title: Is the dead position problem solvable?

text:
# Question
Title: Is the dead position problem solvable?
In chess, there are some dead positions (FIDE Laws of Chess).

> 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7

Arbiters or players will terminate the game OTB, but is it possible to have computer solutions for dead position detection? If it is, then how?

# Answer
> 13 votes
Computer detection of dead positions is much trickier than people think. It is unlikely that an algorithm exists that runs in reasonable time and is 100% accurate.

It is easy to check for a simple condition like insufficient material (K+B v K, K+N v K). It is less easy to check for cases with blocked pawns, for instance:

```
2b1k3/8/8/1p1p1p1p/1P1P1P1P/8/8/2B1K3 w - - 0 1

```

since there are a lot of legal moves to check. Computers aren't based on intuition like humans: you'd have to enumerate every single possible continuation for up to 150 ply without pawn moves/captures (those reset the counter) and check that *none* of them end up in checkmate for either side.

You could try other tricks, like trying to store the positions reached in a tree and checked that none of the reachable positions are mate. That's only 76176 positions for the example I gave, but you'd need to check that the tree is indeed exhaustive - i.e. *every* legal move in *every* position must be tried. That's not going to be efficient.

You could also try to invent some arbitrary heuristics to help your algorithm, like checking for blocked pawns and same coloured bishops. The problem with this approach is that sometimes the heuristics are wrong, or they aren't general enough. (Brian Tower's answer is an example of an attempted heuristic, but in the comments user17439 shows it fails to flag some dead positions and I show it incorrectly flags a non-dead position.)

And I would love to see any heuristic or algorithm that can distinguish between the following positions (problem by Andrew Buchanan, StrateGems 2002)

Dead:

```
Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/1P6/p5P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

Alive:

```
Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/pP6/6P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

The second position is alive since mate is possible after

```
1.Ka6 Ke8 2.Bb7 Kd8 3.Bc8 Ke8 4.Bd7+ Kd8 5.Be8 Kc8 6.Bf7 Kd8 7.Bg8 Ke8 8.Kb7 Kd8 9.g5 Ke8 10.Kc8 a4 11.Bf7#

```

In sum, I do not believe you can have an algorithm that is 100% accurate in distinguishing between dead and alive positions that runs in reasonable time. Brute force is the only 100% reliable method, but it is definitely not efficient. You can get a decent success rate for "practical" positions with heuristics, but it will not be 100% accurate, even for real game positions.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Miguel Ambrona’s CHA solver “Chess Unwinnability Analyzer” (GitHub repo, white paper) is an efficient solution to this problem. It uses an incomplete algorithm to analyse positions and determine whether there is a possible checkmate by either side, optionally falling back to a slower, more thorough “brute force” analysis when the incomplete algorithm isn’t able to conclude whether a checkmate is possible with certainty.

In practice, the thorough search only ends up being necessary for constrained positions where there are few moves available for each side, so even then it ends up being fast.

From the paper:

> Definition (Unwinnability) We say that a position is unwinnable for a given player if there does not exists a sequence of legal moves that ends in a checkmate by the player.
>
> Note that the above definition focuses on whether a specific player can still win, typically the player whose opponent ran out of time. Concluding that a position is dead would require two individual analyses, one for each player as the intended winner.
>
> \[…\]

# Answer
> 4 votes
I would expect that it is a good bit easier to write a program that is good at detecting dead positions than to write a program that plays chess well.

A simple strategy may be to play out a large number of games randomly to the end starting from the position given. If the position is dead, none of the playouts will have a result different from draw. If on the other hand the position is not dead, the probability that one playout discovers a helpmate (it need not be the shortest one) approaches one as the number of playouts tends to infinity.

In practical terms, I would conservatively expect a well-optimized random mover to be able to reach on the order of ten million playouts per second on a single core of a modern CPU. Under this assumption, 100 million random playouts per second are not unreasonable on a current PC. If we allow roughly a minute for resolution of a position as dead or alive, we can therefore probably do a few billion playouts and hence fairly reliably detect any helpmate that is found with likelihood more than, say, one in one billion under a random playout policy.

Edited: This simple strategy is likely not enough to practically solve cases like Remellion's example further up in this thread.

Nonetheless, the point stands that an algorithm that declares a position to be dead when no helpmate can be found within some computational budget will only return a wrong answer if the position contains a helpmate it cannot find. In that sense, the decision problem for dead positions is at most as hard as the problem of finding helpmates. There are good helpmate solvers and they have no trouble solving e.g. the "alive" position given by Remellion (see for instance this online solver ).

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think the answer is probably not. In fact I would say that the introduction of the dead position rule to replace the previous draw by insufficient material was a mistake. (Btw why did FIDE excise the draw by insufficient material rule when they introduced the dead position rule but not the stalemate rule?)

The following position is dead under FIDE competition rules because there is no legal continuation that will result in mate before the game terminates under the 75 move rule.

```
7k/3N4/5K2/6B1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

White to play. Ply count field in FEN 146.

The following position is also dead if the position (as defined in the 5 fold repetition rule) that would occur after Kf7 has already occurred four times previously.

```
7k/3N4/5K2/6B1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

White to play. Ply count field in FEN 144.

The arbiter (and any software seeking to solve the dead position problem) needs to keep track of possible helpmates taking both the 75 move rule and 5 fold repetition rules into account.

How do arbiters cope? The answer of course is they don't. The following game actually terminated in a dead position with White's move 132, but was recorded as a draw under the 75 move rule after Black's move 132 (which wasn't actually part of the game).

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1825274

For software to cope it would require helpmate EGTBs.

Since helpmates are generally shorter than forced mates these would *possibly* take less computation than the existing forced mate variants under FIDE basic rules (which now exclude any n move or n fold repetition rules) but the fact is there are also many more positions where helpmates are possible and forced mates are not, so the storage requirement would be much greater.

Under FIDE competition rules the EGTBs would need to store helpmate lengths under a DTZ75 metric for all possible combinations of positions that have been repeated four times and both the computation and storage requirements would greatly exceed those required for the current forced mate EGTBs.

I would also class the following position as dead according to the FIDE rules. (There is nothing in the FIDE rules that states that a position can become dead only as a result of a move being 'made' under art 4.7 and before a piece is touched as in art 4.3 by the player who then has the move - indeed on my reading the two events may be simultaneous.)

```
k6K/8/6PR/7P/8/8/8/1R6 w - - 0 1

```

White to play. White has touched the h6 rook.

Of course if the solution is required only for computer "chess" the solution could ignore such positions, because computer "chess" never properly implements art 4. But if the solution were intended as an aid to arbiters or chess players then these situations would also need to be taken into account (whether under basic or competition rules).

# Answer
> 0 votes
Detecting for insufficient materials for checkmate is super easy. Just get the FEN position, and look for the number of pieces remaining and what they are.

The second solution requires enumerating all possibilities until a certain depth. If there is really no legal way to make progress, the variations will quickly repeat. A modern laptop should have the memory to do it.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There are two classes of dead position (positions from which helpmate is impossible)

* Insufficient material
* Positions where both pawn moves are impossible and future captures are also impossible

The first is trivial to program. The second less so but I think still possible. Checking for possible pawn moves is straightforward. Checking for possible future piece captures is less straightforward but should still be possible.

---
Tags: software, programming, computer-chess, chess-algorithms, dead-position
---


title: Ancient style chess games?

text:
# Question
Title: Ancient style chess games?
I know there are some really old games on the internet there , but are there records of any really good/great games played in the ancient style of chess ?

This style had rules like pawns could move only one square at a time. Rook's pawn promotion would be a rook , bishop's pawn would be bishop etc.

# Answer
> 6 votes
**TL;DR:** there are recorded games for Shatranj from the 10th century onward, but I haven't found the variant asked for by the OP.

---

The earliest recorded game of *modern* chess was 1475:

> 1475: Castellvi-Vinoles, Valencia 1475. The first documented chess game played with the modern queen and bishop moves; the moves were described in the poem Scachs d'amor.

Source: wikipedia

Going to the predecessor of modern chess we have Shatranj:

> The earliest listing of works on chess \[Shatranj\] is in the **Fihrist**, a general bibliography produced in 377 AH (988 AD) by Ibn al-Nadim. It includes an entire section on the topic of chess.

Source: wikipedia

chess2u.com provides, what they claim to be, the oldest recorded chess game (10th century):

> 1. f3 f6 2. f4 f5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Rg1 Rg8 6. h3 h6 7. e3 e6 8. g4 fxg4 9. hxg4 g5 10. fxg5 hxg5 11. d3 d6 12. e4 e5 13. Be3 Be6 14. Nxg5 Ke7 15. c3 Nxg4 16. Ke2 c6 17. d4 d5 18. b3 b6 19. Nd2 Nd7 20. Qc2 Qc7 21. Qd3 Qd6 22. Ndf3 Ndf6 23. Bh3 Bh6 24. Bf5 Bf4 25. Rac1 a6 26. c4 Rac8 27. c5 bxc5 28. Bxc5 Ke8 29. dxe5 Nxe5 30. Nxe6 Rxg1 31. Rxg1 Nxf3 32. Kxf3 1-0 (Black resigns)

```
[FEN ""]
[Title "Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli–Abu’l- Faraj bin al-Muzaffar bin Sa’-id al-Lajlaj, 10th Century"]

1. f3 f6 2. f4 f5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Rg1 Rg8 6. h3 h6 7. e3 e6 8. g4 fxg4 9. hxg4 g5 10. fxg5 hxg5 11. d3 d6 12. e4 e5 13. Be3 Be6 14. Nxg5 Ke7 15. c3 Nxg4 16. Ke2 c6 17. d4 d5 18. b3 b6 19. Nd2 Nd7 20. Qc2 Qc7 21. Qd3 Qd6 22. Ndf3 Ndf6 23. Bh3 Bh6 24. Bf5 Bf4 25. Rac1 a6 26. c4 Rac8 27. c5 bxc5 28. Bxc5 Ke8 29. dxe5 Nxe5 30. Nxe6 Rxg1 31. Rxg1 Nxf3 32. Kxf3 {Black resigns} 1-0

```

However I haven't found any sources for the variant you mention.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you are interested in historical versions of the game, or generally in chess history, then you would be interested in Winter's Chess Notes, start at the wiki entry for "Edward Winter (chess historian)"

There is a nice bibliography at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_chess#References

and that then points to the classic text on the subject by Murray, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.\_J.\_R.\_Murray

Peter

# Answer
> 2 votes
"Pawns promote to 'their' piece (Rook pawn to a rook, etc) is a feature of Tamerlane Chess, a 14th century variant.

