIDE title awarded when you make 2200. FIDE Master is at 2300. They are both awarded for life.

Edit: For reasonable evidence that the 300 games do not need to be consecutive, see the rating history of USCF member ID 12462971.
> 20 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, grandmaster, uscf, titles
---


# Question
Title: Why did black choose 1... Kxg7 instead of 1... Rfe8 in this puzzle?
I have a doubt with a puzzle that I solved recently. The proposed solution for that puzzle is as below.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/pp4np/2n1bppB/qNQ1p3/8/6P1/PP2PPBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bxg7 Kxg7 2.Bxc6 bxc6 3.Nd4 Qxc5 4.Nxe6+ Kg8 5.Nxc5

```

But instead of choosing 1... Kxg7, if black has chosen 1... Rfe8, I think it would have given black a better position as below.

```
[FEN "r4rk1/pp4np/2n1bppB/qNQ1p3/8/6P1/PP2PPBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bxg7 Rfe8 2.Bxc6 bxc6 3.Nd4 Qxc5 4.Nxe6 Rxe6

```

In a comment below the puzzle, someone has mentioned that if black doesn't take the bishop, it loses a minor piece. What is that referring to? Is there any specific reason for black not choosing 1... Rfe8?

# Answer
I've done this puzzle today too! It's Chess.com's puzzle of the day =)

I have analysed it with Houdini 3 Pro. Here is what it says after 1.Bxg7 :

* 1...Kxg7 : +5.07
* 1...Rf7 : +5.43
* 1...Rfe8 : +5.52

After 1... Rfe8 your move 2. Bxc6?? is a blunder and lose a lot of White's advantage (White is still probably winning but not by much). Houdini evaluates it as only +1.96

The killer move is 2. b4!! which Houdini evaluates as +5.52

It will continue: 2... Nxb4 3. Bxf6 Rac8 4. Qxe5 Bc4 5. Be7

(It's pretty much forced, all other Black replies are much weaker. 3... a6 is answered by 4. Qc7 ; while 2... Qd8 is answered by 3. Rfd1)

Then here are three lines:

* 5... Bf7 6. Bxb4 Qxb4 7. Rab1 Qxb1 8. Qxe8+ Rxe8 9. Rxb1 Rxe2
* 5... Qd8 6. Bxd8 Rxe5 7. Nd6 Rxd8 8. Nxc4 Rxe2
* 5... Qxb5 6. Qxb5 Bxb5 7. Bxb4 Bxe2

According to the omniscient Houdini the move 1...Rfe8 is technically slightly inferior to 1... Kxg7. But I think you are right: if it was a practical game, Black should play 1... Rfe8 because it gives White a harder time at finding the correct optimal continuation.

Trading Queens with 1... Kxg7 simplifies the position and makes it very easy to win for White. But after 1... Rfe8 the position is still complex and White may make a mistake. I believe Black's best hope is to play 5... Bf7 6. Bxb4 Qxb4 7. Rab1 Qd2?! which keeps the Queens on the board.
> 6 votes

# Answer
It looks to me like in your 1... Rfe8 line, White can improve by playing 3. Qxc6 instead of 3. Nd4. It could then go 3... Kxg7 4. Nc7 Rac8 5. Nxe6+ and White stays up a piece. While that line is certainly better for black than also trading off queens as in the main line of the puzzle, the intent of the puzzle was to demonstrate the queen fork idea as in the main line.

If I could offer my idea of where your confusion is, it is that you are making white play the same moves in every variation regardless of black's response, which he definitely doesn't have to do.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think there is a much simpler answer to the question. The **point** of the puzzle is to demonstrate the tactic of the discovered attack on the queen and the fork on **e6**. If Black plays **1...Kxg7**, then the puzzle demonstrates this point. But if Black plays **1...Rfe8** (which is also bad because of 2. b4!) what is the point of the puzzle?
> 1 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, advantage
---


title: Empowered Army Knight-move Opening

text:
# Question
Title: Empowered Army Knight-move Opening
**How powerful is it for the Empowered Army to open by using knight-moves for their Empowered Rooks and/or Bishops?**

In ***Chess 2: The Sequel***, the knights, bishops, and rooks of the Empowered Army are considered *empowered* and can move as any adjacent empowered piece in addition to their own movement. To a beginner such as myself, it seems particularly strong to open by taking advantage of this by developing the empowered pieces immediately. All of the pieces can be developed through knight-moves in this way after a total of 6 moves.

```
1. Ra1 b3
2. Rh1 g3
3. Bc1 d3
4. Bf1 e3
5. Nb1 c3
6. Ng1 f3

```

How strong is the use of empowered movement as opening moves? Should one focus on performing all 6 of these moves, or is it more sensible to do a subset of them? Is their an ideal order to these moves? Does the asymmetry of the King and Elegant Queen affect these things?

# Answer
I believe the optimum opening would be what Cleveland is suggesting. A combination of rook & knight with king & queen pawn @ d4 & e4, controlling the center. In the opening suggested in the example above, although it controls the center of the board, it restricts any immediate pathway for the king. In a game where one of the win conditions is crossing the middle of the board with your king, this may not be the best opening.
> 1 votes

# Answer
My intuition might be totally off because this is very different from real chess, but I don't see why you wouldn't still want to try to control the center with pawns as white. You can develop all your pieces quickly this way but black can make a couple pawn moves (say, e5 and d5 while you are bringing your rooks out) then develop his own minor pieces to defend them. I wouldn't go with this opening strategy.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Against Reaper in particular you might have problems with something like 1. ...Rhc3, blocking the knight from moving to c3 and making it arbitrarily hard to link up the Rook and Bishop.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Am I allowed to do a checkmate and win the game in this situation?
I am playing with whites. Currently my queen is at c7 and it's my turn. If I move my queen to d8 and declare check on the king, is this also a check-mate?

sorry for the seemingly noobish question, but I am not sure and all resources that I looked up did not provide me with a definitive answer.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r1b1kb1r/ppQp1ppp/2n2n2/8/1q6/4P3/P1PP1PPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
No, it is not checkmate, because your opponent can capture your queen with either the knight on c6 or the king on e8.

Checkmate occurs when you give a check to your opponent and your opponent cannot either move the king out of check or capture the piece that is giving the check or block the check my interposing another piece between the checking piece and the king.

So, in this case -

```
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppQp1ppp/2n2n2/8/1q6/4P3/P1PP1PPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Qd8+ Kxd8 (1...Nxd8)

```

There is no checkmate.

Consider this hypothetical position. In this case, it would be a checkmate -

