# Question
Title: Is there a chess engine with divide perft for captures only?
I'm programming a chess engine from scratch in C++, and I have it playing games on UCI against others already. I spent about four days trying to weed out bugs in my move generator, and finally did manage to make a bug-free movegen.

A few days ago, I implemented quiescence search, for which I lazily copy-pasted my movegen code to get a captures-only movegen function by simply removing all quiet move generations. I presumed it was working which was a bad idea.

I just did a perft on the captures-only function and it already failed at depth 5 on 'Kiwipete'.

For the movegen, I used Sharper for divide perft to weed out bugs. Unfortunately, Sharper does not have a divide perft command for generating only captures and I don't think the source code is available either.

Is there a reliable engine that can do divide perft on just captures?

***Update 1***: In light of jknappen's comment, I'd like to add more information. 'Perft' refers to performance test, which in chess programming usually refers to an operation which counts the number of leaf nodes (at the end of the tree) of possible *legal* moves at a certain depth from a starting position. For example, the starting position in chess has 20 leaf nodes at depth 1, while it has 400 leaf nodes at depth 2.It's used for testing whether move generators are working correctly. Refer to *this*.

***Update 2:*** I used my own engine to test my capture generator (because I know that my regular movegen definitely has no bugs), and I don't see a problem. Although, I used *Vice* to test my capture movegen (my engine is heavily based off of this one, and I know that it has way of *measuring* perft), which results is number that's are off exponentially after depth 3. But when I look at the captures themselves, they work correctly. I had to change Vice's code to do the capture perft, which introduces ambiguity, and so it would be nice to have an engine that already has capture perft.

If there isn't any, I'd have to create something new that uses my already existing movegen to verify the integrity of the capture movegen. I have a hunch something is wrong, because in some games as it is about to win, it gives away a major piece (such as a queen), and ends up losing, which makes me think that it's generating captures incorrectly during *quiescence* (search only captures to make sure nothing is being attacked) search.

***Update 3***: I ended up using my own movegen to test it. Turns out, I was wrong. Tested 'Kiwipete' to depth 11 and found nothing wrong.

# Answer
I'm not aware of any engine that gives you only capture moves. But you can easily do it yourself, for example, you can easily modify the move generation code in Stockfish such that it only generates capture moves.

It's probably not a good idea to test your implementation with Kiwipete. You should try positions with en-passpant capture, capture with promotion, capture with under-promotion. Once you're comfortable, then move on to the Kiwipete position.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, perft
---


# Question
Title: How to weakly solve Tiger Hunt, Atlantis Chess and Peasants' Revolt
Tiger Hunt is a chess variant where an entire army without a queen fight against a royal amazon (tiger, queen+knight). I believe it is certainly a win for the army just like Marahaja and Sepoys. I also believe this can easily be solved. Perhaps we can modify stockfish code to do so..

Atlantis Chess is a variant where one can sink an empty space on the edge of the board (which changes as more spaces are sunk) as a legitimate move which is intuitively a draw simply because both sides can sink the board to protect their own king since nothing moves across sunk spaces. Putting the king in absolute safety requires at least 14 steps. I believe it is easily solvable. If we can generate all moves up to depth 40 or 50, I believe it can be solved since most attempts to disrupt the 14 steps involve bad piece trades or sacrifices.

I have also been looking at a variant called Peasants' Revolt Chess for a while. I strongly believe that the original four knights form is a black victory based on results of Stockfish, even as the author of the variant believes it to be biased towards black. A search depth of 80 may be required based on what I have done, also a tablebase of K3N against K+several pawns will be very helpful and can reduce search depths by at least 20.

In addition, I believe the three knights form might also be a black victory based on what Stockfish tells me. But this time search depth may have to be 110 or more.

So how do we weakly solve these chess variants? Any strategy?

# Answer
Even without a computer one can prove that "**Tiger Hunt**" (a.k.a. Maharajah Chess) is a forced win. Certainly the "tiger" can't hope for more than a draw if White starts with 1 Na3 and then repeats with say Nf3-g1-f3-... ad infinitum. But in fact the "tiger" can be gradually corralled as **BlindKungFuMaster** suggests; for instance:

```
[Title "Tiger Hunt"]
[fen "4q3/8/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNB1KBNR w - - 0 0"]

1.Na3 null
2.c3 null
3.d3 null
4.Nf3 null
5.g3 null
6.Bg2 null
7.h3 null
8.Rh2 null
9.Nd2 null
10.Ndc4 null
11.Be3 null
12.Bd4 null
13.b3 null
14.Nc2 null
15.Nb4 null
16.Nd5 null
17.Nf4 null
18.Bd5 null
19.Rg2 null
20.f3 null
21.h4 null
22.Kd2 null
23.Kc2 null
24.a3 null
25.a4 null
26.e3 null
27.e4 null
28.Re1 null
29.Re3 null
30.Be5 null
31.Ne6 null
32.Rge2 null
33.d4 null
34.Nd6 null
35.Kd2 null
36.Re1 null
37.Rh1 null
38.g4 null
39.h5 null
40.g5 null
41.f4 null
42.h6 null
43.f5 null
44.g6 null
45.h7 null
46.Ree1 null
47.Ra1 null
48.b4 null
49.a5 null
50.b5 null
51.c4 null
52.a6 null
53.c5 null
54.b6 null
55.a7 Qe7

```

The tiger is now limited to the squares d7 and e7. White can now finish immediately by Zugzwang (56 f6 or 56 c6 respectively) or continue in the same fashion:

```
[Title "Tiger suffocates"]
[fen "8/P3q2P/1P1NN1P1/2PBBP2/3PP3/8/3K4/R6R w - - 0 55"]

1.Ra6 null
2.c6 null
3.Rh6 null
4.f6

```

and the tiger is completely out of squares (NB there are no legal moves from d7/e7 to a8 or h8), **QEF**.
> 8 votes

# Answer
In tiger hunt you could try to find setups for white in which the tiger can attack nothing and has no possibility to cross the pawn phalanx. Then you only have to show that you can always transform one of these setups into another, with further progressed pawns, without allowing captures or escapes.

These transformations should be calculable by brute force. And if you can actually find these setups and transformations, the tiger will be forced back until it is captured.

The point is of course that you don't really have a complete search tree. You only use a search tree to get from one stable position to another more advanced stable position.

Edit: At first I had proposed a simple solution that unfortunately hinged on pawn promotions, which aren't allowed.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, solving
---


title: Chess programs that mimic some amateurs

text:
# Question
Title: Chess programs that mimic some amateurs
Is there such a thing as a chess program that at random times can vary it's strength of play between say a beginner and an expert? Or maybe a program that a certain random times makes subtle or obvious mistakes?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Of course, and in fact it's very common.

**Stockfish**

The code for the implementation:

```
int weakness = 120 - 2 * level;

// Choose best move. For each move score we add two terms, both dependent on
// weakness. One deterministic and bigger for weaker levels, and one random,
// then we choose the move with the resulting highest score.
for (size_t i = 0; i < multiPV; ++i)
{
    // This is our magic formula
    int push = (  weakness * int(topScore - rootMoves[i].score)
                + delta * (rng.rand<unsigned>() % weakness)) / 128;

    if (rootMoves[i].score + push > maxScore)
    {
        maxScore = rootMoves[i].score + push;
        best = rootMoves[i].pv[0];
    }
}

```

If you ask Stockfish to play weaker chess, it'd randomly choose a weaker move. It does that by drawing from a uniform distribution and linearly relate the level you choose with the random noise (*weakness* and *push* in the code).