I'm unaware of any recorded games of this variant.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Grant Acedrex, a chess game on a 12x12 board described in the year 1283, had the rule that pawns would promote to the piece that had started on the promotion square (no matter where the pawn itself started). Promoting on the King square would give you an 'Aanca' (in English usually referred to as Griffon, but really referring to a monstrous mythical bird preying on elephants), the piece that started next to the king.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Dashpaad and Ashtpaad boards were used in olden days. Pawns were moving legitimate moves unlike todays (only 1 step at a time).

Kautilya Arthshastra is a book as a perfect reference.

References (6 Principles):

Military and Layout as per Dashpaad (Simulation)

---
Tags: famous-games
---


# Question
Title: How can I query an endgame tablebase for multiple positions using loops/conditional statements?
In textbooks you find diagrams about key squares and similar concepts. For example, white can promote a pawn if white's king can control three particular squares infront of the pawn. I would like to analyze tablebase evaluations of multiple positions to arrive at similar but more complicated conclusions, for example going through all possible positions of King and Queen vs King and Rooks pawn on the seventh rank and show all positions of the white king that win (this is also known already, but you get the idea).

Which software could be used to query a tablebase in such a way? I would be very glad for any suggestions, thanks a lot!

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can use Lichess. https://lichess.org/api#tag/Tablebase Here is an example where I used Lichess table base for my chess engine : https://github.com/PaulJeFi/ramses-chess/blob/main/tablebase\_online.py

---
Tags: endgame, programming, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: "chess problem" software (free/paid) to download for PC?
I tried one a while back but it was quite elementary, it had a few thousand problems but did not give detailed answers, just one single move as correct and that's it!

I do play Chesstempo sometimes but don't always have internet connection and also I want something I can have on my computer if I'm outside or somewhere there is no connection so I can do that, one with range of problems, not just tactics but like endgame stuff too that sometimes is more tough to calculate than tactic. Any programs you're aware of?

Edit: I only saw a thread on training particular chess tactics but that's not what I'm looking for, just chess problems of all sorts.

# Answer
> 4 votes
LucasChess is the best free software out there. You can add any engine you like and you can analyze your games with multiple engines. It also has a training mode for tactics, openings, and endgame.

I highly recommend it. I recommended it to a friend who loved it so much that he hardly uses his Chessmaster these days.

Here's the link:

**https://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com/**

# Answer
> 1 votes
If we are talking about chess composition, i.e. mate problems in n moves with thematic variations, you need a software specialized in the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_for\_handling\_chess\_problems

Of course, I have a preference for the one I designed and developed: Problemist www.problemist.com.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The first thing you need is the problem database (e.g. a PGN file containing the variations). There are many chess programs that have built-in training modes, i.e. they'll ask you to find the next move. A free program supporting this is SCID. Any variations can be in the database (not just tactics).

# Answer
> 0 votes
CT-Art has great tactics that you can buy for like $35. It runs through this program called Peshk@. Its full of tons and tons of tactics that are organized thematically (forks - split into knight forks, pawn forks, etc. - , pins, destroying the defense). After working through some thematically you can 'test' and pick to shuffle together the tactics.

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Uniformly generate random chess positions
I want to generate a random legal standard chess position. By legal I mean a chess position that can be reached from the starting position in some amount of moves. My problem is that I want this generation to be uniformly distributed over all legal chess positions. This is of course theoretically possible to achieve, simply make an array of all legal chess positions and then generate an integer between 0 and that length of the array. I was wondering however if there is a way to do this and finish in a "reasonable" amount of time on a modern cpu.

I realize that I maybe have to change the definition of legal chess position to achieve this. If I instead choose rules like

* Exactly one king on both sides.
* No king can be captured on the next move.
* No more than 16 pieces on either side.
* No more than 9 pieces of any particular piece. (No more than 8 pawns.)
* No pawns on rank 1 and 8.

etc. This will be approximately all legal chess positions but I'm sure there are exceptions. Is it however even possible to generate uniformly distributed positions obeying a set of rules like the above?

# Answer
There's no approach which can give you the distribution you want better than brute force enumeration. The problem is, at the very least, at least as difficult as identifying the number of possible positions after N moves, which is non-trivial.

If you had an oracle which generated positions, and you wanted to validate that it is actually a uniform distribution, it would be at least as difficult as looking at a given position and determining if it is reachable in N moves.

Once N gets big enough, you may be able to solve this. At some point the number of legal positions that cannot be reached shrinks. We could compute N by looking at how many moves it takes to construct a pawn structure plus the number of moves to get every piece to any location on the board.

For small N, you can brute force. For large N, you can assume all legal positions are reachable. In the middle is troublesome indeed.
> 3 votes

# Answer
There are many ways to generate positions for perft tests. This approach uses the positions in the pgn file. In this example I use the candidates 2022 games.

You can use other pgn files to generate positions.

### Code

python script using python-chess library.

```
"""Generate positions from candidates 2022 positions.

Python:
  version >= 3.7

requirements:
  pip install chess
"""

import chess.pgn

def genpos(pgnfile):
    """Save positions from pgnfile.

    Read each position in each game in pgnfile and for each position,
    generate all legal moves and save the resulting positions in epd format.
    Also save the current position.

    Sample output:
      rnb1kbnr/pp2pppp/1q1p4/8/3NP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq -,42

    The 42 is the number of legal moves.
    """
    tmp = {}  # {<epd1,legalmoves>: 1, <epd2,legalmoves>: 1, ...}

    with open(pgnfile, 'r') as f:
        while True:
            game = chess.pgn.read_game(f)
            if game is None:
                break

            for node in game.mainline():
                board = node.parent.board()
                epd = board.epd()
                print(epd)  # console log

                # Copy the current board and generate all moves, get
                # the epd and save it.
                tboard = board.copy()
                for m in tboard.legal_moves:
                    # Push the move and save the resulting position.
                    tboard.push(m)
                    tepd = tboard.epd()

                    # Save unique positions only.
                    legal_moves = tboard.legal_moves.count()
                    key = f'{tepd},{legal_moves}'
                    if key not in tmp:
                        tmp[key] = 1
                    tboard.pop()  # unmake and continue

                # Also save the current position.
                legal_moves = board.legal_moves.count()
                key = f'{epd},{legal_moves}'
                if key not in tmp:
                    tmp[key] = 1

    # Save positions in a file.
    with open('candidates.epd', 'w') as w:
        for epd in list(tmp.keys()):
            w.write(f'{epd}\n')

# Start
pgnfile = 'wchcand22.pgn'
# download: https://theweekinchess.com/assets/files/pgn/wchcand22.pgn
genpos(pgnfile)

```

### Output

```
1r4r1/5p1k/p2p1qQp/2b1nPp1/p7/6RP/B1R2PPK/2B5 b - -,5
1r4r1/5p1k/p2p1q1p/2b1nPQ1/p7/6RP/B1R2PPK/2B5 b - -,48
1r4r1/5p1k/p2p1q1p/2b1nPp1/p6Q/6RP/B1R2PPK/2B5 b - -,48
1r4r1/5p1k/p2p1q1p/2b1nPp1/p5Q1/6RP/B1R2PPK/2B5 b - -,46
1r4r1/5p1k/p2p1q1p/2b1nPp1/p7/5QRP/B1R2PPK/2B5 b - -,47

```

The 5, 48 ... are the legal moves from the given positions. Test your engine with those legal moves.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming
---


# Question
Title: Is there a tool to convert the lines from a pgn file to figurine notation?
I need a tool to convert the lines from a pgn file to figurine notation. to paste later in a word processor, any suggestions?

# Answer
You can use a python script to read the pgn file using python-chess library. Examine each move and get the piece (K, Q ... k, q ...) and convert each specific piece symbol to figurine.

### Output

```
[Event "FIDE Candidates 2022"]
[Site "Madrid ESP"]
[Date "2022.06.17"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Duda, Jan-Krzysztof"]
[Black "Rapport, Richard"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "2764"]
[BlackFideId "738590"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[ECO "B44"]
[EventDate "2022.06.17"]
[Opening "Sicilian defence"]
[WhiteElo "2750"]
[WhiteFideId "1170546"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]

1.♙e4 ♟c5 2.♘f3 ♟e6 3.♙d4 ♟cxd4 4.♘xd4 ♞c6 5.♗f4 ♟d6 6.♘xc6 ♟bxc6 7.♗d3 ♞e7 8.♙c4 ♟g6 9.♙c5 ♟e5 10.♗g5 ♝g7 11.♙cxd6 ♛xd6 12.O-O ♝e6 13.♘a3 ♜d8 14.♗e2 ♛xd1 15.♖fxd1 ♜xd1+ 16.♗xd1 ♚d7 17.♗e2 ♞c8 18.♖d1+ ♚c7 19.♗c4 ♝g4 20.♙f3 ♟f6 21.♗e3 ♝d7 22.♗e2 ♟h5 23.♘c2 ♝f8 24.♙a3 ♟a5 25.♔f1 ♝e6 26.♗d2 ♚b6 27.♘e3 ♞d6 28.♖c1 ♟c5 29.♗e1 ♝h6 30.♖d1 ♜d8 31.♘d5+ ♝xd5 32.♖xd5 ♝e3 33.♖d3 ♝d4 34.♖b3+ ♚c6 35.♗xa5 ♜a8 36.♖b6+ ♚d7 37.♖a6 ♜xa6 38.♗xa6 ♝xb2 39.♙a4 ♟c4 40.♗b4 ♟h4 41.♔e2 ♚c6 42.♗a5 ♝c1 43.♗d8 ♝g5 44.♔d1 ♚d7 45.♗b6 ♚c6 46.♙a5 ♝f4 47.♔c2 ♟f5 48.♔c3 ♟fxe4 49.♙fxe4 ♞xe4+ 50.♔xc4 ♞d6+ 51.♔b4 ♝xh2 52.♗e2 ♟e4 53.♗c5 ♞f5 54.♗b5+ ♚c7 55.♗b6+ ♚b7 56.♗c4 ♞d6 57.♗e2 ♚c6 58.♗c5 ♞f5 59.♗b5+ ♚c7 60.♙a6 ♝d6 61.♙a7 ♝xc5+ 62.♔xc5 ♚b7 63.♗c6+ ♚xa7 64.♗xe4 ♞e3 65.♔d4 ♞xg2 66.♗xg2 ♟g5 67.♗h3 ♟g4 68.♗xg4 ♟h3 69.♗xh3

```

##### Open in ms word
> 6 votes

---
Tags: pgn, chess-font
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a webpage with chess puzzles in which you had to mentally play a couple moves before an interesting position arised
As per the title; instead of the typical chess puzzle in which a side has to play and find the best move, you were given a couple moves and then were asked about the resulting position.