```
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/1pQp1ppp/pB3n2n2/8/1q6/4P3/P1PP1PPP/RN2KBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Qd8#

```

Here, the enemy king cannot move out of check. The piece that is giving the check (i.e. the queen) cannot be captured by the black king, because it is supported by the bishop on b6. There is also no way to interpose a piece between the queen and the king because they are right next to each other.

---
Tags: rules, checkmate
---


title: Is my engine working properly?

text:
# Question
Title: Is my engine working properly?
I noticed that when I put my Houdini 3 Pro x64 in the "Infinite Analysis" mode, he tends to use a lot of time to evaluate the bad moves... Sometimes he even uses like 30 seconds on the first 10 best moves on his list, but then he uses like 5 minutes on the other (bad) moves... He meditates for a lot of time on the last few moves in his list, even though they are just stupid moves that give up the Queen for nothing...

I made him analyze the following position:

And he needed 2 hours to find the forced mates...

And also, while he was analyzing the position, his list of moves was all messed up: the moves were not ordered according to their evaluations (the best moves should be first, while the worst moves should be last... but it was not the case). Although after he finally found the forced mates he then ordered the moves correctly. Oh and he found that ...Nc6 was a mate in 19 **before** finding that ...exf6 was a mate in 6.

So is my Houdini broken or something?

And I heard that to find forced mates there was a quicker way: there exist a special mode which puts the engine into a "mate search mode". But how can I put my Houdini in that mode?

# Answer
> 4 votes
What you're doing here is not correct and definitely not what a chess engine is designed for. You're running multi-pv analysis with many many lines. Multi-PV with many lines as in in your example is exponentially slower than a single-PV analysis. In an N multi-PV analysis, the engine would need to examine the first PV then ignore it for the next best PV. And this continues until all PVs are examined. This is very slow when you do it in iterative deepening where the search tries deeper by each iteration.

Also, the position is tricky for an engine because it has too many captures. When you're in a very tactical full-blown position, the engine would need to expand its qsearch so to get to the bottom of the search tree.

In summary, what you're doing here doesn't make any sense. You'll need to scale down your lines.

Your lines are not sorted is the fault of the user interface and not the engine.

Please read http://www.cruxis.com/chess/manual/index.html?game\_play.htm for the Tactical Mode. You'll need to send that UCI command to Houdini.

---
Tags: analysis, engines, checkmate, evaluation, houdini
---


# Question
Title: Are there still wins by an actual checkmate?
At the international level, I normally see games that are either decided by a draw or one player resigning. It seems that players at the international level don't let the game result in an actual checkmate, and resign before that happens. Do actual checkmates still happen at the international level, or has it pretty much stopped?

In my own experience, which is not international, I used to play games to the very end; even if I knew I was going to lose, I always lost by checkmate. Later, I came to the realization that it was pointless to drag games on that I knew there was no chance for me to win, so I mostly resign now. This sometimes has a negative impact, especially against weaker players, because sometimes when you are losing there is still a chance to salvage a draw.

# Answer
> 20 votes
Generally speaking, it's true, high level games don't play out all the way to checkmate. But there are some exceptions, and the most typical scenario that I have seen for this is a game that features, say, a nice, well-conducted attack, perhaps with a pretty mating pattern or particularly nice combination, and the losing player allows mate to show up on the board as a gesture, a congratulatory "hat tip" to a quality piece of work. For example, I believe that was the case in the game Adams - Short (London Chess Classic 2011).

Other than that, there are also the occasional instances where mate occurs during a time scramble. Or even more rarely, a top player might just overlook a mate in one and end up getting checkmated: it can happen to the best of us. *Edited to add:* Just the other day at the Olympiad in Istanbul, GM Dragan Solak of Turkey had a similar slip-up against Nakamura, overlooking the fact that a pin on his f7 pawn made possible a sort of epaulette mate:

# Answer
> 5 votes
Usually, wins by checkmate are the result of an unexpected combination that catches the defender by surprise. Sometimes this person will be "gallant" by allowing the mate to occur, instead of resigning one or two moves from the end.

The games that don't get played to the end are the ones where no checkmate is in sight, but one player has a huge material, or other advantage, that it is obvious who will win.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The most recent game which involved a Super GM getting checkmated was Ruslan Ponomariov against Caruana in the Dortmund championships in a very elegant finish by Caruana.

---
Tags: famous-players, etiquette
---


# Question
Title: Is 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 a QID even though White hasn't played d4 yet? What would you recommend me against it?
I first thought that starting with 1. Nf3 would avoid the QID. But after thinking about it, this is only true if White plays 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3

The move 3. Nc3 seems really cool since this would probably get out of book most people who play the Nimzo/QID complex (at least at the club level).

Though 3. g3 is also very interesting. But after 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Black has 3... b6

And then we have a position that is very close to a QID, but there is one difference: White didn't play d4 yet.

Does this make a real important difference? Or is this position also considered as a QID? Will White need to play d4 later anyway, and thus transposing to a normal QID?

After 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. O-O what would you recommend me to play?

After 5...Be7 there are three possible moves:

* 6.Nc3
* 6.d4
* 6.b3

What are all the differences between these three moves?

And finally, what do you think about Wojo's 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Re1 ?

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Does this make a real important difference? Or is this position also considered as a QID?

This is definitely not QID, as White hasn't played `d4` yet. This is a **major** difference, that is good for White. Black needs to prevent `e4` in the QID and he succeeds in it, but here White has an extra "warrior" for fight for the `e4`, the `d-pawn`. If White could get `e4` then Black position could become difficult.

> Will White need to play d4 later anyway, and thus transposing to a normal QID?

No, You have a choice: you can "forgive" him for being too hasty ( play `d4` and enter standard QID ) or you can try and punish him ( by fighting for `e4` ).

> After 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. O-O what would you recommend me to play?

I would follow the line *Kramnik* gave in book *Khalifman-Opening for White According to Kramnik 1.Nf3 ( 2nd book, 2001 )* and go for `Nc3` so I could fight for `e4`.

> What are all the differences between these three moves?

With `d4` you go for the QID ( not bad ), with `b3` you go for Reti-like-position and with `Nc3` you try to **refute** Black's play.

> And finally, what do you think about Wojo's 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Re1 ?

This is the plan I would choose in the game ( *Kramnik* suggested it as well! ). It tries to refute Black's opening play by claiming `e4` -\> it is the strongest plan in my opinion.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I will take a shot at it with my limited knowledge. I think it seems to me like a Reti transformed into a standard English opening line with 3. g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0-0. Your assumption is right when you say it's not a QID since white didn't play d4. Will white play d4 later anyway? It's possible, although for instance after 5.0-0 Be7, if I were white, I might not play that as black control's the e4 square. And it's a central theme in QID positions, I believe. as for 6.b3 black can equalize easily and play 6... 0-0 7.Bb2 c5 or d5 and have some control in the centre.

Wojo's 6. Nc3 0-0 7. Re1,black can reply with d5 and equalize quite easily.

I think another option of white on move 6 can be 6.d3.

---
Tags: opening, theory, books, queens-indian
---


# Question
Title: Sherlock Holmes vs Professor James Moriarty, A Game of Shadow-Chess Game Position Reconstruction
The chess scene between Sherlock Holmes and Professor James Moriarty in the movie *Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows* is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time. What intrigued me even more was discovering the fact that the moves for this chess scene are loosely derived from a position that occurred in an interesting tactical game between Bent Larsen and Tigran Petrosian (Second Piatigorsky Cup, 1966). The position is as below -

```
    [FEN "r2q1rk1/pp2ppb1/3pn1Q1/3R4/2P3B1/4BR2/PP4PP/6K1 w - - 0 0"]
    [White "Bent Larsen"]
    [Black "Petrosian"]

```

Here, Petrosian, playing Black did not capture the White queen, but instead played **Nf4**, which also lost the game. If he had played **fxg6**, then we have the sequence of moves that resembles the movie scene.

```
    [FEN "r2q1rk1/pp2ppb1/3pn1pQ/3R4/2P3B1/4BR2/PP4PP/6K1 w - - 0 25"]
    [White "Bent Larsen"]
    [Black "Petrosian"]

    1. Qxg6 fxg6 2. Bxe6+ Kh7 3. Rh3+ Bh6 4. Bxh6 Rf5 5. Rxf5 gxf5 6. Bf7 Qb6+
    7. Kh1 Qxb2 8. Bf8# 1-0

```

Starting with **Bxe6**, in descriptive notation spoken out, that is -

> "Bishop takes knight check"
>
> "King to rook two"
>
> "Rook to king's rook three check"
>
> "Bishop to rook three"
>
> "Bishop takes bishop"
>
> "Rook bishop four"
>
> "Rook takes rook"
>
> "Pawn takes rook"
>
> "Bishop to bishop seven"
>
> **"Queen knight three check"**
>
> **"King to rook one"**
>
> "Queen takes knight pawn"
>
> "Bishop to bishop eight, discovered check...and (incidentally) mate"

The only problem is, the moves

> "Queen knight three check"
>
> "King to rook one"

do not occur in the movie version, which brings me to my question-

**Construct a chess position where the moves in the movie version make sense.**

This means that there should not be any "obvious" move better than the ones Moriarty (whom we can consider to be a good chess player) played in that position. Thus, a position like the one below is ruled out, because Moriarty doesn't have to played "Rook bishop four" as he played in the movie, but can simply play "Rook bishop eight checkmate"-

```
  [FEN "r4rk1/pp2p1b1/1q1pn1p1/3R4/2P3B1/5R2/PP1B2PP/7K w - - 0 25"]

  1. Bxe6+ Kh7 2. Rh3+ Bh6 3. Bxh6 Rf1# (3...Rf5?? 4. Rxf5! +-)

```

Moreover, considering the fact that Moriarty sounded very confident with his move "King to Rook Two", the position must not "appear" to be objectively bad for Black. At the very least Black should "look" equal or even materially better. **EDIT: April 21 2014 2:35 PM GMT** *The same applies to "Rook Bishop Four" Moriarty saw the obvious line after RxR, PxR and BxP check, but probably missed Bishop to Bishop seven*.

**Note:** Although Sherlock Holmes played Black in the actual game, for the purpose of this question, we can assume he was White.

# Answer
Here is my current solution. For convenience and resemblance to the Larsen-Petrosian game, I have assumed Sherlock Holmes is White.

```
    [FEN "1q3rk1/2p1p1b1/r1Ppn1p1/3R4/6B1/4BR2/PPn3PK/8 w - - 0 3"]

    3. Bxe6+ Kh7 (3... Rf7 4. Bxf7+ Kf8 5. Bxg6+ Bf6 6. Bh6+ Kg8 7. Rg3 Nd4 (7...
    e6 8. Rh5 Be5 9. Rxe5 dxe5 10. Be4+ Kh8 (10... Kf7 11. Rg7+ Kf8 (11... Kf6 12.
    g4 Qh8 13. g5#) 12. Bh7 Rxc6 13. Rg8+ Kf7 14. Rxb8) 11. Bg7+ Kg8 12. Bh6+) 8.
    Rh5 Ne2 9. Rg4 Be5+ 10. Rxe5 dxe5 11. Be4+ Kf7 12. Rg7+ Ke6 13. Rg6+ Kf7 14.
    Rg7+) 4. Rh3+ Bh6 5. Bxh6 Rf5 6. Rxf5 gxf5 7. Bf7! (7. Bxf5+? Kg8 8. Be6+ Kh7 9.
    Bf5+ (9. Bf7? Qc8 10. Rh4 Ra4! 11. g4 Qxg4 12. Rxg4 Rxg4)) 7... Qxb2 8.
    Bf8# (8. Bc1+ Kg7 9. Bxb2+ Kxf7)

```

Explanation:

After Sherlock plays **1. Bxe6**, Moriarty is confident that the game is a draw by perpetual, so he plays **1...Kh7** immediately. Moriarty is unwilling to enter the complications of **1...Rf7**, which also leads to a draw but gives a very complex position. After **1...Kh7,** the forced sequence of moves arrives till **6...gxf5** when Moriarty expects Sherlock to take the pawn on **f5** and give a perpetual. Instead, Sherlock plays **7. Bf7** and now Moriarty realizes it's over.

The variations show why **7. Bf7** leads to mate but **7. Bxf5**\+ leads only to a draw for Sherlock.
> 7 votes

# Answer
## A SMALL NOTE ABOUT DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION:

Both players calculate coordinate **from their side of the board towards the opponents.** In algebraic notation both sides calculate coordinate from White's side toward the Black.

Therefore, in algebraic notation Queen's gambit starts as `1.d4 d5`, but in descriptive as `1.P-Q4 P-Q4` ( not as `1.P-Q4 P-Q5` ).

## CONSTRUCTION OF DESIRED POSITION:

Since *Sherlock Holmes* **was Black** we need to adjust the *Larsen-Petrosian* position to address that fact.

Once we do that the notation from the movie fits right in, **except for the missing check with the queen.**

This is logical, since *Moriarty* **was White, thus having an extra tempo.** Therefore we must assume he already played with the queen in one of his earlier moves.

Since his last move was *Queen takes knight pawn* we must assume queen was on the `b-file`, `a6` or on `b7-h1` diagonal.

The last two options are not possible since White would be able to repel mating attack. Therefore we need to assume that queen was on the `b-file`.

In order to avoid the position you warned about in your post, we must assume the queen was not on `b3`. Therefore the only logical square would be `b5`. Still, queen can repel mating attack by giving checkmate to `e8`. This excludes `b5` square.

On all other squares on the `b-file` queen can be easily captured. Therefore we must add a little change in the position in order to make this plausible. The simplest would be to add White `c4` pawn so we can cover Black king from check and place queen on `b3`.

The position should also satisfy another condition of yours:

> **Construct a chess position where the moves in the movie version make sense.**
>
> This means that there should not be any "obvious" move better than the ones Moriarty (whom we can consider to be a good chess player) played in that position.

With **least amount of changes** here is the answer to your question:

```
[White "Professor Moriarty"]
[Black "Sherlock Holmes"]
[Event "The Game of Shadows"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/pp4pp/4br2/2p3b1/2Pr4/1Q1PN1P1/PP2P1B1/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Bxe3+ 2.Kh2 Rh6+ 3.Bh3 Bxh3 4.Rf4 Rxf4 5.gxf4 Bf2 6.Qxb7 Bf1# 0-1

```

## EDITED on July 23rd 2014:

> **EDIT: April 21 2014 2:35 PM GMT** *The same applies to "Rook Bishop Four" Moriarty saw the obvious line after RxR, PxR and BxP check, but probably missed Bishop to Bishop seven.*

```
[Title "Analysis diagram"]
[fen "6k1/pp4pp/7r/2p5/2P2b2/1Q1P3b/PP2P2K/R7 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this position you wish to refute `...Bxf4+`. This means that White should defend from check. You can defend from check in chess in 3 ways -\> interpose a piece, move king or capture the attacking piece.

Let us start with the easiest choice-capturing the attacker:

If you put White bishop on `c1` then the entire solution is ruined, as Black would not have starting sequence with `1...Bxe3+`, so this move is solution is out of question. If you put rook on 4th rank then you ruin the solution again, as on `...Rxf4` White would have `Rxf4` instead of `gxf4`, so this solution too is out of the question. Putting rook anywhere on the `f-file` is out of the question due to obvious reasons... So we must conclude that bishop can not be captured.

This leaves us with other two defenses to check -\> interpose a piece or move the king. Again, let me analyze the easier choice -\> interposing a piece:

Since in the original position squares `g1` and `g3` were occupied by White pieces, we can intercept the check only with bishop on `e1` or knight on `h1`. With knight on `h1` the entire mating sequence is impossible so this solution is out of the question. The same goes with bishop on `e1` so again, we must discard this suggestion.

The last option is moving the king, which will ultimately lead us to the following position:

```
[Title ""]
[fen "6k1/pp4pp/7r/2p5/2P2P2/1Q1P3b/PP2Pb1K/R7 w - - 0 1"]

```

If White could play `Qc1` he could threat `Qxh6` which would not be possible with pawn on `f4`. Furthermore, if we remove the pawn at `c4` White would gain additional defensive resources which would be enough for him to save the game in my opinion.

Therefore, my adjusted solution is this:

```
[White "Professor Moriarty"]
[Black "Sherlock Holmes"]
[Event "The Game of Shadows"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/pp4pp/4br2/2p3b1/3r4/P2PN1P1/P3P1B1/RQ3RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Bxe3+ 2.Kh2 Rh6+ 3.Bh3 Bxh3 4.Rf4 Rxf4 5.gxf4 Bf2! ( 5...Bxf4+? 6.Kg1 Be3+ 7.Kh2 Bf2 8.Qc1! Rh5 ( 8...Rh4 9.Qg5!+-) 9.Qc4+! Kh8 ( 9...Kf8? 10.Qf4++- ) 10.Qf7!+- ) 6.Qxb7 Bf1# 0-1

```

## END OF EDIT:
> 6 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, film
---


title: How can Black free his game?

text:
# Question
Title: How can Black free his game?
* What are Black's long term plans in below pawn structure?
* How can Black free his game?

The position arose from the Rubinstein variation of the French defense:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r2rb1k1/1p2bppp/1q2pn2/p3B3/P2N4/2PB4/1P2QPPP/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Hm, my idea is this:

* pawn structure should remain as is except pawn should be probably on g6 preventing king side attacks and giving space to move bishop Be7-f6-g7
* move knight to better position Nf6-d7-c5 and focusing attack on weak pawn a4 with help of white squared bishop
* move black squared bishop to a1-h8 diagonal which will make pressure on pawn c3 if white b pawn is moving to protect a pawn

It doesn't look as good endgame for black since he has minority on queen side which can quickly turn into passing pawn therefore I believe black should keep pieces.

---
Tags: pawn-structure, middlegame, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Resource with chess problems in electronic format with solutions
I am looking for a database of chess problems in electronic format with solutions. Ideal variant will be a database with something like:

* FEN starting position *
* description (Mate in 3 moves, Win material, Black to draw)
* solution *
* strength of the problem

Only * are really needed, other things just nice to have. It does not matter whether the resource is free or paid. Of course I can get some books and extract such positions by myself, but I hope that someone already have done something like this.

# Answer
If you are looking for tactical puzzles, there is always CT-Art from Convecta. You can also try Tactic Trainer for Android. It has a nifty difficulty rating system.

Also there is an online resource I forgot to add : http://www.yacpdb.org/
> 3 votes

# Answer
I really like ChessTempo for tactics training. Not sure if there is an option to download problems though.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: problems
---


# Question
Title: If the king is in check, and the piece that is holding it in check is directly adjacent from the king can the king take it?
If the king is in check, and the piece that is holding it in check is directly adjacent from the king, can the king take it?

# Answer
> 6 votes
So long as capturing the checking piece would not *also* cause the King to be in check, yes!

---

In the position below, the White Queen is giving check. After `...Kxf7`, the Black King is *no longer* in check, so it is indeed a legal move.

```
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppp1Qpp/5n2/4p3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 0 0"]

1...Kxf7

```

---

However, it is illegal to make any move that places your own King in check. If you did, the opponent would be able to capture your King immediately. Since you can never actually *capture* a King in a game of Chess, making a move that would allow it is illegal.

So, if White's Queen is "protected" by another piece (such as a Bishop, below), the Black's King *cannot* capture it, as doing so would leave his King still in check. In fact, in the position below (the "scholar's mate"), Black is **checkmated** because he has no moves that would not result in his still being in check.

```
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1Qpp/2n2n2/4p3/2B1P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - 0 0"]

1...Kxf7 2.Bxf7

```

Remember that in the position above, `1...Kxf7 2.Bxf7` are given as *examples*: neither move is actually legal, as Black is *already checkmated in the starting position!*

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Struggling with my moves

text:
# Question
Title: Struggling with my moves
I play Scotch or Closed Sicilian (or 2. c3) as white and Scandinavian as black. Against d4 I sigh. I am still struggling to find a proper way to play the closed positional games. Any suggestions?

# Answer
It seems to me that the *Slav defense* is what you are after.

It has similar pawn structure to the *Caro-Kann* / *Scandinavian defense*, and no weak pieces ( Black gets `...Bf5` early ). Notice that it is theoretical, and that **it can be dodged** with clever move order, like `1.c4 c6 2.e4! d5!? 3.ed cd 4.d4!` when you have *Caro-Kann ( Panov-Botvinnik attack ).*

You could also try *King's Indian defense*, as pawn structure is similar to White's in *Closed Sicilian* (there White goes for `f4`, light squared bishop is fianchettoed, `d3+e4` center formation, here you aim for `...f5` and bishop is also fianchettoed, `d6+e5` center formation ).

It really depends on your style, please tell us more about your criteria for defenses against `1.d4` so we can offer better answer ( closed/open game? highly tactical/positional? space advantage/counter-attacking? ).

Sorry for posting this as an answer, but the content is too big to fit inside a comment.

I will transform this into answer, if it solves your problem, or if you update your post with more details as I have said above.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I recommend an excellent youtube channel. It has chess videos by the master Bill Richards; it's called "Bobby Fischer": https://www.youtube.com/user/BobbyJFischer1943/featured

In it Bill explains many closed openings.

I play a lot of closed games. My general advice would be that in closed positions you want to build up your positionally gradually. You should always ask yourself "which piece is developed the least?" and then ask "where can I make it most effective?"

Against 1. d4 or 1. c4 A good, solid system is to go for a ..Nf6 and ...e6 and ..d5 set up. I would add a diagram but I'm not sure how to add 1.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: Question about four digits appearing next to move
As new to this as you could get i think. Could you explain the four digit numbers that appear next to what i guess you call annotations. I would either think it should go for the highest or the lowest number, but no.