**SmallChess**

Other engines adopt other implementations. For example, I prefer a model where I draw a sudden large jump to simulate a gross blunder. The probability depends on the level, and it is related to the number of pieces on the board. When my engine feels it needs to make a blunder, it'd do a quick shallow search. My intention is try to simulate simple tactic errors.

---
Tags: engines, software, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Chess challenge #10: A beautiful knightmare
This time I bring you a beautiful composition. White is down material but is about to queen the d7 pawn. The only problem is the knight fork on f7 and if he doesn't act very quickly Black is going to put his bishop on a5. **How does White win the game?**

```
[fen "8/3P3k/n2K3p/2p3n1/1b4N1/2p1p1P1/8/3B4 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "White to play and win (Gijs van Breukelen, 1997)"]

```

I stumbled upon this composition in this blog and I found it extremely beautiful. The composer is Gijs van Breukelen.

# Answer
My semi-educated guess at a solution:

> 1.Nf6 Kg7 2.Nh5 Kg6 3.Bc2+ Kxh5 4.d8Q Nf7 5.Ke6 Nxd8 6.Kf5 e2 7.Be4 e1N 8.Bd5 c2 9.Bc4 c1N 10.Bb5 Nc7 11.Ba4 and Bd1 should lead to mate. It's all pretty forcing, at the beginning black has to avoid blockading f7 or stepping into d8Q+ and then the bishop starts threatening mate all over the place until black runs out of knights ...
> 4 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, problems, studies
---


# Question
Title: Will going to more chess tournaments and playing the Open section make me stronger and more experienced chess player?
I'm currently a Class B (1600). I rarely play at chess tournaments, but this year I have been playing at a lot of tourneys. Will going to more chess tournaments help me gain experience and make me a stronger chess player, especially if I play stronger people?

# Answer
Playing a lot of tournament games against slightly stronger opposition is one of the best ways to improve your chess. It is very hard to match the intensity of a tournament game in a training session.

Additionally, the experience from actually playing is necessary to learn how to bring all your knowledge and your abilities onto the board. In my experience, if you don't have at least 200-300 tournament games under your belt, you won't be able to play at your best in a tournament setting.

So in the beginning you will improve just from being able to handle the situation better, something that is very hard to learn in training sessions. (Handling the situation includes not just on-the-board play, also the circumstances of the tournament, physical reaction to the stress/bad air/low blood sugar ..., mastering psychological setbacks, how to react to draw offers, time trouble and a thousand other things.)

That being said, playing players more than 300 points stronger than you (or weaker than you) won't help you much, because there probably won't be much of fight. If you can get these players to analyse the game with you afterwards, it would still be worthwhile, but generally you should choose your tournament in such a way that you don't get completely crushed in every other game.

Also analysing your games afterwards and studying the opening before and after the game can increase your learning experience a lot. (Actually, preparing an opening for a specific game against a specific opponent is in my view one of the best and most motivating ways of learning openings. Unfortunately in the US that often doesn't seem to be possible, from what I've heard.)
> 3 votes

# Answer
No. Playing against those who can easily defeat you will not make you stronger. And it will hose the Open section, too, as you are effectively a "bye". If am referring to tournaments where there is a vigorous Open section, of course. When I played in the NY State championship, the Open section was all 2200+ and included IMs and GMs.

There are a few threads here on how players can improve. Search for them.

In a nut shell:

1. Work tactical exercises
2. Attend your local chess club and

a. play in your section

b. ask better players (+400 rating over yours, if possible) for help with analysis, and
3. Find an instructor to help you with specific weak points.
4. Once you are established at the chess club, you and an opponent can play a rated match. That is, you and your opponent can play a rated best-of-5 match or whatever. Choose an opponent who is 100 or maybe 200 points over you for a real challenge. You'll need your club's TD's approval.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Yes because it will give you exposure to high class competitive chess.

No, because playing alone cannot help you get better at Chess. What you learn from a game is more important than the result. Just playing so many tournaments alone doesn't make you a strong player.

So, the best advice is a balance of strong games followed by analyzing them and improving your game before playing more strong tournaments.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Where is London Chess Classic Pool B's webpage?
I don't now if here is a right place to ask this question. I think London Chess Classic has at least two different pools but I find only one of the pools in their website, is there any page which shows standings and games in the other pool(s)? Or it has only one pool? The main pool (or the only one) is the pool of super grandmasters. I'm also interested to watch weaker pool games and events. I know I can access the games from other websites like chessgames etc but it's strange if they do not associate any page to the other pool (or it's strange if there is no other pool then what is this?)

# Answer
> 1 votes
**Here's how you can find the tournament results:**

*Link* = Chess Results page

Use *ctrl + F* to locate **Tournament selection**

You'll then notice all the sections:

* Super Rapidplay
* FIDE Open
* Weekend Open
* Weekend U2000
* Weekend U1800
* Weekend U120
* Weekday U2000
* Weekday U135
* English Junior Rapidplay

Hope this helps.

---
Tags: tournament, famous-events
---


# Question
Title: What is the percentage of players who are women in the sections where both men and women can play in?
I am NOT asking for the percentage of chess players that are women.

I am asking for the percentage of players who are women in the sections where both men and women can play in.
That percentage is obviously lower than the percentage of chess players that are women because many women prefer to play in women-only sections.

In other words the question could be rephrased as: if I'm a man and tomorrow I'll play a game in a tournament, what's the probability that my opponent is a woman?

You can answer for either USCF or FIDE, it doesn't matter which one.

# Answer
> 3 votes
In France, there are women only team championships but not all women chess players supports them.

Here is the point of view of Mathilde Choisy (WFM, FIDE 2181), in French http://echecsetmixte.fr/?p=665

The main points are :

* If you want to make progress, don't think about women competitions, think bigger and aim for results in "general" competitions. A top 20 in French mixed youngster championship is a better result than a top 3 in European Girl championship.
* France has only a few active women players rated 2000+ so they always play against each other in these competitions
* If you stay too long in girl competitions, you won't realize the gap in level with the boys until it's too late
* Women championships promotes "amateur chess" but are no use for professionnal competitions.

It's clearly not an answer to the question but I think it's worth sharing.

Btw I met my wife in an French mixed open, so there are some chances that you'll played against some. I checked the data for this open and here are the rates :

* Open A , Elo \>1700 : 5-10% women
* Open B, Elo \<1800 : 12-15% women

---
Tags: statistics, women
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find the live standings of the Grand Chess Tour?
The final stage of the Grand Chess Tour is being held these days at London and I was wondering who's going to win the general prize of the series.

In the official website I could just find the standings after the Sinquefield cup, but I couldn't find the live standings updated after each game. I know that I can calculate them by hand, but I'd like to find a website with them.

Where can I find the live standings of the Grand Chess Tour?

# Answer
> 2 votes
On the London Chess Classics website, there is a link to the GCT Estimated Standings

An estimate is the best you can get though:

> ... The points actually allocated will be determined by tiebreaks which cannot be calculated until the end of the tournament...

---
Tags: tournament, websites
---


# Question
Title: Can computer software that doesn't use databases still beat best in world?
Are there strong chess engines that can beat most of the good chess engines without using databases (like opening databases), solely using brute force?

# Answer
In the recent Nakamura - Stockfish match, Stockfish played with a one pawn handicap.

Additionally "**According to match conditions, Stockfish was not allowed to access either an opening book or an endgame tablebase.**".