I guess I found it a couple years ago, lost track of it, and after some googling I've found nothing at all.

The idea is quite similar to the answer provided by @bramwhqb: https://listudy.org/en/blind-tactics/547

# Answer
> 4 votes
You mean blindfold puzzles. The only site I know that has them is listudy: https://listudy.org/en/blind-tactics/547

---
Tags: training, puzzles, websites, identify-this
---


# Question
Title: As Black, how do you deal with the double pawns in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation?
How does Black deal with the double pawns c7 and c6 on the Ruy Lopez exchange variation? In other words, after:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4

```

I feel that the doubled pawns are cumbersome, and I don't know how to use these two pawns in action. In the endgame, this can become a liability.

So, how can I use the doubled pawns to my advantage?

# Answer
Short: You don't.

Long: Those pawns will be a liability whatever you do (only in rare cases they do a breakthrough on the queenside - there was a very famous game with a b5 break), they aren't even very useful for center control. Your asset is the bishop pair instead, and you need to know how to use its full attacking and knight mobbing potential. The thought alone of trading f8 against c1 should make you scream in terror. Take a look at master games, the world championship games alone have enough material.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Yes I agree this seems cumbersome. But I might suggest using that as a solid defense. Since double pawns make it trickier to try and attack your king, especially if you castle queenside.

Even if you castle kingside, you can use this solid defense to slowly weaken the opponent's queenside, even if white is too castle kingside (likely so since it is already open).
> 3 votes

# Answer
I suggest a different approach. ***Play the Berlin! (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6).***

There is a line that White plays Bxc6 anyway. However, if that occurs you will have have an extra tempo because you did not play a6.

You will have less lines to study.

The line that I am suggesting is the favorite of the top grandmasters. Kramink got the world title with this line against Kasparov. Most of the top grandmasters are not playing 3.Bb5 anymore for this reason. Instead, they play 3.Bc4.

Even, in the FIDE Candidates that was organized to select the challenger to the World Chess Champion, they played this opening. Even Black won!

Here is the link: https://lichess.org/study/GOhAdjoj/cKbcqNhZ

It seems that this game was played on 5 jul 2022!!!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawns, ruy-lopez, advantage
---


# Question
Title: What would happen if the same opening is played until an advanced stage in two games in a tournament?
I was watching this Firouzja interview by Belenkaya after the last round of the candidates and she asks him if he noticed the similarity between his game and Rapport-Radjabov at the opening.

Despite rarely even imaginable to happen, this makes me wonder how completely identical positions at an advanced part of the game (say, around move 20) in two boards at a tournament round would be handled. I know that there are very theoretical lines which could go beyond move 30 that GMs know by heart, so it wouldn't be automatically "cheating" by the players doing the same move last.

Is there any prescribed rule for such cases? What is the case where this has happened with the largest number of moves played in history?

# Answer
> 4 votes
§11.3.1 is the relevant paragraph. It prohibits to "use" any outside information. Clearly, a memorized long theory variant isn't "use" in this sense, the players wanted to play it anyway, regardless that the same thing happens on another board. This is a ticklish situation for the arbiter: where to draw the line?

Well, the FIDE rules also prescribe that an arbiter should have tact and good discernment. Completely lacking former :-), I might politely advise the players to stay the bleep away from the other board until the annoying situation is over, depending on game length.

Note this physical stay-away isn't possible in a team match and even less in a tournament but then, I am an arbiter myself and never encountered this situation. (Note that for foul play, a whopping four players must cooperate, who have pairwise different goals, which makes it a bit improbable to happen.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no rule. You can repeat an old game as long as your opponent cooperates.

There've been entire repeated games in history, including in the Candidates (Nepo-Nakamura).

---
Tags: rules, history, tournament-directors, arbiters
---


# Question
Title: Can you objectively determine who was the best chess player of all time?
There have been a number of statistical attempts (e.g., chessmetrics and edo) or computerized attempts to determine who was the best chess player of all time.

The statistical approaches attempt to back rate all top chess players through time in order to make meaningful rating comparisons. You can't just compare Elo ratings because many great players played before the Elo system was implemented.

A second approach is to use computer analysis of the games of great players and determine who blundered the least.

However, I see some problems with these approaches as implemented to date. Here are my thoughts on this. I would like to hear others thoughts.

A computer comparison blunder analysis by professors Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko found that Capablanca played more like a computer than modern players! . However, Guid and Bratko noted that Capablanca's rather sedate style and lower quality of competition than modern players led to fewer positions where he was likely to blunder. Perhaps, an aggressive player like Kasparov may make more tactical errors because he sought complex positions but his opponents made even more errors under his pressure!

Perhaps, you need an error weighting system that doesn’t just calculate the percentage of errors per 100 moves but estimates the difference between your error rate and your opponents error rate.

Because computer comparison analyses don’t take into consideration the strength of your opponent back ratings have been used to adjust for increasing quality of play over time. These approaches make some hidden assumptions as well. For example, Chessmetrics assumes a player’s peak rating occurs when they are 40 years old which probably isn't true in all cases.

According to Edo, Capablanca and Morphy are rated the two highest players from the pre 1920s era. According to Chessmetrics, Capablanca and Lasker were the two best players (Morphy doesn’t even make the top ten.). There are many other discrepancies between these two back rating systems.

Can one derive a better system based on more solid assumptions to accurately estimate who was the best chess player?

# Answer
I'm posting a sample answer to my question to give others an idea about what I'm thinking about.

First, you have to define what you mean by best. For example, does best mean you are the most dominant player for your era? Or does it mean that the quality of your player is superior to all other players. And if quality is what you mean, then how do you define quality?

Paul Morphy was probably the most dominant player. For example, when he was 12 years old he defeated a top ten player (Lowenthal) in a match 3-0. According to Edo and chessmetrics he was probably already one of the best players in the world at the age of 12! At the age of 21, he played against a simultaneous against 5 top ten players (Bird, Barnes, Boden, De Reviere, and Lowenthal) and scored 3-2.

However, most would argue that dominance is a poor indicator of who is best. After all, Morphy has been described as the first modern chess player. His competition was weak compared with subsequent champions.

Another definition that has been used is quality of play. However, this definition also has a lot of problems. In the 1900 hundreds , a number individuals argued that Steinitz or Lasker were the best players of all time arguing that their knowledge of opening and modern theory would make them superior to players from the past. However, Louis Paulsen made some very clever arguments against this hypothesis. He argued that Morphy (who had a photographic memory and memorized the Louisana bar code by the age of 19) if brought back to life would learn openings and modern theory within a year and be able to compete successfully against modern chess players.

The mathematician Kenneth Regan argues that modern chess players who have access to chess computers and modern training methods play more like computers than players of the past. That’s no surprise because they were trained by computers but does that mean that modern players are really better? This begs the question what would Fischer or Capablanca do if they had access to modern computers? The problem with computer comparisons is they don’t take the historical factor into account.

You need an error weighting system that doesn’t just calculate the percentage of errors per 100 moves (which is basically what Regan and Guid and Bratko did ). Instead, you need to calculate the difference between your error rate and your opponents error rate. After all, chess is about committing fewer errors than your opponent. Putting pressure on your opponent to induce more errors is considered a good quality. If innovation leads to dominance within a specific chess era over time and it becomes increasingly difficult to innovate over time as the strength of the competition increases you can’t measure true dominance by just looking at the match records of the top 30 players. That is, it’s a lot harder for Magnus Carlsen to dominate his opponents than it was for past champions. Can the problem of increasing quality of play overtime be corrected by looking at back ratings? I prefer the Edo back rating system http://www.edochess.ca/ because the statistical assumptions are better. According to Chessmetrics, Zukertort, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Lasker, Pillsbury, Maroczy, Marshall, Janowsky, Chigorin, Schlechter, Blackburne, Duras, Teichmann, Neumann, Vidmar, Gunsberg, Rubinstein and Burn were better than Morphy. That doesn’t ring true for me. If you look at Edo or Chessmetrics back ratings it’s easy to see that the magnitude of the difference between the top players’ ratings has been decreasing over time. So I believe an Edo type statistical model that takes into consideration the difficulty to dominate over time would be a better approach than what has been tried previously. So my dream analysis is that you use Edo ratings based on a database that only includes the top 20 or 30 players from each five year period. After you complete this analysis you reweight your results by a dominance factor. That is, more recent players get a bonus factor that is calculated by estimating the trajectory of difficulty of dominating over time (the decrease in rating disparities between top 30 players over time). Next, you would validate this analysis by comparing players percentage of chess computer calculated blunders their opponents make minus their own blunders. If this invalidates the above, then you need to reweight according to the computer error checking analysis if it shows there is a tendency for more recent top players to play more accurately even after my dominance factor is taken into consideration. My guess based on my eyeballing this, is that Kasparov would do very well. But that’s just a guess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
*If* the players were all alive and at their peak, then they could play against each other in a tournament to determine who is the best.

This is infeasible, but we can simulate it using computer representations of the players. So computer Alekhine faces computer Kasparov etc.

The assumption here is that we can create accurate computer equivalents of our favourite players. This will never be objective, but can be data led, e.g. giving computer players an opening book of what they would have learned in real life.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This is an endless discussion . The best way to predict the player is based upon whose games you would like to see again & again . The games from whom you learn the most . The style of players that you become fascinated with , I mean you would like to copy .

From the above what I mean is let's say I want to play Sicilian as Black then Fischer & Kasparov have the best Games.

I want to make my Endgame strong then Magnus I should choose .

I like Tactics & imaginative Sacrifices then Mikhail Tal , Shirov , Speilmann are my Idols .

Positional play then Botvinnik , Karpov etc.

From a popular perspective my vote goes to Bobby Fischer and Kasparov . Now from a Country perspective Russsia may deny Fischer & Americans may not like Kasparov . Indian security may say Anand .

So everyone has a different opinion .
> 1 votes

# Answer
You need to define "best". I agree with Todd's answer above that Morphy was the most dominant. He was probably the strongest in the world when he was only 12 years old (before puberty). No player in history can compare with that. Tal and Capablanca were the best in the world when they were about 18. In terms of chess knowledge and problem solving capability it would be Kasparov. Kasparov was not as talented as Tal or Capablanca and others, but he was much, much more disciplined and hard working. In terms of what human penetrated most deeply into the secrets of chess and knew it the best, it would be Kasparov.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The ++**only and only way**++ objectively determine the best player is to make the candidates play games against each other.

There is no way to perfectly answer your question, because:

* Anyone who comes up with a new paper will argue the statistical assumptions in the paper are more solid and reliable than anything else
* There will be always someone arguing how the best player should be judged. For example, Kasparov lost a match to Kramnik in a world-championship match, but... Kasparov was still considered a better player until he retired.

There're lots of ways to determine the "best" player without making them to play chess:

* Use the change in principal variation across depth (the paper cited in the question)
* Use a computer algorithm to simulate the player
* Estimate the strength by comparing accuracy to a computer
* Use weighted average of past performance (Chessmetrics)

There is no perfect method.

* Change in principal variation assumes the change is a good indicator.
* Accuracy may not be reliable. In chess, the winner only needs to play better chess than the opponent.
* Weighted average can't be used for comparing players from different eras.

I should share my personal opinion.

**Best by dominance**

Someone in other answer suggests Paul Morphy. But... Philidor was able to beat everybody else. He would even win with a pawn odd. I'd argue Philidor is the best player ever in terms of dominance.

**Best by playing strength**

Hard to believe anyone before the computer era can play chess better than modern elite players. Thus, we should only consider modern players. Carlsen and Kasparov are clearly the best players.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The only way to do this, IMO, is to assume "authority" in the form of best engine we have today (currently Stockfish, with estimated ELO 3600, far stronger than any human player ever) and then to compare Stockfish' s evaluations of its best move and move actually played by a human player.

E.g., if Stockfish's best move has evaluation of +0.60 and move played by a human has evaluation +0.40 then the strength of human move is 0.20 (closer to 0 is better). Then by using this method on a large sample of games (say 500 or 1000 games) you can calculate how much human moves differ on average from the best move for particular player.

Note, you should start to evaluate, say from the move 10 or even from the move 15 for modern era players to compensate for development of opening theory (otherwise players from the past would be in disadvantage).
> 1 votes

# Answer
NO!

Trying would be comparing kumquats and kummerbunds and be meaningless. Chess playing strength has improved steadily over the past few centuries.

So an objective test is impossible as so many players are dead. It is hard enough to know who is the best player today and that will likely change next year or so, just like it has done in the past.

You would need to get all the players in the same tournament at the same time and have enough games to come up with a winner who could reasonably be called best. And that might depend on the time control as well as luck and who got W/B when against who as you would need a swiss to be able to run the tournament in a reasonable amount of time. The days of have 16 let alone 64 or 256 GMs in a double round robin are long gone. And with fewer players there will be arguments that somebody good got left out who would have won.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rating, world-championship, famous-players, computer-chess, best-practice
---


title: “Rating” going up too fast

text:
# Question
Title: “Rating” going up too fast
I am a chess beginner. I love playing Blitz games (especially 3+0).

I play on Lichess.org. My “Lichess blitz rating” (currently between 1040 and 1060; not giving exact value for privacy) has been going up at a pretty quick rate. Like today I played 23 and won 18 (all 3+0) so my “rating” went up by +66.

Lichess basically pairs players of similar strength when “Quick Pairing” is chosen. Currently, I see that the opponents make blunders sometimes, so my “rating” is not entirely reflective of my progress, which I consider to be a problem. I am afraid that if the rating keeps going like this, I’ll have to play genius players pretty soon and I’ll then soon crash back to, say, 900, making this a futile exercise in wasting time.

##### Important Points to be taken into consideration:

* I do not study chess. I am currently hugely invested in other commitments so I don’t see myself seriously studying chess at ANY level for probably at least 2 years down the line.
* My style of play is what I call “reactive chess”. I pretty much react to what the opponent is doing (say, thwarting a pin or punishing their blunders), rather than making elaborate plans myself. I do make plans, only that they are like, 2-3 moves long, like an indirect attack on a knight in order to win a pawn.
* I love exchanging bishops and knights (Bishop for bishop, knight for knight, bishop for knight and knight for bishop). This basically helps me to get to the endgame faster.
* I am fascinated more by endgames, though I suck at them.
* My checkmates (unless planned) usually consist of just checking the king repeatedly in successive moves before a miracle checkmate just occurs.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that a lot of the times the opponent is in a clear winning position (like, say #3) but ends up losing because their time ran out. This gives a false sense of progress. How to counter this?

# Answer
> 8 votes
I'd say you shouldn't worry about your rating at all and that you should welcome being paired with stronger opponents, because you'll learn more from those games - even if you don't spend more than a couple of minutes analyzing them, basically just running lichess' 'Learn from your mistakes'-function. But since you asked:

Lichess offers you to customize several aspects of your gameplay, including defining a desired range of strength for opponents.

Instead of quick pairing, click on *Create a game* and than choose the option to *Customize* the settings. You'll see a `min` and a `max` box where you input your preferred values. A `min` of -50 and a `max` of +20 should then pair you with an opponent whose rating is no less than 50 points below and no more than 20 above your current rating.

# Answer
> 5 votes
> Currently, I see that the opponents make blunders sometimes, so my “rating” is not entirely reflective of my progress

Why do you think so? If you make fewer blunders than your opponents and/or are able to punish their blunders then you play stronger than them. That's how games are won - especially between inexperienced players.

> I am afraid that if the rating keeps going like this, I’ll have to play genius players pretty soon

One thing you will learn over time is that the dreaded high rated opponents are never as genius as one may have once thought. As soon as you get a bit more experienced you'll see "Oh, those xxxx-rated players aren't that strong after all." So don't worry about it, just play and give it your best.

> and I’ll then soon crash back to, say, 900, making this a futile exercise in wasting time.

Note also that if you do play some stronger players and start losing more, your rating at worst will drop a bit after which you will play weaker players again. If you currently beat your 1060 opposition, then if you e.g. make it to 1200, then drop back down to 1060 again, you will face those same old opponents who you already know you can beat.

> My style of play is what I call “reactive chess”. I pretty much react to what the opponent is doing (say, thwarting a pin or punishing their blunders), rather than making elaborate plans myself. I do make plans, only that they are like, 2-3 moves long, like an indirect attack on a knight in order to win a pawn.

That's a good way to play chess. Elaborate plans are overrated. Good plans don't win games, good moves do.

In general, it's best to not overthink things, just play your games and enjoy them. Everything else, be it rating or other things, is just secondary. And even if you develop some ambition at some point, don't stress about your rating. Rating will follow your play strength, it's the play strength that matters, not the rating.

---
Tags: learning, rating, beginner, trading
---


title: Is Rubezov still alive?

text:
# Question
Title: Is Rubezov still alive?
Anatoly Rubezov vs Georgy Borisenko (1960) was a famous correspondence game.