Haven't been able to google the answer, lack of imagination i guess.

Thanks for your help!

# Answer
I think you are using "Lucas chess" here with Rybka. Even though Lucas chess is a real neat software, I eventually preferred the (-1 / 0 / +1) kind of representation of the evaluation. Each number next to the move is an evaluation or weight associated with the move. As you can clearly see it is considering many different moves (usually called MultiPV in UCI terms) and giving its evaluations.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: What are the scales of the numerical evaluations of the strongest engines based on?
Different engines have different scales for their numerical evaluations (for example, Houdini's evaluations are usually much lower than Stockfish's evaluations). This is because different engines use different units in their evaluation functions.

.

The Fritz 12 instructions manual says:

> Chess engines evaluate positions with the help of a numeric value. The evaluation is expressed in pawn units, always from the point of view of White. If the program is displaying a value of +1.30, this means that it considers the white position to be better by the equivalent of 1.3 pawns. If White is actually a pawn up, then the additional 0.3 is the result of positional considerations (mobility, deployment of pieces, king safety, pawn structure, etc.).

This means that Fritz 12 evaluations are calibrated so that +1.00 is equivalent to being 1 Pawn up. (I'm not sure if this is still true for Deep Fritz 14 though...)

.

ChessBase says:

> Houdini 4 uses calibrated evaluations in which engine scores correlate directly with the win expectancy in the position. A +1.00 pawn advantage gives a 80% chance of winning the game against an equal opponent at blitz time control. At +2.00 the engine will win 95% of the time, and at +3.00 about 99% of the time. If the advantage is +0.50, expect to win nearly 50% of the time.

This means that Houdini 4 evaluations are calibrated so that +1.00 is equivalent to having 80% chance of winning the game.

.

So I already got the answer to my question for Fritz 12 and Houdini 4. I would like to know the same thing for other engines (for as much engines as possible), preferably strong engines like Stockfish, Komodo, Gull, Critter, Rybka, Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder, etc...

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is nobody in the world can answer you confidently. It requires deep source-code level understanding of the engines. However, some of the engines you mentioned are close-source, which means it's simply not possible to get an answer for all engines.

However, I can answer about Stockfish, which I have studied. Stockfish doesn't attempt to optimize evaluation score just to make it consistent to what a human thinks. Stockfish has a framework for parameter tuning (SPSA) but the overall purpose is to increase strength. The score reported from Stockfish is no way consistent and tuned to what a grandmaster expects. Stockfish tends to report a score larger than Houdini in absolute term. This means, Stockfish is less conservative and therefore a stronger engine than Houdini.

Think like this, in a position where you have two chocies, one a simple draw that exchanges all pieces and the other is a queen vs three minor pieces. Both scenarios are considered theoretically drawn. Houdini would have reported zero or close to zero for both scenarios. While this is theoretically correct, the scheme doesn't encourage the engine to try harder for the queen vs thee minor pieces scenario where the engine has better chances to outplay a weaker opponent.

On the other hand, Stockfish, by being less pessimism, will have no trouble finding the queen vs minor pieces scenario. This is one of the reasons Stockfish has been proven a stronger engine than Houdini in all rating list.

In short, the score reported from Stockfish and lots of other engines is meaningless. They just guide the engine to make the best decision but it doesn't mean much other than that. Houdini's evaluation has been tuned, most likely for marketing purpose - you sell an engine better if it meets the users' expectation. But meeting a chess user expectation doesn't mean it'll make the engine play better, as Stockfish has proven, it makes the strength worse.

Therefore, there is no such thing as scaling in chess engine scoring. Some engines do, like Houdini, but this is just a trick to make you buy it. Chess engines don't need a scaling scheme to play strong.

---
Tags: engines, evaluation, stockfish, point-value, houdini
---


# Question
Title: How to get position evaluation with UCI?
I am trying to get score about current position directly with UCI (I am using latest stockfish). After reading the protocol I see that these commands ask engine to analyse the position:

```
uci
ucinewgame
position fen r1k4r/p2nb1p1/2b4p/1p1n1p2/2PP4/3Q1NB1/1P3PPP/R5K1 b - c3 0 19
go infinite

```

I see some information from engine, like:

```
info depth 30 seldepth 55 score cp -482 nodes 380021712 nps 2059916 time 184484

```

Then I stop it with `stop` and get `bestmove b5c4 ponder d3c4`

So it tells me the best move, but what is the score of this position.

Based on my understanding `cp - 482` means that black is better almost by 5. But how can I get this information explicitly?

# Answer
lines info depth with score have something begining with pv, whereis the move. cp is centipawn, so evaluation is -4.82

info depth 16 seldepth 3 score cp -529 nodes 3409 nps 10299 time 331 multipv 1 pv b5c4 d3c4 d5b4 a1e1 h8e8 g3d6 d7b6 c4b4 e7d6 b4d6 e8e1 f3e1 c8b7 d6e 7 b6d7 e1d3 a8c8 e7g7 c8c7 g7h6 c6b5 d3e1 c7c8 h6e6 c8c1 e6d5 b7b6 d5d6

uci protocol http://download.shredderchess.com/div/uci.zip
> 4 votes

# Answer
Before the engine gives a bestmove, the uci protocol specifies it must print a last info line. In that info line the score parameter is the one you want. It's either:

* cp: score in centipawns
* mate: moves until mate

I think that a minus score means that there's a disadvantage to the side which has to move.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, uci
---


title: Omega Gambit For white

text:
# Question
Title: Omega Gambit For white
My question is about Omega Gambit.

```
[Title "Omega gambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e4 Nxe4

```

Is it too dangerous for white? what are the ideas for white? And what is the winning percentage for white? Is it still played among titled players?

# Answer
> Is it too dangerous for white?

Yes.

> what are the ideas for white?

Try to use your open lines and get good piece play, I suppose. Black is already better, though (up a central pawn with no weaknesses), so you shouldn't expect to succeed.

> And what is the winning percentage for white?

In my database it is 19%.

> Is it still played among titled players?

No, and it never was (I can find only 2 games where it was played by someone with a rating over 2200).
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, gambits, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: Three questions on GM Larry Kaufman's article about the average relative value of the chess pieces
I have three questions related to this article written by GM Larry Kaufman: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evaluation-of-material-imbalances-by-im-larry-kaufman

.

**Question n°1:** Kaufman rounded all his results to the nearest quarter... But what are the exact results Kaufman obtained?

.

**Question n°2:**

> The average value of either knight or unpaired bishop came out about 3.14 pawns. This value is a bit depressed by the inclusion of endings with no other pieces, as in such endings the bishop is worth only about 2½ pawns and the knight even less, partly because the minor piece side cannot win if its last pawn is exchanged. As long as there are other pieces on the board (so minimum mating material is not a major issue), the minor piece is worth about 3¼ pawns.

He calculated the average values of the minor pieces and got 3.14 pawns. Then he calculated the average values of the minor pieces but by excluding some endings and got 3.25 pawns. And then he disregarded the true average values of the minor pieces, and instead he prefered to take the average values of the minor pieces with excluding some endings... Why? Being unable to win because of insufficent material is a part of the game, so I think it should be taken into account into the average values of the minor pieces.

.

**Question n°3:**

> There is some differences between the best values for humans and the best values for computers... \[...\] For human players:

* Knight = 3.5
* Bishop (unpaired) = 3.5
* Rook = 5.25
* Two Bishops = 7.5
* Queen = 10

What is he talking about? Firstly the values he had previously calculated were calculated using games made by humans only, not computers. Secondly his new values "for human players" are too inflated (if we compare them to other approximations of the pieces made by other people). So I see no reason to say that the previous values were actually for computers (a statement which seems to be simply false), and to therefore inflate all of them by +0.25.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When Kaufman was doing the research, he was studying specific imbalances. Basically he searched his database for high level games that featured a specific material imbalance and then determined which side won. That's a slight oversimplification of his method, but the gist is that the research didn't actually give point values for each of the pieces, merely the average number of pawns required to re-balance the material.

To address your second question, I agree that the fact that minor pieces can't win on their own needs to be considered, but it's very easy during the game to keep track of this possibility. It's far more convenient to know that a piece is better than 3 pawns in the opening and the middle game but worth less than 3 pawns in the endgame. Having two values for the two separate situations is more conducive to quick evaluations than trying to say that the pawns are "gaining" value once an endgame is reached.

For your last question, human players don't evaluate positional nuances in terms of point values. Humans will think things like "white is better because he has the d5 square" or "black is better due to the bishop pair", but rarely will a human think "the d5 square is worth 0.30" or "the bishop pair in this position is worth 0.44". Computers, on the other hand, rely solely on this pure number crunching. Basically the computer values are calculated in light of the fact that enough positional advantages eventually outweigh some material considerations, but humans generally separate the material calculations and the positional valuations. In the human case, it's reasonable to think in half pawns and in extreme cases in quarter pawns, but at the end of a long variation, whole numbers become more expedient. Computers could not care less as to the exact values, so the "real" values can be used when developing engines while humans still tend to rely on rounded values.

# Answer
> 1 votes
To answer one of your questions, the value of a bishop or knight with additional pieces is 3.25 pawns, and without additional pieces is 2.50. The (weighted) average value of the minor piece is 3.14.

That implies that you'll have additional pieces about 85 percent of the time. Then the math is something like (3.25\*.85)+ (2.50\*.15)= 2.76+ 0.38=3.14.