Without opening database and with a one pawn handicap, Stockfish still beat Nakamura quite handily 3-1.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: How do you stop white's queenside advance in the Reversed Sicilian?
My openings textbook gives this line (Closed Variation of the Reversed Sicilian):

```
[FEN ""]

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 d6 6.d3 Nf6 7.Rb1

```

with the note that the plan for white here would be to push 8. b4 and crush black on the queenside.

I want to stop that with black, so the first move I looked at was 7. ... a5, but I can't see how this doesn't fail to 8. a3. Still, this move is proposed in this answer and in this comment my question was asked, but it sadly went unanswered.

How do I stop b4?

# Answer
> 4 votes
You don't.

There is no way at this point to stop white from advancing on the queenside. Playing a5 still makes sense, because short term this will give you the open a-file and longterm this will eliminate a potential weakness that white might take advantage of once he breaks through.

Instead of stoping white on the queenside you have to develop play on the kingside or potentially even in the centre to compensate for white's attack.

Here is a nice and recent example:

```
[Event "World Cup"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2011.08.29"]
[EventDate "2011.08.28"]
[Round "1.2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Arman Pashikian"]
[Black "Radoslaw Wojtaszek"]
[ECO "A24"]
[WhiteElo "2616"]
[BlackElo "2683"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[FEN ""]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. d3 O-O
7. O-O d6 8. Rb1 a5 9. a3 h6 10. b4 axb4 11. axb4 Be6 12. Nd2
Qd7 13. b5 Nd8 14. Nd5 Nxd5 15. cxd5 Bh3 16. Nc4 Bxg2 17. Kxg2
b6 18. f4 exf4 19. gxf4 Qg4+ 20. Kh1 Ra2 21. Bd2 Nb7 22. f5
Qd4 23. Qb3 Rfa8 24. e3 Qh4 25. Qd1 Nc5 26. Qe2 Ra1 27. Rxa1
Rxa1 28. Be1 Qh3 29. Nd2 Bc3 30. Nf3 Ra2 31. Nd2 Bxd2 32. fxg6
Bxe1 0-1

```

---
Tags: opening, english-opening
---


# Question
Title: Chess challenge #9: Can you solve it in less than 5 minutes?
Today I remembered this position that I saw a few months ago in a tweet by Sergey Karjakin:

```
[fen "2k5/8/8/BQ6/4K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

It seemed very easy to me because there are just 4 pieces left but it was much more difficult than I expected. Sergey was asked to solve it in less than five minutes as part of a bet (which he won). White to play and mate in 3. **Can you also solve it in less than 5 minutes? :)**

# Answer
Got it barely under the mark. Not sure if it helped or hurt that I knew the mate-in-2 with a similar position (move the Ke4 to f5).

> 1 Qb2!! Kd7 2 Qe5! Kc8/Kc6 3 Qc7/Qd5#!

*Spoiler for mate in 2* (Kf5 Qb5 Ba5 / Kc8):

> 1 Qb3! Kd7 2 Qe6#!
> 6 votes

# Answer
Favourite task of V. Lenin )) 1. Qb2 2.Qe5
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, problems
---


# Question
Title: Is it a draw by insufficient material if the board is K vs K, N & N?
It isn't possible to force checkmate with King vs. King, Knight & Knight. A checkmate *position*, however, is still possible to achieve, so does that mean the 50 move rule applies, or does insufficient material mean insufficient material to force checkmate?

# Answer
This is a complicated situation, and it is made even more complicated by the fact that USCF and FIDE rules differ slightly.

First and most importantly, the 50 move rule *always* applies. If 50 moves are made without a capture or a pawn move, then the game is simply declared drawn.

The rules about insufficient material only are important when one side runs out of time. Basically, the rule says that if a player runs out of time, and the opponent does not have enough material to mate, then the game is declared drawn instead of the side with time remaining getting the win. For example, if black has a lone king and white flags while trying to mate with a king and queen, the game is a draw. If there is insufficient material to deliver mate, an OTB game can also be declared drawn even with time on the clock if a tournament director is summoned. This will only apply for cases like K vs K or KN vs K. Usually it is not an issue because the opponent will simply agree to a draw.

So now to the specific case of KNN vs K:

# FIDE

Under **FIDE** rules for standard tournament time controls, if the side with just a king runs out of time, then the side with KNN *wins* because a mating position can be constructed. If the side with just the king avoids one move mates, however, then mate cannot be forced.

# USCF

Under **USCF** rules, if the side with just a king runs out of time, then the game is *declared drawn*. The USCF focuses on the fact that checkmate cannot be forced.

# Online Play

Many online chess servers will automatically stop a game when there is not enough material left on the board to mate. In the specific case of KNN vs K most servers do not automatically give a draw (following the FIDE rules). One interesting case is KN vs KB when Playchess and ICC *will* stop the game and award a draw (not following FIDE rules) while Chesscube follows the FIDE rules and continues play.

# Practical Play

Now for practical play, if you are defending with just the king, it is very easy to avoid mate for 50 moves, even if you have almost no time remaining. Make sure that you don't move to a square where mate can be delivered next move and you will never be forced into mate.
> 17 votes

# Answer
I only know FIDE rules.

K+N+N v K is a position in which checkmate is still possible, therefore it is treated exactly like any other position in which checkmate is still possible (like, say, the opening position).

In particular, this means that:

* This position is *not* declared a draw, like dead positions are (K+B v K, for instance, is an immediate draw not requiring any claims)
* If the side with only a King runs out of time, he loses

But there are a few other rules to mention besides the 50 move rule:

* If it's rapid or standard chess, there is no increment, and play is in the last time period (in which there's therefore only a limited amount of time for the rest of the game), if the defending side has less than 2 minutes on the clock, he can *claim a draw under Rule 10.2* claiming that the position can't be won any more in normal fashion. Rule 10.2 is always complex but in this case it's obvious that the draw claim will hold.
* There is a rule against "bringing the game of chess into disrepute" and I feel that an arbiter should give a warning based on that rule to any player that knows better continuing this in a slow game.

But in Blitz, you are out of luck and need to press your clock faster than he does.
> 7 votes