```
[Event "USSR Correspondence Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1960.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Anatoly Rubezov"]
[Black "Georgy Konstantinovich Borisenko"]
[ECO "B89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bc4 e6
7. O-O Be7 8. Be3 O-O 9. Bb3 Na5 10. f4 b6 11. g4 Bb7 12. Qf3
Rc8 13. g5 Rxc3 14. gxf6 Rxe3 15. Qxe3 Bxf6 16. Rad1 Nxb3
17. axb3 a6 18. e5 dxe5 19. Nxe6 Qc8 20. Nxf8 Qc6 21. Kf2 Qg2+
22. Ke1 Bh4+ 23. Rf2 Bf3 24. Rd8 Qg1+ 25. Kd2 Qd1+ 26. Kc3
Qxd8 27. Rxf3 e4 28. Rh3 Bf6+ 29. Kc4 Qc7+ 30. Kd5 Qb7+
31. Kd6 Kxf8 32. Rxh7 Be7+ 33. Ke5 f6+ 34. Ke6 Qc6+ 35. Kf5
Qc8+ 36. Kxe4 Qxc2+ 37. Kd5 Qxh7 0-1

```

I found nothing about Anatoly Rubezov in the internet. Does anyone know when he was born , whether he is still alive and if not , when he died ?

# Answer
There is certainly not a lot of information about Anatoly Rubezov (Анатолий Рубезов).

From the book Гродзенский С.Я., "Шахматная почта России: турниры, партии, личности, 2015" (Grodzenskiy S. Ya., "Correspondence Chess Russia: Tournaments, Games, Personalities"):

It is clear, that Anatoly Rubezov is from **Sverdlovsk Oblast**. That is probably the only certain information about them that you don't have in your question.

---

<sup> There are some unrelated-to-chess records in Russian about some Anatoly \[Igorevich\] Rubezov from Sverdlovsk Region in the Russian court system from 2021, but I am extremely certain **they are a different person** (simply judging by age). </sup>
> 6 votes

---
Tags: history, famous-players
---


title: How to do forward analysis in Fritz

text:
# Question
Title: How to do forward analysis in Fritz
In Arena chess, there is an option to do analysis in direction, 'forward or backward'. Check the picture.

I think by default, Fritz does backward analysis. Is there a way to change it into forward analysis.

# Answer
> 1 votes
No, there's no such feature in Fritz. It will run the game analysis backwards. However you can fine-tune game analysis almost anyway you want:

* analysis depth in terms of plies (half-moves)
* option for including/excluding non-main lines
* centipawn loss threshold
* analysis for one side only (or for both)
* analysis time per game and per move
* the amount of commentary (just turn off Fritz commentary if it annoys you)
* etc. (hash table size, number of CPU cores used, engines, almost everything is customizable)

If you want to analyze only up to a certain move, it's also possible: just indicate up to which move the analysis goes. The analysis will still go in the reverse direction starting from the move you indicated. There's also a quick blunder check analysis.

Note. *Fritz sometimes comes bundled with ChessBase (database) that contains millions of games and you can run Fritz analysis of any game in it from 1560 to the present time. Although Fritz includes lots of beginner features, it primarily targets professionals. Nowadays there are many free programs available that beginners and even amateurs might prefer who don't need the ChessBase program with its extensive search options.*

---
Tags: analysis, fritz
---


title: Legal chess move generator architecture

text:
# Question
Title: Legal chess move generator architecture
I am building a chess engine and I want the engine to directly generate legal moves (instead of pseudo legal + validation).

For this, I am keeping in the chess board structure a bitboard of all attacked squares, all checker squares, all pinned squares by the player who last made the move. Sort of like this'