---
Tags: statistics, point-value
---


# Question
Title: Standard endgame chess positions which are helpful to learn
Is there a list of standard endgame chess positions which a player can benefit from learning? By this I mean that any player should know how to play **KQ vs K**, **KR vs B**, **KP vs K** (win if it winnable and draw when it is not).

Then it goes **KBB vs K**, **KRP vs KR** and then on higher level **KQ vs KR**, **KR vs KN**, **KBN vs K**. These are just some of the end-game positions which might be helpful to learn.

Do you have other positions which could be helpful (and may be approximate level when it makes sense to learn them)?

# Answer
> 3 votes
For sure **KP** mixes like **KP** vs **KP**, **KPP** vs **KP** etc: learn to count moves to promotion, study opposition and *zugzwang*.

Later **KRP+** mixes: like **KRP** vs **KR** till **KR4P** vs **KR3P** are all quite common, far more relevant than say **KBN** vs **K**, not easy though, especially 4 vs 3 pawns.

A bit less common KNP+ and **KNB**+. still relevant.

Finally endgames where one side has a piece and the other only pawns: this are quite common at lower levels.

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: Can Black finish off White?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black finish off White?
The below position arose from the Queen's Gambit ( Exchange variation ).

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

```

I have successfully repelled White's queenside minority attack, but don't know how to capitalize on the kingside. This should be an easy win for Black ( in my opinion ) but I am not top GM so I could use all the help I could get...

All I managed to do was to draw by perpetual:

```
[Title "My best try ended in perpetual check"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Rb6 Ne6 3.R1b2 Ng5 4.Qe2 Kg7 5.Nxg5 Qxg5 6.Kh2 Rce7 7.R6b3 h5 8.Qf3 h4 9.Rb1 f5 10.a5 Qf6 11.Kh1 g5 12.Rf1 Qh6 13.Qd1 g4 14.Bc2 Kh8 15.Rg1 Qe6 16.Qd2 Rg8 17.hxg4 Rxg4 18.Bd1 Rg8 19.Bf3 Qh6 20.Re1 Reg7 21.Rb6 Rg6 22.Qc1 Qg7 23.Rg1 f4 24.exf4 Rf8 25.Qd2 Rgf6 26.Qd1 Rxf4 27.Bxd5 Rxd4 28.Qh5+ Qh7 29.Qe5+ Qg7 30.Qh5+ Qh7 31.Qe5+ Qg7 32.Qh5+ 1/2-1/2

```

Can Black construct a winning mating attack on the kingside?

## EDIT August, 5th 2014:

I was able to defeat *StockFish 5* ( with few take-backs ) in blitz, but the machine can't cope with **plans** so I'm posting the game here in case someone can point out better plan for White. I will analyze this game myself after I play several blitz games. I will post those too, in hope that they will be helpful for those trying to answer to this post. Here is the game:

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[White "Stockfish 5"]
[Black "AlwaysLearningNewStuff"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qf6 2.Rb6 Ree7 3.Ne1 h5 4.Qe2 g6 5.Kh2 h4 6.Nf3 Ne6 7.Qa2 Kg7 8.Qc2 Kg8 9.R1b3 Qh8 10.Kg1 Qh5 11.Ne5 Nf8 12.Be2 Qh8 13.Bg4 f5 14.Be2 Qf6 15.Bf3 Qg7 16.Bd1 Nd7 17.Nxd7 Rcxd7 18.Bf3 Rd8 19.Qd1 Rde8 20.Qd3 Rf8 21.Rb2 Rf6 22.Be2 g5 23.Kh1 g4 24.hxg4 fxg4 25.Bf1 Qh6 26.R6b3 g3 27.f4 h3 28.gxh3 Bxh3 29.Kg1 Rh7 30.Rxb7 Rxb7 31.Rxb7 Bxf1 32.Rb8+ Kf7 33.Rb7+ Ke6 34.Qh7 Qxh7 35.Rxh7 Bd3 36.Rc7 Kf5 37.Rg7 Rg6 38.Rxg6 Kxg6 39.Kg2 a5 40.Kxg3 Kf5 41.Kf3 Bc2 42.Kg3 Bxa4 43.Kf2 Ke4 44.Ke2 Bb5+ 45.Kd2 Bd3 46.f5 Kxf5 47.Kxd3 a4 48.Kc3 Ke4 49.Kb4 Kxe3 50.Kxa4 Kxd4 51.Kb4 Kd3 52.Ka5 Kc4 53.Kb6 d4 54.Kxc6 d3 55.Kd6 d2 56.c6 d1=Q+ 57.Ke7 Qe2+ 58.Kd6 Qd3+ 59.Ke7 Qe4+ 60.Kf6 Qxc6+ 61.Ke5 Qf3 62.Ke6 Kc5 63.Ke5 Qe2+ 64.Kf5 Kd5 65.Kf4 Qf2+ 66.Kg5 Ke5 67.Kg6 Qf5+ 68.Kg7 Qf6+ 69.Kh7 Qg5 70.Kh8 Kf6 71.Kh7 Qg7# 0-1

```

## EDIT #2:

I have tried again to beat computer with the same plan ( starting with `1...Qf6` ) and failed. It seems all Black can get is kingside pressure...

# Answer
It's a very interesting position. From your description I see that you are on the right path of planning. Let's see:

Clearly your queen-side is safe enough (unless you lose a couple of tempos), and although your bishop is in a completely defensive position on the 8th rank, it has still kept its prospect for a possible attack on white's king-side. Furthermore your rooks are in the best positions, each fulfilling a role(not wasted necessarily) and safe from any harassment (Ne5 e.g. has no immediate threat for you). Finally your queen is active enough on e7.

Now that we have summarized in a rather crude manner our position, let's see how's white doing:

No real weakness in his position, his rooks seem to be looking at a wall as b7 is perfectly safe for now, his knight is in a dynamic enough position on f3 (many maneuvers possible) and he has a slight control on h7 but it doesn't really matter since his queen+bishop are being refuted by single knight on f8.

Now that we have a clear picture of what the situation on both sides is, let's see what we can use as leverage:

Your idea with g6 preparing Ne6 to Ng5 was not a bad plan at all, possibly even forced if you ask an engine, but I don't really like it: simple fact that if we're saying that white's heavy pieces are far from any defense and very inactive (queen on c2 not doing much as long as e.g. you keep control on e4 and h7 with your knight), so if we (as black) have any chance of playing actively, it has to have a really quick tempo or else white builds up an opening on e-file with Re1, Nd2 and e4 happens (he will even have rook on the 3rd rank which can be brought into a king-side attack if e4 happens). As your game shows, your idea was good, but white has enough time for a defensive build up.

My suggestion: start off immediately with g5, with the plan to follow up with h5, very crudely, gaining possible tempo on knight harassment on f3 and forcing an exchange on g4 to open up the h-file, again if in any scenario white's knight is either retreated or exchanged, it's good for us as white's pieces are too far off and we're ok with a king-side pawn expansion (whole idea: gain space on his weak side, force line opening), further ideas to notice:

* Our bishop is always ready to contribute to the attack whenever needed.
* once h5 is played the knight on f8 is freed up as well
* kg7 is a likely move for us as white has no dark square control, so rook can swing eventually to h8
* we have enough control on e-file, so white cannot really hope for a counter-attack
* with g4 played so early, any Ne5 followed by f4 maneuver is avoided Finally before getting into possible lines, note that our only idea is to take the initiative with any tempo we can find and hope that white under pressure will fall, I say "hope" because if you feed this position to an engine it's possible that it will see boring draws all around or even like white's position better, so since we're not playing against an engine, such approach does work very well. Lets analyse a couple of possible follow-ups:

First line:

```
[Title "1st variation after g5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g5 2.a5 h5 3.Ne5 Nd7 4.Nxd7 Qxd7 5.Qe2 g4 6.h4 f5 7.g3 f4 8.gxf4 Qd8

```

With a very nice continuation for black, of course it's no checkmate anytime soon nor an easy win, but it's a position with solid attacking hopes for black.

```
[Title "2nd variation after g5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g5 2.a5 h5 3.Qe2 g4 4.Ne5 Qg5 5.f4 Qe7 6.Bc2 f6 7.Ng6 Qg7

```

Again a position with a number of weaknesses in white's position and initiative in black's hands.

```
[Title "3rd variation after g5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g5 2.Nh2 h5 3.Qe2 g4 4.hxg4 hxg4 5.Nxg4 Qh4 6.Ne5 f6 7.Ng6 Nxg6 8.Bxg6 Rg7 9.Bxe8 Rxg2+ 10.Kxg2 Bh3+ 11.Kh1 Bf1+ 12.Kg1 Bxe2

```

Again shows you how easy it is for white to go completely wrong in his defense. I think these 3 positions make it clear enough for your to see my idea basically, from this point it's more fruitful if we just keep discussing possible variations of any line you want, and don't hesitate asking any question regarding the positions or ideas discussed so far.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, checkmate, queens-gambit, attack, kingside
---


# Question
Title: When does the middlegame end and the endgame begin?
Is there any specific point where the middle-game ends and end-game begins? E.g. after x number of pieces are exchanged, or say 40 moves, etc.

# Answer
> 15 votes
One old definition of the endgame was when the main objective is to "queen a pawn," (as opposed to other goals such as forcing an imminent checkmate).

Now there is an exception noted in the comments where one side will try to mate the other side's lone king with a king and two bishops, or a king, bishop and knight. But it's likely that one side obtained this material advantage by trying to queen extra pawns, and forcing the other side to trade pieces for them.