# Answer
K+N+N vs. K is a draw or stalemate. The knights cannot force checkmate though helpmate is possible.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Any minimally courteous opponent will accept your offer of a draw in this situation.
> -2 votes

# Answer
Situations where mate is available but obviously cannot be forced are uncommon. E.g. KBvKB where bishops are opposite colours.

Under USCF rules, the game would most likely be declared a draw if time ran out for either side.
> -3 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rules, theory, checkmate, draw
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to improve visualization?
Visualization (seeing a chessboard, where the pieces are and how they can move moves ahead in your mind) is an important part of tactics and calculation.

What is the best way (or a good way) to improve it, I mean for beginners?

# Answer
In my experience at first you should just work on chess as much as you can, especially on combinations. If you get comfortable with visualizing positions that result from the combinations you will notice to be able to also follow positions in chess books. Then it's time to read endgame books. At first you will not be able to follow the moves too deep, but since the positions are simple you will be able to follow it for a while, that's useful for your endgame, and soon you will notice that it's getting easier to follow even deep lines.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I guess it's vital to become comfortable with chessboard coordinates. You might train here.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: board-vision
---


# Question
Title: What are good chess tournaments to play in Europe as a USCF Class A + age 21+?
I'm looking for a good European chess tournament to play that would be good for my age and playing strength. Perhaps even meet more chess player close to my age group. Any suggestions?

# Answer
You can give a try to the monthly "First Saturday" round-robin tournaments in Budapest. (You probably have heard of it, it has been in existence for like 22 years.) The city is nice, the venue is downtown, the local girls are beautiful, the majority of the players speak/understand English, maybe the only issue can be that your rating qualifies you for group "FM-A", where the opponents are rated between FIDE 1850 and 2100. But 9-11 games are guaranteed.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I played in Reykjavik two years ago and it was fantastic!

Of course that's not quite Italy …

Closer to your specification is probably the Open in Pula. I have never been there, but from what I've heard, if you want to combine beach holiday and chess, that's a good opportunity.

I did play an open in Italy as well, quite nice, but also quite small.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide
---


# Question
Title: Computer assistance in online blitz chess
I play on chess.com which is usually a very positive and pleasant experience. I like to play five minute time controls with 0 second increments which means it translates to a very fast paced game. Often, I will enter tournaments with this time control.

Recently, I have been forced to play with a player who I strongly believe is using a computer. I figured it would be very easy to have another chess program open in a different window and play the moves your opponent is playing and respond likewise, but I didn't think this would be possible in such a rapid chess game. He is moving very quickly without making any mistakes and setting up very strong combinations. Is it possible that he has configured his computer to be wired into the game where it moves without him having to switch between windows or programs?

# Answer
> 5 votes
It's definitely possible.

In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi47GBArpPE the user has set up a program that screen captures the board, determines the best move and then plays out that move. It's fast enough that he can play bullet (1 minute each) with it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
5 0 is slow enough it would be easy to cheat in another window, especially if you are capable of moving on your own at least part of the time. It sounds like chess.com has an active detection system although they don't disclose all of the details. (It may be possible to automatically cheat, as you say, but it would be a lot more effort. *edit*: at least, I think it would be...)

I would download the PGN of your game and analyze it against a free computer program like Stockfish. If they truly made almost no mistakes/almost always made optimal moves (and you think they shouldn't have) I recommend you report the suspected cheater.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-policy-on-cheating

# Answer
> 1 votes
Image recognition is easily to the point where a person *could* set up an AI to automatically play for him.

1. screen capture the board
2. allow the computer to find the move made compared to previous screen capture (*AI Neural Networks could accomplish this with the correct training*)
3. AI inputs the move to some other engine
4. Engine displays best move

Point 5 could be the human actually makes that move that is displayed by the engine, or the AI once again reads from the screen and translates that into how it would make the move in the online game.

---

It would take a decent amount of work to get such a setup going - it would not be worth it for *most* people. Even those that know how.

More likely, someone would have two monitors set up. (or two windows on their one monitor). They would need to be able to know the shorthand chess notation well, (*I don't but many people do*), as soon as you make your move they just type it in. Engine shows next move, they type that in and make the move. I think this could be fairly quick.

You would probably have to report someone if you suspect them of cheating. Eve's answer has a link to chess.com's cheating policy.

---
Tags: engines, cheating
---


title: Drawing rules for time loss

text:
# Question
Title: Drawing rules for time loss
Let's say we have a few situations. White has all their pieces (hypothetically) and black has only:

* N+K
* B+K
* N+N+K

If white were to run out of time, would each of these situations be a draw due to insufficient material? I'm wondering because let's say black were to have a forced checkmate with one of the above situations, could white deliberately lose on time and claim a draw?

# Answer
lichess gets it wrong.

As it happens, White would lose all three games. With all white pieces still on the board, black has still "enough mating material" - it would actually help if White had no pieces at all!

I guess we all agree in the following position black is checkmate:

```
5k1K/5n1P/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

But this position can be reached from the examples shown. Even without pawns, it is still possible to checkmate for black:

```
2RKR3/5n2/3k4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

Obviously, these cases are rather theoretical. But there are real-world situations (you need something like KRR vs KN, note that KQ vs KN is in fact drawn under that circumstances!) where this may apply. That is why the 10.2 rule (claiming draw with less than two minutes, now annex G) was established and why any higher-rated modern tournament will play with time increments.

There aren't many examples of asymmetric insufficient material. Most of the time, either both players or neither can win.

*Edit:* The relevant section of the rules is Article 6.9:

> Except where one of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent *cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves*.

The common simplification "has not enough winning material" is not always a good one.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Which late starters have been able to become grandmasters?
Decades ago, there was a young man who joined the Rochester chess club where he had the frequent opportunity to play against USCF Life Master Dr. Eric W. Marchand if my memory is correct.

Who was that late starter? He became a GM in a relatively short time.

Many chess players who go on to become GM's have started out in the first few years of their lives.

Which late starters have been able to become grandmasters?

Please note that this question is the opposite of the more general "how young..." category of questions.

**edit**:
Dr. Marchand was not a GM, my error, he was a USCF Life Master.
My point is having strong competition can help one's chess development.

Also, it's fair to consider a late starter as someone who is perhaps age 20 and up.
**end edit**.

# Answer
> 8 votes
* *Oscar Shapiro was the oldest player to become a master. He did it at the age of 74.*
* *Wilhelm Steinitz was the oldest world chess champion. He won the title from Zuckertort in 1886 at the age of 50 and held it until he was defeated by Lasker in 1894 at the age of 58 years and 10 days.*

Source

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'm not aware of the person you're referring to, but GM Ye Jiangchuan of China started playing at around 17, as far as I remember from what I read about him. That's relatively quite late for Chess GMs. You can find more about him here: Ye Jiangchuan (Wikipedia)

---
Tags: grandmaster, titles
---


# Question
Title: Has the performance of physical electronic chess sets increased similarly to the performance of software based implementations over the years?
From what I understand, the difficulty of most chess engines is determined by how long they are allowed to 'think' about the moves. From what I understand, the performance of software based chess applications has increased massively over the years, but I'm not sure if hardware limited engines have increased performance in a similar fashion.

The reason I ask is because my father owns a fairly old electronic chess set, but finds that the advanced levels take too long to compute their moves. I'm wondering if I buy a more modern board, can I assume that a similar level of difficulty can be achieved with less waiting time? For specifics, he already owns a systema Jupiter board, and I'm currently thinking about the Lexibook chessman elite, which is on the cheaper side of things.

Apologies if this doesn't fit the site's remit, it seems an appropriate place to ask.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is are basically two features you can look at to decide whether a board computer will be faster: Elo (i.e. playing strength) and processor speed.

The stronger the maximal playing strength the faster it should be (on comparable levels). Lexibook Chessman Elite should be around 1800, whereas Systema Jupiter Deluxe plays at appr. 1400 Elo.

I couldn't find the chip speed for Systema Jupiter, but Lexibook has a 2 MHz chip. On this list you can look for something maybe a little faster and a little stronger, though at some point you may have to worry whether the weaker levels are still weak enough.

I would say that Lexibook, being 400 points stronger, should be comfortably faster than Systema Jupiter.

---
Tags: computer-chess
---


title: Capturing one bishop

text:
# Question
Title: Capturing one bishop
I was just looking for the best move in the position (White to move).

And I thought that capturing the bishop in green square would be the best as it controls

the open a8-h1 diagonal ,but the engine preferred the bishop in red square with an advantage over 2 points in its evaluation,

I am unable to see the reason (tactical or strategic) for this behavior.

# Answer
> 8 votes
1.Bxb2 and you're up a rook for a pawn.

1.Qxd1 Bxe5 and you're only up the exchange (rook vs bishop) for a pawn.

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, bishops, bad-bishop
---


# Question
Title: How do I not play too fast when playing the computer?
When I'm playing against a computer, it moves virtually instantly. Automatically, I'm speeding up as if trying to match it. Obviously, I'm not a computer, so I make horrible blunders if I move so quickly. When playing OTB against a live player, I take considerably longer for my moves (I'm fine with playing a three hour game) and consequently I play *a lot* better OTB. By the way, I virtually always play without a clock.

Is this common? Are there any tips besides "just don't do this"?

# Answer
This is a very bad habit you are getting in to. Of course it doesn't really matter if you lose to the computer in this situation but you will face something similar in OTB play with clocks.

If you have 10 minutes left to finish the game and your opponent has less than 2 minutes then this is a very big advantage for you. If you are not playing with increments then your opponent will have to start blitzing his moves out to try and avoid losing on time. He is much more likely to make a mistake. If you copy him and start blitzing too then your advantage disappears.

You should try and have a set routine which you go through regardless of the opponent's speed of move, some questions you automatically ask yourself. Why did my opponent play his last move? What is he threatening? How does it stop my plans? Does it give me some new possibilities?

If you consider these kind of questions it will slow down your play and help you to stop blitzing unnecessarily.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Did you try literally sitting on your hands, and only taking them out when you are sure you found the right move? Having an additional action and consideration to perform might be enough for you change your behaviour.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: computer-chess, time-management
---


# Question
Title: When is the right time to offer a draw according to the FIDE OTB rules
Is there any FIDE rule to say when is the right time to offer a draw? To be more clear, shall I offer a draw when my clock is going or I should offer if my opponent's clock is running? In this situation if I offer a draw in my opponent move and he play a bad move, can he claim anything?

<sub>P.S: This happened to me, my opponent offered me a draw few seconds after he pressed the clock. Both position and time situation was in such a way that draw offer was already ridiculous, so to humiliate him, instantly after his offer I played a stupid move to say even if I do nonsense you will lose, but just after I moved I saw that this was one of the most stupid moves possible to play which cost me a rook and the game. Even that this was my mistake to get upset but my opponent in some sense played the man not the game and I think it was not fair. </sub>

# Answer
> 3 votes
> 9.1.b.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.
>
> 11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The rule is, that you can only offer a draw in your own time (you shouldn't do nothing that can disturb your opponent when he thinks, and a draw offer is like that), you should offer a draw, then make a move, and handle your clock. Both players are supposed to signal that there was a draw offer, and it cannot be taken back.

Then the other player considers the offer, he can accept, he can refuse, or he can just make a move which means that he refused (but it's considered polite to also say something like let's play on a little).

---
Tags: rules, draw, claim-draw
---


# Question
Title: Minimum sets of pieces required for checkmate?
What are the minimum sets of pieces required for checkmate when the opponent has no other piece that the king?

# Answer
> 6 votes
* King + Bishop + Knight
* King + Bishop + Bishop
* King + Rook
* King + Queen
* and don't forget the unlikely King + Knight + Knight + Knight

Assuming the lone King is attempting to avoid checkmate.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As simple as a Knight or even a pawn, if you consider the fact that your opponent's pieces can block the escape squares too.

Example:

W: Kf1, Nf2

B: Kh1, h2.

The Assume that white played Nf2# in the last move. So, white has just used one knight to checkmate black king.

# Answer
> 1 votes
```
There are many answers to your question,