```
struct ChessBoard {
    Bitboard attacked, checkers, pinned;
    ...
};

```

Now I plan for the architecture for this engine to be relatively simple, a function which fill a moves list with legal moves for a chess board, a move maker function, and a search function (well, it's more complex than that). Like the following

```
void legal_moves(ChessBoard* board, MoveList* list);
void make_move(ChessBoard* board, Move move);
Move search(ChessBoard* board);

// search will call legal_moves() and make_move()

```

Now the question is, should `legal_moves()` update the `attacked, checkers, pinned` members or should `make_move()`? It should be more performant to let `legal_moves()` handle that since it gets the attacks for any piece any way, but my problem with this is that the search function may call `legal_moves()` but then not call `make_move()` for each move?

Writing this I am leaning towards `legal_moves()` but it's kinda complex and I would appreciate input on this.

# Answer
My current engine uses pseudo-legal move generation, but one of the previous versions used fully legal move generation as yours will.

My advice is to update the information in `make_move`. `make_move` is concerned with making a move on the board, and as soon as a move is made, what pieces are pinned, attacked, or checked immediately changes, so you need to bring that information up to date.

`legal_moves` on the other hand should be concerned with move generation. It would have no way of knowing what moves it generates would eventually be played, so it wouldn't be able to do any updating of `checkers`, `pinned`, or `attacked`.

In pseduo-code:

```
void make_move(ChessBoard* board, Move move) {
    // update the relavant internal board state
    ...
    board->pinned = pinned_pieces(board);
    board->checkers = checking_pieces(board);
    board->attacked = attacked_squares(board);
}

```

Notice how updating `pinned`, `checkers`, and `attacked` only really makes sense in `make_move`, since that's only when the internal state of the board has changed, and when you would need to re-compute the information.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What is the longest forced mate optimally played in documented competition?
There are tons of questions about the longest forced mate on here and other chess forums. Usually the answers are the 2 Knights forced mate and another one that evidently takes 549 optimal moves. Ultimately those discussions often devolve into debate about the 50 move rule.

However as a novice player it often boggles my mind when, in real games, players are able to recognize unavoidable checkmate on a non-empty board dozens of moves in advance. Hence, what I am wondering about is: what is the longest forced mate optimally played in documented competition? In other words, in competitive play (international, national, league, etc.), what comes to mind as the furthest time (in moves) from checkmate when resistance is futile? Something a la "that's mate in 15."

Edit: I imagine that this situation usually brings about resignation, so I should clarify that I'm not interested in if it was ever played out, but rather what the maximum number of moves was in advance of checkmate when this futility was ensured.

# Answer
I discovered a game from a few weeks ago that features a **forced mate in 13 moves** that was administered OTB. The game in question is Dubov-Svane, and the claim came from Agadmator’s analysis, for which engine analysis yielded his claim correct.

Although Black made a move to try and trick White in the real game, shortening the sequence, in my eyes, it still qualifies as a forced mate in 13 moves.

What Black "should" have played, in terms of engine analysis that is, is included as a sideline.

```
[Title "Daniil Dubov-Rasmus Svane. European Team Championship, Batumi Georgia, 10/31/19"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "58"]

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 b6 7. Qc2 Ba6 8. O-O-O dxc4 9. Ng5 Nc6 10. a3 g6 11. h4 Bd6 12. g3 Qe7 13. h5 e5 14. hxg6 hxg6 15. Bg2 exf4 16. Bxc6 fxg3 17. Kb1 Rad8 18. f4 Bc8 19. Rde1 Kg7 20. Nd5 Nxd5 21. Rh7+ Kg8 22. Rxf7 Rxf7 23. Qxg6+ Kf8 24. Qh6+ Rg7 25. Bxd5 Ke8 26. Qh5+ Kd7 27. Qh3+ Ke8 28. Qh5+ Kd7 29. Be6+ Kc6 30. Qf3+ Kb5 31. Bxc4+ Ka5 32. Qd5+ Bc5 33. b4+ Ka4 34. Qg2 (34... Bf5+ 35. Ka2 Rd5 36. Qxd5 Qd7 37. Qb7 a5 38. Ne4 Bxd4 39. exd4 Bxe4 40. Qxe4 Qf5 41. Qxf5 axb4 42. Bb3#) Bxb4 35. Qc6+ Kxa3 36. Bb3 Bd7 37. Qc1+ Kxb3 38. Qc2+ Ka3 39. Qa2#

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
To present a starting point, there is a **mate in 10** in the famous Steinitz-von Bardeleben game. Bardeleben quietly walked away after 25. Rxh7+.

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "49"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.O-O Be6 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Re1 f6 15.Qe2 Qd7 16.Rac1 c6 17.d5 cxd5 18.Nd4 Kf7 19.Ne6 Rhc8 20.Qg4 g6 21.Ng5+ Ke8 22.Rxe7+ Kf8 23.Rf7+ Kg8 24.Rg7+ Kh8 25.Rxh7+ 1-0 (25...Kg8 26. Rg7+ Kh8 27. Qh4+ Kxg7 28. Qh7+ Kf8 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30. Qg7+ Ke8 31. Qg8+ Ke7 32. Qf7+ Kd8 33. Qf8+ Qe8 34. Nf7+ Kd7 35. Qd6#)

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
Wikipedia's article on the KBN/K checkmate cites a blindfold game(!) between grandmasters (L. Ljubojević and J. Polgár)\[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1092636\] at 1994 Amber Chess Tournament. Polgár won by checkmate, and the last ten moves were played correctly by both players (the last "error" was 96...Ke4-e3, when Bd1-f3 would have mated a move faster according to the "tablebase"):

```
[Title "L. Ljubojević vs. J. Polgár, 1994 Amber Chess Tournament (blindfold)"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "192"]

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Bd3 g6 5. h3 Bg7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. O-O Qc7 8. Qe2 a6 9. Bf4 b5 10. e5 Nd5 11. Bg3 Qb6 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Nb4 14. Be4 d5 15. Bb1 a5 16. Nb3 a4 17. Nc5 N8c6 18. Qe3 Na5 19. Bf4 Nc4 20. Qc3 Nc6 21. a3 f6 22. exf6 Rxf6 23. Bg5 Rf7 24. Be3 Rxf3 25. gxf3 e5 26. dxe5 Bxe5 27. Nd3 d4 28. Nxe5 N4xe5 29. Ba2+ Kg7 30. Bd5 Ra6 31. f4 Nc4 32. Bxc6 dxc3 33. Bxb6 Rxb6 34. Bxb5 Rxb5 35. bxc3 Bxh3 36. Rfd1 Rb3 37. Rd4 Rxc3 38. Rad1 Bf5 39. Re1 Nb2 40. Re3 Rxe3 41. fxe3 Be6 42. e4 Bb3 43. Rd7+ Kf6 44. Rxh7 Nc4 45. e5+ Ke6 46. Rg7 Bc2 47. Rc7 Nxa3 48. Rc3 Bb3 49. Rc6+ Kf7 50. Rc7+ Kf8 51. Rc6 Kg7 52. Rc7+ Kh6 53. Rc6 Kg7 54. Rc7+ Kf8 55. Rc6 Bf7 56. Ra6 Be8 57. Ra7 Nc2 58. Kf2 a3 59. Ke2 Nd4+ 60. Kd2 Nb5 61. Ra6 Ke7 62. e6 Nd6 63. Kc2 Nc4 64. Kc3 Bb5 65. Ra7+ Kxe6 66. Kb4 Nd6 67. Rxa3 Be8 68. Ra5 Nb5 69. Kc5 Kf5 70. Ra8 Nc7 71. Rc8 Ne6+ 72. Kd6 Ba4 73. Ra8 Bd1 74. Ra5+ Kf6 75. Ra1 Be2 76. Ra4 Bd1 77. Re4 Ng7 78. Re1 Bf3 79. Rf1 Be4 80. Re1 Kf5 81. Ke7 Nh5 82. Rg1 Nxf4 83. Rxg6 Nxg6+ 84. Kd6 Kf6 85. Kc5 Ke5 86. Kc4 Bd5+ 87. Kd3 Nf4+ 88. Ke3 Be4 89. Kd2 Kd4 90. Kc1 Kc3 91. Kd1 Bc2+ 92. Ke1 Kd3 93. Kf2 Ke4 94. Kg3 Bd1 95. Kf2 Nd3+ 96. Kg3 Ke3 97. Kh4 Kf4 98. Kh3 Ne1 99. Kh4 Ng2+ 100. Kh3 Kf3 101. Kh2 Kf2 102. Kh3 Be2 103. Kh2 Bg4 104. Kh1 Ne3 105. Kh2 Nf1+ 106. Kh1 Bf3#

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
I'm afraid OP's assumptions are not correct. Its' not that we see, like, 10 move mate patterns. That's nonsense. Those are calculated. And it takes time. Sometimes ten minutes, sometimes 40 minutes! Nobody calculates dozens of moves ahead either. It's total nonsense too. There are forced positions, yes. In such positions sometimes 20 moves ahead can be calculated if these are forced positions, e.g., with mate threats, or material loss. Again, OP's assumptions are inaccurate as to these positions being totally forced. They are not, especially long ones. Even short ones are usually not absolutely forced. However, they are forced in a way that material can be lost, which means certain moves need to be played, otherwise (if material is lost) you can resign on the spot. However, it's not like mate is coming right away. No, that's incorrect. It's the other way round. The defensive side has to hold on to the material no matter what (or it's resignable on the spot - nobody is going to play a piece down other things being equal at high level) which creates kind of forced lines to calculate. As I said, such lines can be 20 moves deep and even more. Here's a situation like that from a real game but it's not something too unusual or especially weird. It's not the longest sequence either but it's 18 moves long and it ends with a mate (White's to move):