# Answer
> 20 votes
There isn't a clear-cut definition of endgame, or a set of criteria where you could draw a line and say "after this move, we have reached the endgame."

Quoting Glenn Flear in his excellent book *Practical Endgame Play - Beyond the Basics*:

> The word 'endgame' is widely used and generally implies the final phase of the game (however long!), assuming that there already has been significant simplification. If we had to define the word more rigorously in terms of material then opinions vary. Some specialists consider all queenless positions to be endgames, others those where both sides have limited material, for instance less than queen and rook.

So basically, once the position becomes 'simplified' to the point where more often than not you are using your few remaining pieces (including the King) to try and queen a pawn, rather than organize an attack. Also included would be the end result of queening a pawn (or winning significant material), i.e. positions where you mate the King with only a few pieces on the board, like King and Rook vs. King.

# Answer
> 8 votes
According to the classic old book of Romanovski (which was one of the cornerstones of the Russian/Soviet school of chess) the endgame starts when the King assumes an active role.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The **middle game** starts as soon as the opening ends, and well, it is very easy to know when openings start and end, almost any opening (if not all) have names and are well known and studied. But if I were forced to say an specific moment in time, I would say around the time where they start castling or exchanging serious material to gain position advantage.

However, the **end game** is harder to accurately say when it starts, my best guess will be somewhere where the kings start moving towards the center and players have *usually* no more than 2 minor pieces or 4 pawns. Anytime where it is possible to calculate the result using Endgame Tablebases.

It is also worth mentioning that the point where something starts and ends vary from game to game (e.g if the players decide to quickly exchange material they will get to the endgame pretty soon), and some games don't even have end games (or even middle games!) if they blunder or fall in traps.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Quoting from rate your endgame by Edmar Mednis

*"...perhaps this is clearer when approached negatively"*

What does this mean? Well we know in endgames and middlegames, there are totally different plans. The most well known example is undoubtedly the Isolated Queen Pawn(IQP) case. IQP can offer dynamic chances in middlegame, but it's always a weakness in endgames. So by working retrogressively, we can know what phase we are in.

**In middlegame**

Better development, open file and misplaced pieces etc are crucial

**In endgame**

Pawn structure, availability of passed pawns, availability of weak pawns are crucial

**For example**

```
[FEN "3r1r2/1bp5/1p3k1p/pP4p1/4Pp1P/2P2P2/1P4RB/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

In this position, we clearly know that black has advantage, due to white's bad bishop and black's control over d-file. White, despite having a protected passed pawn and created a black backward pawn has no advantage.

Hence, we know that this position is a middlegame.

**Note** that there is not much mentioning of how much material must be removed before endgame starts. This is due to the fact that endgames can occur despite large amount of material on board. E.g. Queen pawn vs Queen pawn, Queen Rook Pawn vs Queen rook pawn and so on

# Answer
> 1 votes
The endgame begins when the kings can wander out from their hiding places without risking being checkmated.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Opening is the phase of the game where your strategic goal is to develop and you aim to build some sort of (direct or indirect) *territory control*: either an advantage or simply an unbalance.

Middlegame is when you start to *use that territory control* to achieve the next strategic goal like a direct attack (tactics is incidental here, not a purpose per se) or a conversion to a position where other strategic goals can be pursued like liquidation into a favorable ending.

Ending is either when you have built a positional/material advantage big enough and you simplify to remain in a position where you can force a win whatever defense the opponent uses, or more generally when you play to gain that advantage as main purpose.

Of course one can try gain to obtain a winning material advantage in the middlegame, but that is incidental and not the main goal one follows: material advantage is obtained, besides blunders, as consequence of/defence against some sort of direct attack.

In the endgame direct attack instead are used as threats and the main goal is as said reaching a forcefully winning positional or material advantage.

---
Tags: endgame, theory, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Is there a comprehensive coverage for Lasker variation of the Scandinavian defense?
Recently I was trying to improve Scandinavian defense in a way that I can reach "Viking" setup ( `...0-0-0 + ...Nc6 + ...Bg4` vs `d4` ). I am trying out various move orders, and have stumbled upon one that I believe would suit me the best:

```
[Title "Scandinavian defense, B01"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4

```

If White plays `6.Bc4` then I can reach my desired setup, which seems to give Black good play according to GM Eric Prié. Unfortunately, I can't afford subscription for the *Chess Publishing* and the article is dated.

My main interest is about positions with `6.h3!` since they can become very hard for Black, forcing him to play "only" moves. In order for answers to this question not to be to broad I am asking for comprehensive resources on the line with `6.h3` only. If space allows, I would appreciate if the answerer could list resources for other moves as well ( like `6.Bc4` ).

To repeat, is there a thorough coverage of the following line:

```
[Title "Scandinavian defense, B01"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3!

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
I don't think there is a coverage for this line, but if you don't mind, I have been playing this line for years, so here's my thought.

In this position, black generally takes on f3. The reason is that the move Bg4 per se is aiming to trade off the knight at f3, if not, black will have no reason to play this move among others.

**What if black doesn't exchange**

a) Bh4 in this position is okay, but white can expand on the king side with h3 and g4. Black cannot really exploit the weakness white created in kingside, as Black piece placement commands black play on queenside.Furthermore, the knight on f3 usually will become a strong piece occupying the outpost e5 in the game later on, while black's light squared bishop is a bad bishop due to blacks pawn structure. This all gives white huge initiative in kingside. For instance

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 e6 9.Bg2 c6 10.h4 Be4 11.Bxe4 Nxe4 12.Qf3 Nd6

```

b) Bf4 or any retreating move is dubious, if black plays this, black may as well just play 5. Bf4 at first instead of wasting a tempo, as black has given white a tempo and white can follow up with g4 Ne5 etc. For instance

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bf5 7.g4 Be4 8.Bd2 Bxf3 9.Qxf3

```

**What to do after exchange**

a) What usually goes is like this

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4 e6 10.O-O Be7 11.Rfe1 O-O

```

Black ends up with a solid position

b) Black can also try undermine white's d-pawn if white is careless, due to the lack of f3 knight

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.O-O-O O-O-O 10.Bc4 e6 11.Ne4 Qa4 12.Bb3 Qxd4 13.Nxf6 Qxf6

```

c) In some line, black can also play a Bronstein-Larsen-like game.

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4 e6 10.Ne4 Qb6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6

```

**Conclusion**

If you opt to play Bg4, then you should Bxf3, Bh5 is also playable. Ultimately, the position is something like Caro-Kann for black. Usually, black is behind in development in most lines due to the capture on f3, but the solid position of black compensates it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I was able to find the name of the line I'm interested in. It is called *Lasker variation*. It was taken up by GM *Ian Rogers* in the 1980s but ultimately a way for White to obtain an advantage was found.

After looking through the lines in my Fritz opening book, checking them with *Chess Informant ECO B ( 1984 )* and online, I have found that they haven't changed that much.

Since I dislike playing such positions I will rather play `6...Bxf3` and posted answer covered them enough for me ( I have checked that line too ). That is why I have officially accepted the answer, and will add mine here just so **current theory** of this line with `6...Bh5` can be given in case someone is interested:

```
[Title "Scandinavian defense, Lasker variation"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4! Bg6 8.Ne5 e6 ( 8...c6!? 9.h4 Ne4 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.Nxg6 Nxc3 12.Bxc3 hxg6 13.Qd2 e6 14.O-O-O ) ( 8...Nbd7 9.Nc4 Qa6 10.Bf4 Qe6+ $8 11.Ne3!? Qb6 12.Nb5! Rc8 13.g5!) 9.Bg2 c6 10.h4 Be4 11.Bxe4 Nxe4 12.Qf3 Nd6 13.Bf4 +/=

```

The sub-variation with `8...Nbd7` is analyzed in this *ChessCafe* article, which also gives brief history of the entire line and quickly examines main lines I have presented here.

---
Tags: theory, books, scandinavian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Can Black successfully finish this opening?
I am trying to revive an old line in the Scandinavian defense. Among the many lines I am analyzing, there is one position that looks promising.

I will leave out the lines / opening moves, to keep the post short, so here is the position I am interested in:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

```

I am currently analyzing `1...e6`, but my question is following: Can Black survive the opening **with equal chances** ?

Please back up your answers with **concrete analysis.**

Refrain from a "Let me Fritz / StockFish / Ryubka/ Houdini / ... this for you" approach. I have an engine and can do this myself. I need an answer that is clear and illustrates its point with concrete moves.

I am well aware that the question is hard and requires a lot of work, so I will understand if there will be no answers in the near future. Still, I will always be interested in this position (even after 10 years have passed or more), so if you have a solution, please feel free to post it if you like.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I actually used to play the Scandinavian a lot in blitz a couple of years ago, then got bored with my line and never used it again. The starting position in your diagram is actually one of the typical positions one reaches in this opening, although with slight variations, (like same position with e6, c6 already played etc.)

Since you said you've been working on e6 on your own, I figured I should spend time figuring out other lines. I have a lot of experience in Catalan like openings, so the main line I am going to suggest is slightly inspired by that.