1) A rook
2) Any 2 minor pieces (Minor pieces:  Bishop, Night)
3) A Queen
4) 1 pawn :)

```

---
Tags: checkmate, check, pieces, minor-pieces
---


# Question
Title: play against a computer, then analyze it software.
this is a simple question, thanks in advance for your answers!

I am looking for a free software which allows me to

1) play chess against a computer

2) analyze the game I had (did i screw up at any point, did i miss something obvious)

3) is free!

Thank you

# Answer
I use Playchess, Stock Fish and Chessbase. However, I would recommend analyzing manually yourself before letting the computer analyze the game. That way you can improve so much!
> 1 votes

# Answer
As Tony Ennis points out in his comment you can download SCID and Stockfish 6 for free and use them to play and analyse your games.

There are also websites that allow you do it, for instance Chess24.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I suggest using http://en.lichess.org/paste for analysis, it is very fast and helpful and gives you a human like analysis.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, software
---


# Question
Title: How do you convert a scid database into a pgn database?
So I got a big scid database and ScidvsMac. I would like to convert the complete database into a pgn database. So far I have only found out how to convert single games into pgn, something I'm not keen on doing a million times.

So how do you do this with scid? And if scid doesn't have this functionality, is it possible to maybe do it game by game via command line?

# Answer
Go to the `Tools` menu and somewhere down you will find under the option `Export Current Game` the option `Export All Filter Games`. In this sub-menu there is the option to export them as PGN.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: database, pgn, scid
---


title: Free software for intermediate learner?

text:
# Question
Title: Free software for intermediate learner?
I'm at about 1600 level, roughly speaking, and I need a good software with lots of options to keep me interested in learning chess and improving myself. I've heard of different ones, including SCID, Lucas, Arena, and recently someone recommended Jose. Do you know of any other programs or what do you think of these? I'm not computer literate so please dumb down the explanation for me.

For instance, someone said that Arena is closed source but SCID is not, and that SCID is more of a database program. I don't know what those things mean or if that makes one better than the other. Jose was someone's solution on a website to someone wanting to combine the best of SCID and Arena, for instance.

Thanks

# Answer
> 4 votes
Why not solve more Chess puzzles? That will definitely help you. There are many freemium model chess sites out there..

My favorite is Chessity Others in this list are:

\[This list is endless. Other may have suggestions too.\]

I'm afraid that playing against computers might defeat your motivation, because they are very good and beat humans without mercy.

I would also recommend playing online with other human folks. I use Playchess

# Answer
> 1 votes
Adding to Arun's list

* ChessPly for simple online repertoire management and training

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: What kind of training should a Class B do for a year, if he or she wants to defeat a 2100 player?
There's an Expert Class that I specifically want to have a good game with or defeat. Though I always get destroyed badly in blitz. What can a Class B do in year to become strong enough to have a really good game or even defeat an Expert Class? Any advice?

# Answer
> 5 votes
If you want to defeat specifically one opponent the easiest way would be to check his games, try to find his weaknesses, and try to prepare and then reach positions which he doesn't feel comfortable with. Maybe this will be simple positions maybe closed games with manovering, maybe sharp tactical games. See what type of positions he tries to reach, and drag him to completely different ones. Obviously you should invest most of the time to get better in this kind of positions.

If in general you want to have a fighting chance against an expert player, without investing the time and energy to get good enough, than you should do lot's and lot's of combinations, prepare an opening repertoire with gambit openings, and try to catch him in a dobious, but complicated position. You will lose more than win, but every now and then you will nail him.

And then there is the hard but revarding way of generally perfecting your game :).

# Answer
> 3 votes
If both players are adults and have truly established 1700-ish and 2100 ratings, there is no plausible way the B-player will reliably defeat a 2100 player after one year of study. None.

That's the fact of the matter.

The ratings are not arbitrary and are well grounded in math; the 400 point difference means the lower rated player has no chance of winning at all.

Flukes happen, of course. I am a B-player and have drawn a 2100 twice in slow-time-control games. It was the same guy both times. *He was bored with my play and started trying stuff*. When he got in trouble, he turned on the juice and I could not secure the win in either game.

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: As a Class B, how do I improve my chess against A level or higher?
I been playing bunch of tournaments where I have solely played against Class A. I keep losing or drawing against Class A players. I draw when I'm winning. Sometimes I don't understand A players moves in the middle game. I struggle understanding what plan a given position needs or what plan my opponent has in mind. Even if I figure out their plan, I play the wrong move to stop them. Sometimes I'm winning, but A players have really strong counter-play and I lose to their counter-play. My endgame is my strongest feature, but I usually get to a losing endgame. Any advice?

# Answer
Silman's How to reassess your chess book is invaluable. Give it a thorough reading if you haven't yet.

My advice would be

1. Replay your game with an engine. Find out the moves you did wrong.
2. if most are tactical, then train yourself on that
3. if most are positional, then find out what imbalances are there at your move. Read relevant chapter in the book (could be just the summary section) and see if you can find a better move.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is no magic bullet to suddenly make you a better player.

Playing A-players is not (or rather should not) be any different than playing C-players in most cases. In general you should try to play the best moves no matter what the level of your opponent.

Do not worry about mysterious moves. When I watch C-players play they make mysterious moves. Usually mysterious moves are bad moves.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Two important things:

1) "I draw when I'm winning." That happens a lot to B (and lower) players. An A player, almost by definition, will win once he has the advantage. Get a teacher to teach you how to win your won games!

2) "I struggle understanding what plan a given position needs or what plan my opponent has in mind. Even if I figure out their plan, I play the wrong move to stop them." Learn to "read" and understand your opponent's plans. Once you've gotten to a point where you can explain them to your teacher, have him teach you the right countermoves. The second thing you must do to improve is to draw (or win) games that you have been losing.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You should just keep on playing, improving and learning from other people.

I'm playing a lot of chess lately, and I had problems in the beginning (and still have with better people). But somebody who was worse than me in the beginning is now as good as me. Just keep playing and take your time in your moves. What the other does, think of a good move and think: "If I do this, what can he do and how can I react?". It's the same against every opponent.

The only thing that makes it harder is because those 'A-level players' have learnt how to react to certain moves and to think a million moves ahead. That's chess. So I suggest, just keep on playing, maybe go on a chess club and learn from others. Practice online against a AI, and take back moves if you make a mistake, going through what you did and see how this could be prevented. If you know people who are really good, ask them to 'teach' you, but of course he/she can't help you win. Every opponent plays different and it's just up to you to think those million steps ahead. That's what helps you winning games.

Good luck!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: King taking pieces when check

text:
# Question
Title: King taking pieces when check
Why can the white king not take the queen here?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Because that would move the king into check - the queen is defended by the bishop on c5.

More generally there is **no** problem with a king taking a piece that is checking it, **provided** the capture does not move the king into check or break any of the other laws of chess.

# Answer
> 0 votes
A king can only capture *unprotected* pieces. In this case, the Black queen is protected by the black-squared bishop.

If a king moves into a square where an enemy piece (the bishop) can recapture him, he is "moving into check," which he can't do. If a player can't move out of check with his king, either by moving away, capturing the checking piece or "interposing" (which doesn't work when the checking piece is adjacent) he loses the game.

But here, the king can move out of check by going to c3. Put the Black knight on b5 or d5, and White is check mated.

---
Tags: analysis, learning, tactics
---


# Question
Title: Which openings lead to unbalanced endgames?
Some openings often lead to "unbalanced" endgames, where both white and black have their advantages and disadvantages.

For instance, in the Berlin endgame, white has a lead in development and a better pawn structure, while black has the bishop pair.

Are there other openings in which one of the (main) lines results in an unbalanced endgame?

# Answer
First note that it is impossible to force your opponent into an endgame - chess doesn't work like that. Second, strategically the endgame may be one of the better choices for the opponent eg in the Berlin Defence the consensus on White best option is between the Berlin endgame and the Anti Berlin 4.d3, or equally it may not be, which doesn't mean you can't play it anyway if you like endgames. For examples of opening ideas that lead to unbalanced endgames see the games of Kramnik for example

Kramnik-Timman Wijk aan Zee 1999.