```
[fen "r1b3nr/pp1p1k1p/4ppp1/q2Nb3/8/1B6/PP3PPP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxe5 fxe5 2. Qf3+ Ke8 (2... Kg7 3. Bh6+ Nxh6 ( 3... Kxh6 4. Qf8+ Kg5 5. g3 Qd2 6. h4+ Kg4 7. Kg2 Kh5 8. Kh3+-) 4. Qf6+ Kg8 5. Ne7#) 3. Bh6 Nxh6 4. Qf6 Ng8 ( 4... exd5 5. Qxh8+ Ke7 6. Qxe5+ Kf8 7. Re1 Qd2 8. Qe8+ Kg7 9. Re7+ Kf6 10. h4 Qc1+ 11. Re1+-) 5. Qxh8 Kf7 6. Qxh7+ Kf8 7. Bc2 Qxd5 8. Bxg6 Nh6 9. Qxh6+ Ke7 10. Qg7+ Kd6 11. Qf8+ Kc6 12. Rc1+ Kb5 13. a4+ Ka6 (13... Kxa4 14. Qa3+ Kb5 15. Bd3+ +-) 14. Qb4 Qa5 15. Bd3+ b5 16. axb5+ Kb6 17. Qd6+ Kb7 18. Be4#

```

White had to calculate 18 moves ahead here till mate. Of course, an engine will see right off the bat that Black's losing and will focus only on prolonging the game. Humans don't play like that. As I said it is as good as resigning on the spot. What good is it prolonging the game if you consider it dead lost and await only a mate? So, Black held on as hard as it could to stay in the game. However White had calculated 18 moves ahead till mate and won this game. This game is a puzzle now for highly professional players. It's extremely forcing. Yet, it's not absolutely forcing like the OP wanted. Absolutely forcing very long lines can be found in artificial made-up puzzles or they can be generated by the computer. Made-up puzzles are often absolutely forcing, e.g., mate in 8, 12 or 16 moves.

The forced mating position is not absolutely forced but Black may lose material or continue to hang on at the risk of being mated. This is not the longest example the OP wanted (longer and more complicated forced examples from real games exist I can assure you). It's a clarification of misunderstanding. The above diagram is a mere example of a forced play with almost all moves being checks hardly leaving any leeway for Black. That's why it is short in terms of branching out with most subvariations leading to Black's fast demise and hence, they are dismissed out of hand (even if they protract the game beyond 25 moves). The engine will play it as if it's all calculated and opponent has, like, Elo 3500, and since it's dead lost the engine will seek only to prolong the game and will happily give away material and whatever just to receive mate later. Even in the dumbest situation when a mate is looming four moves ahead, the engine will sacrifice pieces checking your king, e.g, checking your king with a Queen so that you capture said Queen to drag the situation by one more move. Humans could not care less about such things. Humans aren't going to give away material with other things being equal if there's a chance to fight off the attack and bring the king to safety.

What's more, I don't really know if the player calculated all 18 moves (he probably did) in the diagram above but that's irrelevant because this line is pretty forcing anyway. It means it is not that difficult for a professional to calculate it through in 20-30 minutes.

Bottom line: if the sequence is as long as 20 moves, human analysis is going to be imperfect or it's going to be a made-up puzzle because such puzzles can be absolutely forcing and long. Real game positions are usually not 100% forcing, especially if they are long. Actually a human can also drag the game out. In the diagram above if Black had been told to drag out the game and make sure not to get mated in 25 moves no matter the cost, even at the expense of the Queen, I'm sure Black would have succeeded with the task. But to what end? To make sure the game is really lost but not too fast? Point being, White could have slipped up if the above 18 moves had not been thought out well enough. Black bravely tried every trick in the book to bring the king to a safe haven and keep a relative material parity. But if Black had lost a piece while bringing its king to safety, the game would have been completely lost even with a slight inaccuracy from White. However, if some inaccuracy had been made in the calculation of 18 moves above, Black might have drawn.

Now then, something like mating with a knight and bishop is perceived as forcing but it is not something we calculate with any great depth. That's because the losing side has too many moves, and it's too much of branching out to be calculated. Yet, it's an easy win by following an algorithm, a recipe like a stepladder mate. It's just a more advanced recipe. It's wackiness to think mating with a knight and bishop is some forcing calculation that a player made at some ridiculously long depth of 25 moves ahead. It's never like that. Only computers calculate like that and only when they don't have the endgame tablebase. If they have it, they just retrieve ready solutions. And if I made 10-15 moves exactly perfect according to engine or tablebase while mating with a bishop and knight, it doesn't mean I was calculating 10-15 moves ahead. No, it was just a coincidence. It means I was simply using the technique of mating with a bishop and knight and some of it just happened to be in line with perfect play. That's all there's to it.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, records, famous-games, forced-move
---


title: Who was, or is, the oldest WGM?

text:
# Question
Title: Who was, or is, the oldest WGM?
It is well known that (concerning GMs only) Lilienthal set a record - he died 3 days after his 99th birthday. Yuri Averbakh has since surpassed him and may well be the first 100 year old GM.

What about WGMs? It is trivial to look into the FIDE rating list, but e.g. it lists Edith Keller-Herrmann who died 10 years ago. Also, see above, the current oldest living WGM might not be the global record holder. (It might be, since the GM title was introduced only 1950, but remember also "retroactive" titles were given - Keller-Hermann got hers in 1978.)

My guess would be Květa Eretová (assuming the FIDE list includes all deceased GMs too, but at least this is not the case for male GM, as it seems).

# Answer
The oldest living WGM was named: Verica Nedeljković (born 1929).

I believe the oldest WGMs who are no longer alive should also be mentioned:

* Kira Zvorykina. She was born in 1919 and died in 2014.
* Květa Eretová. She was born in 1926 and died in 2021.

It's well worth mentioning that Kira Zvorykina played even in 2000 at the age of 80 in some senior tournaments.

It should be noted that various titles started to appear in the second half of the 20th century. And many Soviet woman players received them automatically as they were winners of numerous championships, e.g. Lyudmila Rudenko (born 1904), but not Vera Menchikova (born 1906) who died much younger at the end of WWII as a result of bombing. Some of them received GM and IM titles which are higher than WGM. Menchikova was the world champion among women 1927-1944. She also beat Max Euwe a few years before he became the world champion.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Per Hauke Reddmann's comment, Verica Nedeljković might be the oldest living WGM, if the oldest ever, as of writing, having been born on September 16, 1929 and currently being aged at 92.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: history, grandmaster, records, women
---


# Question
Title: Where is the neural network used in MCTS?
Where does an engine (such as AlphaZero) use its neural network in MCTS? It shouldn't be needed to evaluate positions reached via MCTS, since I'm under the impression that only terminal game states are evaluated (checkmate or draws). Is the neural network used in the expansion portion of the MCTS algorithm? I.e., choosing which new move to expand on a leaf node, rather than randomly choosing a new move? If that's the case then it doesn't seem like the neural network plays such an important role.

# Answer
Neither AlphaZero, nor Lc0 (an open source project based on the AlphaZero paper), use MCTS in its pure form, because they do not perform game rollouts - the search is simply called MCTS because the way that it expands its tree is similar to MCTS.

Here are the main differences:

* MCTS performs random rollouts to a termination condition (e.g. win, draw, loss) at leaf nodes to estimate to value of that node, whereas AlphaZero and Lc0 simply use the neural network to estimate the win value. They do not perform rollouts.
* MCTS uses UCT to decide which node should be expanded. AlphaZero and Lc0 use the output of the neural network as an additional parameter in their versions of UCT: the neural network generates a probability associated with every possible move in the position, which allows the neural network to control the expansion of the search tree to some degree.

Lc0
> 6 votes

# Answer
Disclaimer, not an expert.

As I understand it, the process runs something like this:

* Given current position, ask the neural network for a prediction on 1) the move and 2) the win probability arising from that move.
* Make that move. This gets to a leaf node. Query neural network for new prediction on 1) the move and 2) the win probability arising from that move.
* And so on ...
* Because it's Monte Carlo Tree Search, at some points the program will back up and search the move with the next-highest win probability.
* When time is up, make the move that leads to the highest win probability.

See this link for an infographic.
> 3 votes

# Answer
AlphaZero and Lc0 use a modified version of MCTS.

The neural networks in A0 and Lc0 are actually "two-headed" networks - one is a "value network," and the other is a "policy network." The value network is very simple: Given a position, it provides a probability that either side will win. Note that it is not based on color - in Lc0, 1 means that the side to move is 100% winning, and -1 means that the side that is not moving is 100% winning. The policy network, given a position, produces probabilities for each move being played.

Interestingly enough, the network gives probabilities for all theoretically legal moves, treating each piece as a "superpiece" that can move as both a queen and a knight. Illegal moves are filtered out, their probabilities set to 0 and the probabilities for the othre moves recalculated. In this way, the outputs can of fixed size.

At the beginning of MCTS, you select nodes based on the UCT value, which is a formula that balances "Explotation" (picking nodes you know are pretty good) versus "Exploration" (picking nodes that you haven't seen before.) These engines use a variant called "PUCT," or predictor UCT, which takes into account the policy network's suggestions. Then, rather than using rollouts, the network just uses the evaluation from the value network.

Dominik Klein wrote a really great book about neural networks in chess - I highly recommend you give it a read! The link is here: https://github.com/asdfjkl/neural\_network\_chess
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, programming, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: Fragility of the King's Indian setup for black
I have been working on the Kings Indian setup/Pirc defense for black(from the advice of one of the comments on my previous posts) and have had quite some unsuccessful games.

What I noticed was that a single inaccuracy/blunder immediately gives white huge chances which I believe is because of the structural integrity.

Am I missing something or is it just the nature of the opening? I wish to research deeply on this so references would also greatly help!

# Answer
> 2 votes
You do not specify any concrete line where you are immediately get worse as black, but still I probably can provide few ideas why that happens. I will cover the King's Indian (KI) but I hope that for Pirc it also works in some terms.

Indeed, in the King's Indian as black the price of every move is extremely high. With this you pay for the loss of control over the center and some development delay. Instead you get complex positions with much of hidden dynamic potential and almost all-the-game counterplay.

Unprepared White player can encounter unwanted fight for three results, which he is not ready for. There are a lot of examples (even at GM level) where evaluation is like +1.5 after the opening, but white doesn't know how to proceed and after several succecive mistakes he got much worse against experienced Black King's Indian player. Most victories for black in the KI are due to a deep understanding of the position, a great sense of dynamics and accumulated experience of black player. My GM coach always told me that if you play the Queen's Gambit with Black, you can easily combine it with the Slav Defense or Tarrasch. But if you play the King's Indian, then you should play only King's Indian. For the above reasons, it is so difficult to start successfully playing the KI with Black.

Based on the above, I can offer the following options for stop confusing in the King's Indian as a beginner:

1. **Do not be upset about lots of losses** (seriously). In KI it is normal at the beginning of practice.
2. **Look for the counterplay** during your play and analysis. Try not to memorize lines (there are too much of them!) but to estimate which way of counterplay will be most effective in current position (e.g. a6-b5 or e7-e5, advance King's side pawns or Queen's side). Remember, King's Indian guys often say that if you got the proper counterplay you are on the half way to win the game.
3. **Read and analyze classics**. I suggest to start with *"Zurich 1953"* by David Bronstein and *"I play against pieces"* by Svetozar Gligoric. In 1950-s King's Indian began to rapidly evolve and in this books you can track a lot of common ideas. It is very instructive to see how black and white tried to improve their plans from game to game almost in one tournament! I also highly recommend the explanation of Gligoric how to deal with Saemisch as black.
4. **Play only King's Indian** as black. Do not mix it with the other openings. In this case practice is extremely valuable.
5. Set the time for playing KI (e.g. 3 months). If results after this period do not satisfy you, don't worry! **Probably it is just "not your opening"**. Many chess enthusiasts all over the world are delighted with analysing sharp KI games, but how many of them use it in real over-the-board play?!

---
Tags: opening, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: How do you deal with Black's light-squared bishop when it's out of the pawn chain and not exchanged in the London?
I usually have problems with the light-squared bishop when Black takes it out of the pawn chain and doesn't exchange it, but instead either protects it with the e-pawn:

```
rn1qkb1r/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p1b2/3P1B2/3BP3/PPP2PPP/RN1QK1NR w KQkq - 0 5
1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 e6

```

or moves it back to g6:

```
rn1qkb1r/ppp1pppp/5nb1/3p4/3P1B2/3BP3/PPP2PPP/RN1QK1NR w KQkq - 3 5
1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Bg6

```

If I exchange bishops, then Black will have either a very strong control of e4 to place a knight (when protected by the e-pawn), or a semi-open file for the h-rook (when in g6). If I don't exchange it, then the constant threat of Bxd3 hinders my development; I can't play the usual London moves c3, Nbd2 and my queen has to keep an eye on protecting the bishop.

In all videos about the London that I've seen, it's assumed that Black will keep his light-squared behind the pawn chain or will exchange it in d3. How do you deal with it when in those other cases?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Actually Simon Williams, the GingerGM has covered these cases in his videos on the original London System and the Jobava London.

He has two suggestions.

The first is to switch to a QGD setup with c4 followed by Nc3 and possibly Qb3 to hit both the b7 and d5 pawns. Williams covers the slightly scary looking response BxNb1 followed by Bb4+ from black and shows that white gets a perfectly good game.

The second is to transpose to something like a Jobava London / Veresov setup with f3. The ides here is to grab space on the kingside with g4 and possibly also h4.

The key, as always in opening play, is to not play in a formulaic way just bashing out the same moves regardless of what your opponent does. Instead you need to be able to react and change your plans to take advantage of variations your opponent might play.

# Answer
> 4 votes
White is standing all right. You can develop without any hindrance. I don't see how Bxd3 is a threat. It's not.

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

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 e6 5. Bxf5 exf5 6. Qd3 Qd7⩲

```

If 6... g6 then 7. Qb5+ Nbd7 8. Nc3 Bd6 9. Nge2± or 8... Bg7 9. Nf3 0-0 10. Nxe5 and White has advantage.

As to your second variation, there are a lot of maneuvering possible. Or White expects to win in one fell swoop? I don't think it's going to be the case. For example, 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Bg6 5. Nf3 e6 6. 0-0 Bd6 (6... Ne4 7. Ne5 Bd6 8. Nd2 Nd7 9. Nxe4 and White is doing really fine. White is a tempo up) 7. c3 and White is fine again, e.g. 7...0-0 and now White can take the bishop: 8. Bxg6. It's about equal. Also White is not obliged to play 4. Bd3:

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nd2 e6 5. c4 Bd6 6. Bxd6 Qxd6 7. c5 Qe7 or some other lines. Again too many variations and maneuvering is possible. In other words 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Bf5 is not some wrong line for Black; it's fine, which means White can't capitalize right away. It's going to be a long battle.

If Black doesn't want to exchange the bishop, it is his problem, not White's. White has plenty of options and he's not a tempo down.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, bishops, london-system
---


# Question
Title: How would USCF handle a position, in which there is sufficient material, but checkmate can't be forced?
There are some positions, in which both players have pawns, rooks, and even queens, but checkmate cannot be forced.

```
[FEN "4k3/4r1r1/3p1p2/p1pPpPp1/PpP1P1Pp/1P5P/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

For instance in this position both players have pawns, and black has two rooks, however in order for either player to get checkmated black first has to sacrifice a rook and white has to capture it, however both sacrificing the rooks, and capturing the rooks can be avoided.

```
[FEN "4b1NQ/3bPpPP/5P1P/2K5/4k3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

And in this position white has a queen, pawns, and a knight, but so long as black doesn't move the bishop on e8, and white doesn't move the pawn on e7, neither player can ever get checkmated, and black can avoid moving the bishop, and white can avoid moving the pawn, so neither player can force checkmate.

```
[FEN "4K3/4Q3/8/8/8/8/4q3/4k3 w - - 0 1"]

```

And in this position each player has a queen, but we can see that black cannot have a forced mate as white can just take the black queen, and also white cannot have a forced win as if white takes the black queen the black can take back, and if white moves the king then black can capture the white queen.

So using USCF rules would the game be declared over if it reached any of these 3 positions?

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is certainly no rule saying that the game is over if neither side can force mate. If there were:

1. It would be impossible to apply the rule consistently, as, in many "balanced" positions, we don't know whether mate can be forced.
2. Any theoretically drawn endgame would become actually drawn.
3. The prevailing opinion seems to be that chess is a theoretical draw. If this is ever proven, then it would be impossible to play a game of chess under such a rule, as it would immediately be drawn.

However, there is a rule variation that may sometimes be used to claim a draw in positions where it would be very difficult to lose: "Variation 14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death." Otherwise, such positions may be drawn by agreement or by the threefold/fivefold repetition or 50/75 move rules. There's an FIDE rule that may apply in such positions if your opponent is trying to win on time in a "quickplay finish," but I haven't been able to find an equivalent USCF rule.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> So using USCF rules would the game be declared over if it reached any of these 3 positions?

No. There is no such rule. Furthermore if one player's flag fell in any of these positions then they would lose on time because in each case there exists a serious of moves that leads to checkmate.

The only way a player in any of these positions could claim a draw is if there were no increment and it was a standard or rapid time control and they had less than 2 minutes left on the clock. These rules don't apply in blitz.

But note that the player would have to claim. There is no "declaring the game over" while there is a possibility, even with really bad moves, of one player checkmating the other apart from 5 fold repetition and the 75 move rule.

---
Tags: rules, uscf
---


title: Swiss bye in PGN

text:
# Question
Title: Swiss bye in PGN
Not that it is of earth-shattering importance, but how is a Swiss bye entered in the Result header by default? 1-0? +? +-? +--? Is it different from a forfeit? (The latter can be additionally indicated by the "termination" tag, but I never saw it used, probably because the player field implies it...neither did I ever fill out this tag on a time loss as arbiter since nobody seems to care anyway, flag is a "normal" loss...)

PGN standard didn't answer my question. (And checking a random PGN might lead to a random result, see above.

# Answer
I suspect that the PGN standard does answer your question, though perhaps indirectly.

8.1.1.7 says that the content of the Result tag "is always exactly the same as the game termination marker that concludes the associated movetext."

8.2.6 says: "The game termination marker is a symbol that is one of the following four values: "1-0" (White wins), "0-1" (Black wins), "1/2-1/2" (drawn game), and "\*" (game in progress, result unknown, or game abandoned)."

So, no +- or other similar combination allowed. "1-0" is allowed, but seems fundamentally wrong for a bye game -- unless you keep the score to yourself and only use it with PGN software that doesn't interpret that as a real win.

It seems safer to use "\*", and add a non-standard PGN tag to indicate that the game was a bye game for a particular player. (That is basically what ferdy suggests in his comment, but it seems unwise to extend an already established and defined tag (i.e. Termination) unilaterally.) This seems to be less disruptive of already existing software.

If the information is for human use only, use "\*" and add a movetext comment to the effect that this is a bye game.

PGN was not designed to support FIDE rules. It was designed to be extensible, at least as far as tag pairs go.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: What is the point of playing the 5.d3 (or 6.d3) Ruy Lopez, when White can play Giuoco Piano (or Modern Italian)?
As title above, what is the point of playing the 5.d3 (or 6.d3) Ruy Lopez, when White can play Giuoco Piano (or Modern Italian)? In other words, why play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 (or 5.0-0 Be7 6.d3), when White can reach a very similar Pawn - and Piece - structure in Giuoco Piano (or Modern Italian), or in the 4.d3 Two Knights, avoiding some uncommon (but potentially dangerous, and in any case demanding in terms of opening preparation) replies to the Ruy Lopez, such as the Schliemann Gambit, the Bird Defense, or - in the 6.d3 case - the Open Spanish (5-0-0 Nxe4), and others?

# Answer
Giuoco Piano gives White slightly fewer chances for the initiative that White is supposed to have. Also the Two Knights defense almost completely equalizes the game at high level with simplifications: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Be7 5.0-0 d6...(5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3 Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0-0-0 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6...) After 5.0-0 Black can also choose to play complicated and crazy Max Lange Attack. White may not like it, to put it mildly. The Ruy Lopez gives more options and more chances for White. And the Open Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 in case of 5... Nxe4, is fine for White: 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 - White maintains some initiative. The same holds for the Bird Defense.

As to the Schliemann Gambit, it doesn't have to be dangerous: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 and after 4. d3 the gambit fizzles out. It's a typical problem with many gambits: they often can be neutralized. It's also one of the main reasons that they fell out of fashion at high level. The idea is not to hold on to the sacrificed material but return it and equalize the position, so that White gets nothing, no initiative out of the opening. Now then with modern engines we know it's usually better to hold on to the material and play precisely but it's hard and players might be a bit rusty with gambits. It's easier for humans to avoid risks and complications. A simple example is the Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3... and now Black can nip it in the bud with 3...d5 leaving White with close to 0.00. The King's Gambit is more sound as is the Giuco Piano but it's still fewer winning chances for White at high level in comparison with well-reputed solid openings such as the Queen's Gambit, Ruy Lopez, Sicilians, etc.

However, it doesn't mean that gambits are no good and folks should avoid them. It's just that well-reputed openings are preferred at high level. Again, at club level, various gambits and tricky openings are fine, and they are fun to play, such as the King's Gambit, Giuoco Piano, Smith–Morra Gambit, Albin Countergambit, etc. Yet, gambits are rare at high level. They are more of a surprise value, not the main repertoire.