Main line that I suggest is ...g6. For a couple of reasons:

1. This position can be transposed into a semi-Catalan because black has kept all the pawns on the 7th rank still, which allows for a very robust-slow type of development with a passive activation of pieces. Hence the fianchetto.
2. Although e6 may look very natural, and does cover a number of things, it doesn't create any prospect for the bishop as it will have to stay on e7 and not contribute much. Whereas a fianchetto'ed bishop on g7, for one thing avoids any exchange any time soon, and very importantly covers a crucial diagonal in the position, because as long as there's pressure on d4, c4 cannot be played easily by white, and queen may be temporarily restrained to defending d4 (e.g. in quick Qf3 lines d4 becomes very vulnerable) and we keep an eye on b2. Finally a possible expansion with c5 or e5 becomes plausible with Bg7.
3. Another strong element in our position which we should definitely leverage, is the queen, being already very active and not necessarily too exposed. Its main use in this position should be defensive (and of course space control) until black has securely finished development. So in the lines I will suggest, the queen will often end up defending here and there, but why not? After all the point is to make this position work in a sensible way.

Let's see some lines:

```
[Title "..g6 2.Re1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Re1 Bg7 3.Bf4 O-O 4.c3 Nd7 5.b4 Qd5 6.Bxc7 Rfc8 7.Bf4 Nf6 8.f3 a5

```

With a very playable active position for black, if anyone's winning here, it's black. B6-g1 diagonal is very weak, the b4-c3-d4 structure is very shaky and will cost white either some pawns or loss of activity if he goes for a complete defensive plan. Black has no worries and all the pieces are active, perfect so far!

Second g6 continuation:

```
[Title "..g6 ...Bg5 instead of Bf4"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Re1 Bg7 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bh4 g5 5.Bg3 Nd7 6.Qe2 O-O-O

```

Again black ends up with a solid structure and possible attacks all around: a king-side attack on white is the most natural plan from here. But a simple plan like exchanging knights and going for a better end-game works as well since our pawn advances haven't exhausted their possibilities yet (all on 7th rank) and the queen can immediately start putting pressure on white's queen-side and gain tempo for whatever other plan we may have.

Third line with g6:

```
[Title "..g6 2.Qf3 very crudely by white"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Ng5 Qf5 4.Qxf5 gxf5 5.c3 e6 6.Re1 h6 7.Nf3 O-O-O

```

A perfectly fine endgame for black, covering both g5 and e5 squares, an open line already available to us (g-file), no real worry in the position. Again an example leveraging the queen activity for defensive purposes.

4th line: (the only real dodgy line, but manageable)

```
[Title "..g6 2.Qf3...Nc5 instead of Ng5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Nc5 Nxd4 4.Qxb7 Rd8 5.Na6 Bg7 6.Nxc7+ Kf8 7.Be3 Bf6

```

Sure we lost a pawn in the process, but instead once Kg7 happens, our plan is pretty clear: Use the open files b-c for the rooks, make white lose tempo with mis-placed knight (almost trapped) on c7, gain tempo on his exposed queen, and finally we have 2 fine minor pieces on f6 and d4! Very playable.

5th line:

```
[Title "..g6 2.c4"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Bg5 O-O 4.Re1 Re8 5.b3 Nd7

```

Perfect position, 0 weaknesses, completed development, everything ready to plan any further attacks.

6th and last line with g6, the toughest for black:

```
[Title "..g6 2.Nc5 again crudely by white"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Nc5 Qb6 3.Re1 Na6 4.Nxa6 Qxa6 5.Bf4 O-O-O 6.Qf3 Rd7 7.c3 Bg7

```

I spent a lot of time to find a refutation to Nc5 and Qb6 was the only one that really worked(I went through very scary lines to finally find this one, hope it was worth it). Again the final position, goes without saying, is perfect for black considering the starting point for us was "being behind in development". No weaknesses, and once we have h5 and Qb5 played, everything is ready to focus our coordination on white's king-side. (useful moves for us here: e6, Bf6, Rg8...h5 g5..).

These were all the lines for g6 continuations, and honestly I like them all and find them very playable (practical terms), yeah it's true that they don't lead to very exciting middle games but hey we started off with a Scandinavian after all!!

Second alternative I had in mind was Nd7:

```
[Title "..Nd7 2.Qf3 "]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... Nd7 2.Qf3 f6 3.Bd2 Qa6 4.a4 e5 5.dxe5 Nxe5 6.Qf5 Be7 7.Bc3 Ng6 8.Rfe1 O-O

```

No pawns lost, development completed and easily refuted white's crude Qf3 with an active plan involving f6 instead of the passive h6. May seem shaky at first but we are no tempo behind in our defense.

```
[Title "..Nd7 2.Re1 "]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... Nd7 2.Re1 Nf6 3.Bd2 Qf5 4.Nc5 O-O-O 5.Re5 Qg4

```

Very solid position, with a quick queen side castle and we've kept all our g6 and e6 ideas active and open.

```
[Title "..Nd7 2.b3 passive-slow option for white "]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... Nd7 2.b3 e6 3.Bb2 Be7 4.c4 O-O-O 5.Bc3 Qf5 6.Ng3 Qg6 7.Qf3 Kb8

```

An example of white taking it slowly and us finishing development rather straightforwardly. With loads of options still on the table.

Finally two e6 lines to finish off my reply:

```
[Title "..e6 2.Qf3 "]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... e6 2.Qf3 Qf5 3.Bf4 Nc6 4.Ng3 Qa5 5.c3 O-O-O 6.Be3 f6 7.Qg4 Qd5 8.Nh5 f5

```

Another good example showing how useful the queen is in this position when it comes to immediate defensive needs (i.e. replying to crude ideas by white)

Last line e6 again, probably the most basic continuation of them all:

```
[Title "..e6 2.Re1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... e6 2.Re1 Be7 3.c3 O-O 4.Bf4 Nd7

```

Absolutely fine for black. I hope you find these ideas helpful, I personally like all the outcomes resulting from g6, with a lot of options left in the position. Basically I tried to consistently show that although the starting position (you've given) looks rather worrisome for black, the active queen on a5 can still save the day whenever white gets over ambitious and plays for crude attacks, and if he doesn't then black gets to finish development and keep a perfect composure in his position. From this point on, we should just discuss the specific lines that you may find interesting, in the lines I've discussed so far.

Last note: I have no idea whether all these lines will hold against an engine or in long long correspondence chess, but then again we don't care about those formats here, the idea was to make one of the variants of Scandinavian work, an opening one doesn't play against an engine anyway! Don't hesitate asking any question that you may have.

**EDIT:** As pointed out by Wes, the 4th line suggested for ..g6 contained some inaccuracies, hereby I suggest some improvements:

```
[Title "7..Be5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Nc5 Nxd4 4.Qxb7 Rd8 5.Na6 Bg7 6.Nxc7+ Kf8 7.Be3 Be5 8.Bxd4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bf6 10.a4 Kg7 11.b4 Qf5 12.Rac1 Rd7

```

Very active position for black, pressure on c3, rooks doubling soon, white knight in an awkward pin, queen limited to knight's defense...very playable

```
[Title "7..Be5 8.Rfd1 To Be Avoided by black"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Nc5 Nxd4 4.Qxb7 Rd8 5.Na6 Bg7 6.Nxc7+ Kf8 7.Be3 Be5 8.Rfd1 Bxc7 9.Bxd4 Bxh2+ Kf1

```

Here is one line to be avoided by black (Bxc7 not possible) as Kf1 can be replied after taking on h2, otherwise if Kxh2, Rxd4 Rxd4..Qe5+ wins back rook and equal position. So after Rfd1 black is kinda stuck with his pieces, maybe some h-pawn move to free up room for the other rook (so g8 square remains available for the king if needed). But all this can be avoided by playing Qb6 after Na6, a complete transposition, as follows:

```
[Title "5..Qb6 Queen-king combo: Saving the day"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Nc5 Nxd4 4.Qxb7 Rd8 5.Na6 Qb6 6.Nxc7+ Kd7 7.Qe4 Bg7 8.c3 f5 9.Qe1 Kxc7

```

And black is back in game, after having found the nice resource with Qb6 and Kd7 making use of the mis-placed knight. (note here Qxe7+ not possible as Rd7 wins a piece). If white exchanges queens on b6 then it's equilibrated again as c2 pawn falls:

```
[Title "Queen exchange line"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Nc5 Nxd4 4.Qxb7 Rd8 5.Na6 Qb6 6.Nxc7+ Kd7 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Nd5 Nxc2

```

One last variation (there are many others of course):

```
[Title "8.Nd5 line for white"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn2kb1r/ppp1pppp/8/q7/3PN3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Nc5 Nxd4 4.Qxb7 Rd8 5.Na6 Qb6 6.Nxc7+ Kd7 7.Qe4 Bg7 8.Nd5 Qe6 9.Qxe6+ fxe6 10.Nc3 Nxc2 11.Rb1 e5

```

With the knight coming back to land on d4, very promising endgame.

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


# Question
Title: What squares are the most active for bishops?
For a beginner:

* Where are bishops mostly exchanged or placed?
* Where are knights mostly exchanged or placed?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The f3/f6/c3/c6 tend to be where most knights are exchanged. That is because in beginner play, if the opponent tries to push the pin with h3/h6/a3/a6, the person who has pinned the knight with the bishop typically exchanges, and this tends to be a beginner fault..

---
Tags: tactics, positional-play, knights, bishops
---


# Question
Title: Deep Rybka vs Deep Fritz vs Houdini vs (other), which one to buy?
I want to invest my hard-earned money to buy a chess engine which can help me to:

* analyze games easily
* experiment with different opening repertoire
* strategical analysis
* positional play

I don't expect an answer like, all are good enough to beat a human player, etc. **I am not looking for an engine whom I can beat**, as I know it's not humanly possible for a 1600 rated player to beat these engines, but my purposes are different (as given above).

So, if you have or use any of these engines, **please let me know a comparative detail on which one I should go for.**

# Answer
I would suggest you look into some open source engines. And tools for analysis. These will be free. Some will be quite fully featured and very very powerful:

Stockfish. Rating: 3121 Critter (free) Rating: 3207

Also, look into SCID: an information database to which you can import millions of games and pair the database with analysis engines, add chess move-engines etc. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane%27s\_Chess\_Information\_Database

note 1: there are millions (literally) of master games which have been annotated, and can be downloaded in zipped .pgn files, then which can be imported to SCID for play through etc. So analysis, openings, endgames etc, can all be analysed via scid though whichever engines you decide on (no reason to only have one).

note 2: Crafty finished in second place in the 2010 Fifth Annual ACCA Americas' Computer Chess Championships. Crafty lost only one game to the first place winner Thinker.

note 3: In various computer chess rankings Stockfish 2.1.1 was second or third behind the top gratis program Houdini and the free program Critter.

Good Luck!
> 12 votes

# Answer
About a year ago, I chose Houdini. I had read that Houdini excelled at position evaluations while the other engines tried to excel with tactics but seemed inferior with positional concepts. Using Houdini and comparing it with Fritz, I agree that it is positionally stronger. I also observe that Houdini is very strong with tactics. Houdini can quickly find mat in 15 and other things that are beyond my comprehension. But position play and position evaluations are far more important since those concepts often have a longer range impact.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The other answers are a bit old... The best answer is Stockfish 5. Stockfish 5 is rated number one on the rating list

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

and it's free!
> 2 votes

# Answer
Houdini if you want to spend, Stockfish for a free engine. Houdini is simply the most human-like.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I would prefer you to buy shredder as per my experience.I honour the suggestions made by others like rybka, stockfish 5, deepfritz etc... but I personally feel that shredder is good as it has helped me improve my game a lot.I started with a mere FIDE rating of 1326 and now have ended up in 2398.In achieving all this shtedder has helped me a lot.You may visit rhe following site to know more about shredder http://www.shredderchess.com. They have also got a free online version of it.
> 0 votes

# Answer
To the best of my chess knowledge I would purchase the best ever software on this earth it is Houdini. It is simply incredible. No software has ever beaten Houdini.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: engines, learning, software
---


title: Good chess opening for a beginner

text:
# Question
Title: Good chess opening for a beginner
I am a beginner and my chess opening is pretty weak. Can you suggest me an opening that is easy to learn and is suitable for a beginner like me?

# Answer
> 10 votes
As it stands now, your post will be marked as duplicate, so I will answer fast before it is closed.

> Can you suggest me an opening that is easy to learn and is suitable for a beginner like me?

This is very hard to do, because your opponent will **always** have chance to play the move that transposes into different opening. Studying seriously openings **will limit your development** because you don't know which style suits you. **That should be your main goal -\> to "discover" your style, to find out what suits you and what not.**

To achieve this, you need to learn **basic** endgames first, tactics second and then typical middlegame positions.

At your level of skill, you just need to **survive** the opening relying on **general opening principles.** Your goal will be to leave the opening **with equal position.**

Just play **any** opening that you find **interesting**, and experiment. **Try them all out, don't be afraid!** Once you find out which opening suits you, ask a question about it here and we shall further help you.

This was the best thing I ever did when I was a beginner! I found a partner that was way stronger than me, but was willing to teach me by playing with me. I tried all sorts of openings against him until I found those that I had "natural gift" for. Maybe you have talent for closed openings or open games, but you will find that out only by trying out different openings.

So remember:

1. **Learn basic opening principles!**
2. **Play everything**, there is enough online documentation on any opening for a beginner level ( ask here for help if you get stuck )!
3. Work **very hard** on tactics!

For now, this is enough. Once you feel confident in your skills ( once you estimate that you have improved enough for intermediate level ) come back here and ask us for further advice.

Good luck, young grasshopper! :)

# Answer
> 4 votes
With white start with 1.e4 and study open games, something like the Italian or Scotch game, later the Ruy Lopez.

Of course black will try also Sicilian, French or Caro-Kan. You have to know something about all of this: so for Sicilian study at least 1.e4 c5 2.c3, for French and Caro-Kan the advance 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 and 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5.

Another option is to play 1.Nf3 and forget about any study of the openings. You will spend time in the first moves, but few people at lower levels have any idea about why on earth you did not push a pawn as first move.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'd recommend the KIA(King's Indian Attack). It is very easy to learn and it is very good for beginner play.

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


# Question
Title: How to download Stockfish and install it on the Fritz/ChessBase GUI?
I'm on Windows 8. I have the Fritz/ChessBase GUI since I bought both Fritz 12 and Houdini 3 Pro.

I would like to know how exactly can I download and install the free latest version (and most powerful version) of Stockfish.

I've found this website to download Stockfish: http://stockfishchess.org/

But after I click on the big green button that says "Download Stockfish 5 for Windows" I don't know what to do. Should I select "Save File" or "Open with"? And after that what do I do?

Please try to explain it step by steps because I'm not that good with computers.

.

.

@AlwaysLearningNewStuff: Thanks for your answer, but I did not succeed. I downloaded the file. I moved it to C:\Program Files (x86)\ChessBase. I clicked on "Create UCI engine".

Then I clicked on the "..." button (which looks to be the "Browse..." button). I went in C:\Program Files (x86)\ChessBase.

But then clicking on one of the three files does not work.

Maybe the problem comes from the fact that the icon for Stockfish is different than the the other icons:

# Answer
First download StockFish. You click on the button shown in the below image and choose "Save as". It will be saved as `.rar` file, which you can open with WinRar, 7Zip or similar utility...

Then you unzip it ( put it where you want ). After that run Fritz, and choose *Engine -\> Create UCI engine* like in the picture below:

The following dialog box will pop up, after which you need to press *Browse* button:

Then you will see a dialog box that will help you find StockFish. Once you find it, select it and click *Open* ( *in the picture below I didn't click on the StockFish when creating screen capture; sorry, I just forgot to do it* ) :

After Fritz finishes loading engine your dialog box should look something like the image below. Then just click on the *OK* button:

That should do it. I think that the procedure is the same for ChessBase. To use StockFish instead of Fritz, press *F3*, select StockFish from the list of engines in the dialog box that pops, and click *OK* button. Wait a few seconds and you will be good to go.

That's all, if you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Quick Analysis of best possible move in this board
What's black's best possible move and why?

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r3k3/pp2b3/1qn1Np2/2p1p2Q/4P2p/1NP4P/PP3Pr1/2KR4 b - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
> What's black's best possible move and why?

Unfortunately, Black will lose this game. His king is indeed in check, but he can postpone mate only with `1...Rg6`. The problem with Black's position is that king has no viable retreat:

1. He can't go to `d-file` as he would be in check from rook on `d1`;
2. He can't go to `f8` because he would be in check from knight on `e6`;
3. He can't go to `e7` as Black bishop stands there;
4. He can't go to `f7` because White queen controls that square so he would be again in check;

After `1...Rg6` White plays `Qxg6` and gives checkmate:

```
[Title "White mates after Rg6"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r3k3/pp2b3/1qn1Np2/2p1p2Q/4P2p/1NP4P/PP3Pr1/2KR4 b - - 0 1"]

1...Rg6 2.Qg6# 1-0

```

---
Tags: analysis, tactics
---


title: How to interpret lifetime score

text:
# Question
Title: How to interpret lifetime score
I can not understand what the following numbers mean:

> Gligorić had the following record against the world champions he played against: Max Euwe +2 -0 =5, Mikhail Botvinnik +2 −2 =6, Vasily Smyslov +6 −8 =28, Tigran Petrosian +8 −11 =19, Mikhail Tal +2 −10 =22, Boris Spassky +0 −6 =16, Bobby Fischer +4 −7 =8, Anatoly Karpov +0 −4 =6 and Garry Kasparov +0 −3 =0.

I took them from here. I do understand that it tracks statistics against a particular opponent in all games, but what is this strange mathematics mean: **+8 −11 =19**?

# Answer
> 6 votes
> but what is this strange mathematics mean: +8 −11 =19?

This is not mathematical notation. The three symbols are not there so you can add or subtract numbers. They mean the following:

* `+` is the number of victories;
* `-` is the number of defeats;
* `=` is the number of draws player achieved against an opponent;

So in the following example:

> Gligorić had the following record against the world champions he played against: Max Euwe +2 -0 =5

Gligoric had 2 victories, no defeats and five draws against Max Euwe.

Against Fisher he had +4 -7 =8, meaning he won 4 games against him, lost 7 and drew 8.

# Answer
> 5 votes
**+8 -11 =19** means: **Won 8, lost 11 and drew 19**

---
Tags: history, world-championship
---


title: On blunders in PGNs

text:
# Question
Title: On blunders in PGNs
Let us say that I commit a blunder in a chess game. One that is deserving for a ??, a mate in one let us say. My opponent misses it. With what mark should the move be written in a pgn? Left markless, or with a ?!. Or perhaps with something else?

# Answer
> 2 votes
In the specific case you give, both the move that allowed the mate in one and the move that failed to take it are clear ??'s: they're both absoutely terrible moves.

# Answer
> 0 votes
A blunder is a blunder regardless of the opponent's response. Allowing mate in one in a playable position always deserves a ?? if you are adding annotations to a game.

---
Tags: pgn, notation, terminology, blunder
---