Sometimes rush, tricky play, typical for a club player is castigated. For example, if I'm not mistaken Tarrasch said something, like, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 the move 4.Ng5 is a move of a fool. That seems too harsh but his point is that less skilled players often rely on tricky lines or launch headlong attacks prematurely. This often works at low level but backfires against professionals. Even at serious club level such trickery is often stalled.

Disclaimer. I'm not against gambits as this answer may suggest. I like gambits and thrilling games, and I think amateurs can benefit from them and have more fun playing chess.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, ruy-lopez, italian-game, open-games
---


# Question
Title: Korchnoi was an Orc? Enforcing FIDE rule §E8.1.1
Exhibit A

Note that §E8.1.1. says *(...)as clearly and legibly **as possible**(...)*. My arbiter's estimation is that maybe around 5% of all players produce Orc runes. (My own handwriting is atrocious, but I somehow comply.) Naturally this gets worse in time trouble. (Add alternate national figurine symbols for extra decoding fun.) Usually, the inner logic of a chess game and the memory of the players may help if it gets problematic, but...

Can you report an incident of either

* an arbiter throwing the book at a player who constantly produces illegible score sheets? (Also think of the poor tournament bulletin redaction.)
* illegible score sheets became relevant in the judging of a claim?

Word-of-mouth is accepted, URL preferred.

# Answer
> Can you report an incident of either an arbiter throwing the book at a player who constantly produces illegible score sheets? (Also think of the poor tournament bulletin redaction.)

"Throwing the book" is generally counterproductive to generating long term change. If you have to officiate regularly where a player produces illegible scoresheets then you have to use more persuasive techniques to generate the desired change.

The one case I know of where this worked involved a strong local player who produced scoresheets which didn't even allow you to make a reasonable guess as to what was written and a very senior arbiter. She often officiated in tournaments where the games were submitted to FIDE in which he often took part and so she often had to deal with his scoresheets.

Sitting him down and asking him to read his own scoresheet sort of did and didn't work. Of course he couldn't read what he had written but he was a strong enough player that he remembered the game perfectly anyway.

He is the same generation as me and so grew up using descriptive notation. What she did when she "persuaded" him to start recording legibly was to, firstly switch from descriptive to algebraic. I had to input one of his games once (fortunately his opponent's scoresheet was legible) and I didn't know he was using descriptive! That's how bad his writing was.

Second, she got him to slow down. Apparently as part of her effort to coach and train him to write legibly she noticed that he was scribbling at high speed and realised she needed to get him to slow down. Kudos to her because now his scoresheets are legible although still far from copperplate.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: rules, history, fide, scoresheet
---


# Question
Title: Is this a suitable training scheme for my level?
I've been about 1700-1900 Lichess Blitz and 1900-2000 Lichess Rapid for several years, and I'm looking to start some formal chess training (something I've never done before at all.)

Currently, I'm planning on reading Silman's How To Reassess Your Chess as well as Predator at the Chessboard for tactical training. Also (supposedly) good resources I intend to use are Soviet Chess Primer and later on Aagaard's positional chess book and Dvoretsky's endgame manual.

I want to make sure I'm picking a scheme that is both challenging but not above my level so I don't get demotivated since I truly do plan to stick to a regular training scheme. While I understand the importance of tactics and being a well-rounded player, I prefer endgames/positional grinds so I'd like to focus on them as a mix of entertainment/education.

Is How to Reasses Your Chess & Predator at the Chessboard into Soviet Chess Primer into Dvoretsky/Aagaard a good plan? Also, many people advise to study games but I'm not sure how to do this. How far would this training scheme get me rating wise? All of this is very overwhelming after a day of research.

# Answer
Textbooks are good of course for improving your play. You are on the right path in that regard. However, there's a slight problem with such a plan. You mentioned you've been playing for several years presumably blitz since online rapid is more like blitz. The FIDE rapid is closer to 25 minutes which is nowadays 15 mins + 10 second increment (equals 25 minutes per 60 moves). Point being: No grandmaster has ever become a grandmaster by playing only blitz games. That's the problem with your plan. Serious chess and fast results require playing long time controls (around two hours per game). That will make your progress much faster. Reading only books and playing only blitz games will slow your progress significantly, way more than you might think.

**IMPORTANT CORRECTION AND ADDITION: Dvorestky and Aagaard are writing books for professionals!** Books are, of course, a matter of preferences and bias. As to Russian books and studying endgame, I can give an example of Averbakh's books on endgame. They are considered classic. Advice: make sure to solve plenty of tactical puzzles in the books on tactics of your choosing: at least one thousand or many more. Such books really help to improve. However, care should be taken as not to choose wrong level books (beginner or pro would be wrong for you). Examples of popular and well-reputed books which should be suitable (all ballpark FIDE Elo numbers in this answer are for classical chess, unless specified otherwise. For USCF rating approximation you may add 50 points. However below 2000, ratings are extremely volatile and imprecise due to local nature of tournaments, small pools of players, and other variables) for your level of 1600-1900 Elo:

* *Tactics* by Seirawan
* all books by Silman
* Yusupov books for level 1: *Fundamentals*, *Build Up Your Chess*, and finally *Evolution*
* *The Woodpecker Method* by Smith and Tikkanen
* *Test Your Tactical Ability* by Neishtadt (superb Russian book)

Mostly you need to solve positions, not just read through them. The books above are mostly of that type. **Opinions and preferences might differ. The list above is just an example of books. Some exercises in said books are difficult, approaching professional level.** Books by Silman and Seirawan are the easiest in the example given. The book on tactics *The Predator at the Chessboard* is even easier, probably Elo 1300-1400. There also might be an Elo/strength mismatch problem with your plan: Pro players often have classical Elo higher than that in blitz (sometimes it's also the other way round) because they play tons of long controls and may neglect blitz and rapid. In contrast many amateurs play mostly blitz games (online rapid is like OTB blitz). It means a player whose games are 95% blitz or rapid should expect his/her classical rating to trail behind by 100-300 Elo points, and vice versa for those who neglected fast controls. Almost all chess books target classical controls (puzzles usually take from 2-3 minutes to 10-30 minutes to solve, and often require several variations and subvariations to be found). Therefore, a fast control (=online) player should expect to find chess books more difficult than his/her rapid Elo suggests, even prohibitively difficult if a he/she tries to blitz through them.

**Crucially important** still remains necessity to play long controls, not just solve through tactics and strategy books. If you can't play 1-2 hour OTB games, you can at least play them vs computer (you can set ballpark Elo levels, for example, on Shredder and Fritz. These numbers are roughly by 100-200 points lower at settings below 2000 vs FIDE numbers of human players but towards 2500 they seem to even out. This usually doesn't hold for other numerous non-professional programs where Elo numbers are slapped onto engine levels so roughly that it hardly make any sense. Tip: use professional programs). Make sure to check the setting *computer plays fast* or *no clock* so that you don't wait a couple of minutes each time a program makes a move (it won't influence the simulated level, and if you try to play blitz against that level, you'll find it close to impossible because most programs don't reduce the simulated level when time is reduced even to bullet level). While playing OTB is better, playing long games vs simulated levels is a viable alternative. Also, when books recommend playing out positions with your sparring partner, you can do it vs the program. Some textbooks even explicitly mention that, although it is obvious anyway.

As to analyzing games in books, it's the same as analyzing or solving tactical or strategical chess puzzles. You have to spend 5-20 minutes per problem accounting for variations and best counterplay. Blitzing and guessing through them is much less efficient. Online chess puzzles are usually much faster and hence less efficient. So, you are on the right path choosing actual books on tactics rather than being confined to superfluous online tactics. Good textbooks should set a player on the right path. Pro players play hundreds of long games. Funnily, amateurs may play even far more, say, 10,000 games online but their skills still lag behind. That's because fast controls are of much lower quality. This is very important: Serious preparation and faster improvement require playing long time controls, whereas online slow controls are closer to the FIDE rapid.

Now then, I don't want to be misunderstood here. Some coaches say fast controls are detrimental. I certainly disagree with that as long as the time spent on fast controls is not deducted from the time spent on long games and books (tactics, strategy, openings, endgame, etc), otherwise I agree. As to fast time controls, they are a good practice for time management and time scramble as well as for testing out openings. That's more or less accepted among professionals and not just my opinion about fast chess. Fast controls should not take up a lot of your chess time if you need efficiency. Also, you cannot replace playing long controls with solving through only tactics or strategy books. Some amateurs want it that way really badly (bypass long games) but that's only burying the head in the sand. That's not how the cookie crumbles!

As to analyzing your own long games, the engine will do it pretty fast. Unfortunately, it won't help you with strategic ideas and plans. You will need a high rated player or coach for that. Still, the computer will help a lot and show you all mistakes right away. As to analyzing quick games, you should be able to do it on your own. Besides, it's not worth it spending too much time on analyzing low quality games. Anyway, the computer will help even there.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: learning, books, training
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a French exchange sub-variation where white castles long
I remember seeing a video a while back, which introduces this sub-variation to spice things up and to surprise black when they expect a dull draw game.

I don't think it has a name, and I can't quite remember the moves now, so it's hard to search in an opening database.

# Answer
The Exchange Variation might lead to early opposite-side castling with prospects of mutual pawn storms:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.c3 Qd7 7.O-O O-O-O.

```

Now if 8.Nbd2 Bd6 9.Re1 Nge7 10.b4, Euwe advised: 10...Rde8 to allow retreating the knight in case of b5. The line above is from a general opening book by Panov. In this example, White is slightly better and can be first to develop a dangerous attack. So, Black is probably better off with simple: 6... Qf6 7.Nbd2 Qe6+ 8. Be2 Bd6.

It's almost impossible to make it work with, say, White castling long and Black short unless Black is a low rated player/amateur. However, opposite castling may occur later in the opening but usually it doesn't.

Also, some ideas might be possible with 3.Nc3 Bb4 (the Winawer Variation) but both sides should be willing or we are highly unlikely to have opposite-side castling. Below is an example of such variation where White castles long as the OP wanted:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Ne2 dxe4 5.a3 Be7 6.Nxe4 Nc6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. Qd3 O-O 9. O-O-O a6 10. h4 b5.

```

Most of the time there won't be any opposite side castling even if both sides want it, unless players are amateurs.
> 2 votes

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