```
  [StartPly "7"]
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Wijk aan Zee"]
  [White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
  [Black "Jan Timman"]

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 dxc4 7.Nxc6  Qxd1+ 8.Nxd1 bxc6

```

Kramnik-Van Wely Wijk aan Zee 2001

```
  [StartPly "7"]
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Wijk aan Zee"]
  [White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
  [Black "Loek Van Wely"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3
7.bxc3 c5 8.Be3 Qa5 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.Rc1 cxd4 11.cxd4 Qxd2+
12.Kxd2

```

Kramnik-Tomashevsky Tal Memorial 2012

```
  [StartPly "7"]
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Tal Memorial"]
  [White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
  [Black "Evgeny Tomashevsky"]

1.Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 a6 5. e3 e6 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 c5 8. O-O b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. dxc5 Qxd1 11. Rxd1

```

All of which won by White. These games are main lines - at least the last two are. I'm not too sure about the English opening in the first game.
> 2 votes

# Answer
One of the Scottish main lines leads to an unbalanced endgame. Ok, every mainline leads to a balanced position, but at least the material is unbalanced. ;-)

Here an example from the '13 Candidates between Svidler and Ivanchuk:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "2013 Candidates"]
[White "Svidler"]
[Black "Ivanchuk"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5
Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. c4 Ba6 9. g3 g6 10. b3 Bg7 11. Bb2 O-O-O
12. Bg2 Rhe8 13. O-O Bxe5 14. Qxe5 Qxe5 15. Bxe5 Rxe5 16. cxd5
Bxf1 17. Kxf1 cxd5 18. Nc3 c6 19. Rc1 Kb7 20. Na4 a5 21. Bf3
Kc7 22. Nc5 Ree8 23. Rc2 Ra8 24. Rd2 Re7 25. Rd4 Rae8 26. Nd3
g5 27. Ra4 Kb6 28. Rd4 Kc7 29. Ra4 Kb6 30. Rd4 Kc7 1/2-1/2

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
Another possibility is the "Colle Endgame" that most Colle players keep in their back pocket. The idea behind it is when Black plays actively in the center, often White can exchange the d & e pawns for Black's c & d pawns. The resulting offside majority (abc vs ab) can be quite strong, since typically both kings are on the kingside.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There's a line in the Alapin variation that leads to an unbalanced endgame:

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "1"]

      1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.dxc5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 e5 8.b4 e4 9.h3 Bh5 10.g4 Nxg4 11.hxg4 Bxg4 12.Nbd2 exf3

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
Games that lead to unbalanced endgames are usually unbalanced *early* in the game.

For instance, in the "exchange" variation of the Ruy Lopez (an early Bxc6), Black gets a bishop pair at the expense of doubled pawns on the fourth move.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, endgame
---


title: What's the average piece density?

text:
# Question
Title: What's the average piece density?
In a position, the piece density is equal to the total number of pieces on the board (Whites pieces + Black pieces) divided by the total number of squares (64).

At the beginning of every game, the piece density is equal to 32/64=0.5, and at any point of the game the piece density is always smaller or equal to 0.5

The piece density can only decrease during a game. It decreases by 1/64=0.015625 at each capture.

I would like to know what's the average piece density.

I'd need a decent precision on the result, so you can't just use a small sample of 5 games. You'll need to take a large sample of at least 500 games, the more the better.

It should be fairly easy. To make the program that will calculate this average piece density, use the facts that at the beginning of each game the piece density is equal to 0.5, then at each capture it decreases by 0.015625, and the program will be able to detect each capture easily since captures are indicated by a "x" symbol in the PGN. So the program won't have to represent every positions of every games, it will be able to quickly calculate the average piece density just by scanning the PGN.

But take only OTB games, played at a classical (long) time control of at least 2 hours per player, and where both players were at least 2000 Elo. No correspondence games, no engines games, no internet games, no rapid games, no blitz games.

# Answer
> 7 votes
First of all, I think this is a bad question (similar to StackOverflow "Give me the code" questions).

That being said, the subject itself seemed interesting, so I threw a quick and dirty (and inefficient - feel free to optimise) script together to do this. I ran it on PGN file of world championship games between 1895 and 1985 from this page (this should fit OPs requirements). The results:

The overall average value for the data points in the World Championships PGN is roughly 0.35 (0.349341653669).

**EDIT:** Results on much bigger PGN sample (~275.000 games) - chess db grandmaster collection (although most likely includes games with non-classical time control).

I am making the script available, so that you can run it on PGN of your choice. It depends on the python pgn parsing package.

---
Tags: statistics, programming, pieces, mathematics
---


title: How can I STOP hanging pieces?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I STOP hanging pieces?
As hard as I try to not "give away" pieces in a game by checking the square that I am moving to first, paying special attention to the "long range" pieces of my opponent, and calculating exchanges, I can't seem to stop blowing a won game by hanging a piece or two. Bishops seem to give me the most trouble as they just seem to blend in the background late in the game for me, and then just snap off a piece of mine as I think I'm close to giving checkmate. Especially late in the game I just seem to get "tunnel vision" with what I'm doing and the lapse in concentration costs me a piece and the game. Will power doesn't seem to be doing it for me, so what else can I do to stop hanging pieces??

# Answer
> 7 votes
You speak the language of my people.

There's nothing magical, unfortunately. You must avoid 'target fixation'. That is, even if you're close to delivering mate, you have to stop before every move, and look at every piece your opponent has. Every time. And you must remember that your opponent is choosing moves for a *reason*. One of those reasons is to snap your pieces off the board.

So the other thing you can do is to be cognizant of basic tactics such as pins, forks, x-rays, etc. You can work on these by running a tactics trainer.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I have the same problem with the bishops, probably because they are long range pieces and also because they tend to blend in with the pawns. The old advice was to sit on your hands and not move too quickly. Examine all your opponent's potential attacks first. Another suggestion was to write your move down before making it and then check the board again one more time. This problem should diminish with experience, but unfortunately it never seems to go away completely and all you can do is try to keep it to a minimum. Even GM's have occasionally overlooked a simple attack.

# Answer
> 2 votes
One simple technique is a "checklist". At minimum for the "hung piece" problem, your checklist needs to contain: 1) Check all my pieces on the board for whether they are currently under attack; and for those that are, whether they are sufficiently protected. 2) For the move I am considering, am I moving my piece to an attacked square, and if so, will it be sufficiently protected there also? 3) For the move I am considering, am I removing protection from any other piece, either directly or by discovery?

Another very common way to drop pieces is via forks, so 4) inventory all of my pieces which have no protection (are loose) after my candidate move; does opponent have any move which can fork two of those?

# Answer
> 1 votes
To be honest it is a little like spacial awareness. When I started playing I like most others left pieces hanging but over time I kind got used to "knowing" if something was en prise or not, most of my thinking is now strategic only doing concrete calculation when it feels necessary. I know I am being slightly vague but I would suggest honing your spacial skills by playing as much as possible, reading through annotated games by strong players and solving chess puzzles.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Hanging a piece sometimes is a matter of attention rather than concentration. Fixating on a "plan" can drive a type of "blindness" to what's going on outside of it. Another factor is fatigue. The biggest one of all is blitz. No time to scan the whole board means mistakes.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You seem to be fixated on giving checkmate when you have the advantage, at the expense of other goals, including protecting your own pieces.

When you have an advantage, you should (usually) be chasing your opponent's pieces, not his king, and trying to force exchanges. Once you get into that mindset, you will do a better job of realizing whose pieces are attacked.

Your goal should be to get all your opponent's pieces off the the board so they won't be a(n unexpected) threat to you. Then your advantage, of a piece, pawn or "position" should win for you.

---
Tags: learning, blunder
---


title: How do chess openings work?

text:
# Question
Title: How do chess openings work?
A recent question by xaisoft got me thinking about a problem I had as a novice player. When I first started to play chess, I thought that the moves in an opening were independent of the moves made by the other side. For example, so long as white played `1. e4` I could play the Sicilian Dragon regardless of White's second move.

So my question is, how would you explain to a complete novice what the objective of chess opening book moves? Not a specific opening but just the concept or idea of a chess opening in general.

I'm not so much looking for an explanation of opening principles, but more about about how chess players use the openings in their games.

# Answer
In improvisational music, like jazz for example, the musicians will play a song that has been composed in advance, but by choice they go "off-script" and, cooperatively, make their very own creation in the moment, guided by the structure of the composition but nevertheless doing something distinctly new with each performance. In order to do this well, and create something of beauty that actually sounds good, jazzers need to have a solid understanding of how and what to play; in a word, *they need to know what moves make sense*, among the essentially infinite possibilities that are available to them, within the musical context that they're in. Far from being "mere" players of the music, they are composing on the spot.

Something similar - though different in important ways - happens when two players sit down to play a game of chess. The most notable difference of course is that here, unlike the musical setting, the play is competitive rather than cooperative. That is why there comes a point in every chess game where one is *forced* to improvise. You can try coming in with a pre-composed script that you want to play, but your opponent most likely isn't going to play along. Each player will have to compose his or her half of the game on the spot.

You can think of a chess opening that has its own name and well-known variations much like a good song with its musical score. Through much playing, it has stood the test of time (both on the White side and the Black side) and is recognized as something of worth. In this sense, such openings are a good thing for a chess player to become familiar with. (Consider this: would you rather listen to music made by someone who's already absorbed a lot of other music, or someone who's never heard any before?) But just as someone who has done nothing but memorize the scores of a few good songs would be at a loss if asked to compose a great new piece, a chess player who has focused too much on memorizing opening lines will continually run into points where he's at a total loss as to what to do.

In each case - the composer and the chess player - what is truly useful for future performance is to seek an understanding as to what makes the individual components of a song/opening good or bad, and how they fit together to work toward a common goal, be it an aesthetically pleasing piece of music or a won game of chess. To make one's own worthwhile creations, it is more important to know how to find one's own way than just to know what others have done in the past. But the latter kind of knowledge can definitely help with the former, as long as one focuses on the ideas and principles underlying the moves, rather than just the moves themselves.

---

As an addendum, here is an illustrative example of how *not* to use book knowledge in one's games. During a 1988 tournament, a strong GM was about to have a game as Black, and was skimming through the latest *Informant* for some up-to-date theoretical information. There he found a game in the Petroff Defense, in which Black managed to secure a draw, that featured what was listed as a theoretical novelty (TN) on move 5 for Black. Without thinking much about the value of the move, our intrepid GM decided to give it a go himself. The game played out so:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Alonso Zapata"]
[Black "???"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. Qe2 1-0

```

Black is going to lose a piece, so he decided to resign. What had gone wrong? Well, the game that had slipped into the *Informant* had in fact been a pre-arranged draw between GMs Tony Miles and Larry Christiansen, in which they each mindlessly played out some moves and shook hands:

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Anthony Miles"]
[Black "Larry Christiansen"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Nxe4 Bxe4 7.d3 Bg6
8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7+ 10.Be2 Nc6 11.O-O O-O 12.Re1 Rae8 13.Qd2 Ne5
14.d4 Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3 Qd7 16.c3 b6 17.Rxe8 Rxe8 18.Re1 Rxe1+ 19.Qxe1 Kf8
20.g3 ½–½

```

If our strong GM had spent even a few moments thinking about the *why* of the "script" he'd just glanced at, he never would have played as bad a move as `5. ... Bf5??`. Note too how important it was for White to be ready to improvise; Black's fifth move is so bad that White couldn't have expected it to be played, but when it was, White rightly sensed that something was off about it, and duly found the appropriate punishment. The moral of the story: even the strongest of players need to be careful not to rely too much on book "knowledge." It all ended well for our hero though, as he now enjoys the title of world champion.

Zapata - Anand (Biel 1988)
> 42 votes

# Answer
I think Ed Dean's answer is quite beautiful; a very interesting take on the concept. I will offer an alternative explanation as well, from a slightly different angle.

Chess is a game of tactics and strategy - tactics being things that can be calculated, and strategy being longer term thinking, broad principles which tend to offer advantages at some point in the future (which is not feasible to calculate).

When a game starts, you could (try to) calculate your way through, i.e. purely use tactics. This is obviously going to be quite difficult, since the number of possible moves is very high during the opening/midgame. You could also use broad principles of development, and just place your pieces in good positions. Doing this without considering tactics would often leave you open to clever tactics by your opponent, who may be able to get an advantage (material, initiative, structural, etc).

This is where openings enter - they are moves which have been thought through by thousands of people over decades and centuries, certainly more time than you have during a single game. If both you and your opponent have absolutely perfect knowledge of openings (which is pretty much impossible), you are likely to end up with a position which is more or less equal. In this case, you have at least survived the first part of the game, and can now apply your own thoughts to defeat your opponent. This is not a very likely scenario for several reasons:

* The number of openings and combinations is staggering; unless you are a serious tournament player, you will only know a tiny fraction of them.
* Players will often try to get the opponent "out of the book" by making moves which are unlikely to be known by the opponent. This is a fairly common idea, especially at lower levels of the game, or if the opponent does not have a strong grasp of strategy and is blindly following the openings.

I feel it is important to stress again that a player should have a solid grasp of strategy, as well as be able to calculate well, before trying to use openings as a competitive advantage. In the long run, those tools are typically more useful and valuable.

To answer your actual question, players can use openings in several ways:

* To exploit holes in their opponents opening repertoire - "quick" wins by gaining material, early attacks, etc.
* Ensuring their own safety by at least avoiding such attempts by the opponent. In fact, every point has a similar counterpoint (I won't explicitly name them) - you are playing directly against your opponent, so anything that would give them an advantage, you have to stop them from doing.
* Attempting to gain a slight advantage by taking the opponent into a line which they don't understand well, and having some prior knowledge on how to exploit this. E.g. there may be a typical move towards the end of an opening which may seem logical, but creates a known weakness which can be attacked - a slight advantage, but often enough.
* By choosing the various branches of the openings (and the opening itself), attempting to guide the game into a style which the player is more comfortable with. You have to be aware of the different options you are offering to your opponent with every move - if you open `1. e4`, you should be prepared to play against `...e5`, `...c5`, `...e6`, etc. Each of those then branches, and you would typically have your favoured (and prepared) response to each, because you don't want to have holes in your knowledge that your opponent can exploit.

To summarise, in openings we find a large wealth of knowledge and ingenuity, cleverly worked out and nicely written down for us to consume. Used correctly, they certainly are a competitive advantage, or at least something necessary to stay competitive at higher levels. Many people feel that studying them is cheap, or unfair, but I think they are simply a part of the game. Being better prepared for a battle is a fact of war, which chess is. Your approach to openings (along with many other important aspects and skills) will play an important part in how your play chess.
> 14 votes

# Answer
Chess opening are like plays in the huddle of a football team. One could play football in the playground by simply improvising or making up plays, but this hardly will get a person to the Super Bowl. So if a novice wants to play chess without an organized and studied concept of what he is doing - great! However he will never leave "playground football". If the player wants to play in the NFL, they need a well structured system on how an opening is played. Although all openings cannot be memorized, one can become an expert in the field of openings they choose to play. WCM Claudia Muñoz www.chesscampeona.com
> 10 votes

# Answer
Unless you have an encyclopedic mind coupled with an eidetic memory, it would be virtually impossible to memorize all the openings and their lines. A good thing that you could do to improve your game would be to study the concepts of popular openings, along with solid grounding in tactics and strategy.

For example, the French Defense. White aims for control of the center with `1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5`, while black is challenging for it. A lot of times this is going to be a somewhat cramped game in the center, with black generally developing a queenside attack and white generally developing a kingside attack.

If you know the general theory (center control, kingside development, etc) behind a lot of the major openings, then you can at least muddle through well enough to get to a middle game. You have an idea of what to expect for moves without having to memorize individual move lines. Then, once you figure out your strengths, you can give a little more in depth study to openings and responses that favor what you are good at.

Edited for the OP revision: For a complete beginner, the first things to concentrate on are the rules, piece moves, relative values of the pieces, and phases of the game. Tactics and strategy can be introduced, but in a very general sense.

The objective of an opening can pretty much be summed up as develop all your pieces, and get the king to a safe position. Different openings will set up you for different attacks in the middle game, which is what I was alluding to with the french example above.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Chess players should know the three phases of chess play, i.e. opening / mid / end game phases. The objective of any phase is get get an advantage over your opponent (materially, positionally or tactically) or at the least to have equality with the opponent in that phase. If you get an opening advantage you need to maintain that advantage through the mid and endgame phases and it could help you win the game. If you are brilliant or lucky or both you can win the game in the opening (how many beginners know and/or fall for Scholars mate?!). If you lose the advantage or equality in the opening then you need to play well in the mid and/or end game to try to win the game back. Simple!

Hope that helps...happy chess :-)
> 7 votes

# Answer
It helps to know the book moves and the main variations of the openings that you play. Realize that if your opponent deviates from them early in the game, he's probably making an inferior move. (Unless he's a world class player that can discover new lines.)

In the case of the Ruy Lopez, `g3` is a bad move for White, particularly if he has castled king side. The reason is that his light squared bishop is on the queenside, which is to say that it can *not* protect the light squares on his king side. You're likely to be able to play your light squared bishop to g4 or h3 and really disrupt White's game.

Amateur players tend to make moves that are inconsistent with what has gone before. You need to learn to identify such situations and take advantage of them. On *your* side, you need to think, "does the move I plan to make have a good relationship with *my* previous moves?
> 6 votes

# Answer
The opening is actually the first 10-20 moves in the game. The purpose of the opening is to develop your knights and bishops and protect your king by castling either kingside or queenside. Another purpose of the opening is to grab the center of the board (the squares e4, d4, e5 and d5) and benefit of this control during the rest of the game. The opening is used to mobilize your forces and protect your king. The next stage will be to mount an attack on the opponent's position, either on one of the flanks, or right at the center. It is possible to attack the opponent directly during the opening with the aim to catch the opponent king before that king has the time to castle. Yet generally it is recommended to master all three phases of the game (opening, middlegame and endgame) before trying fancy attacks in the opening.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The simplest most obvious answer I feel is overlooked here.

-When begginers go off book too early, they r making a mistake.

To put it simply, chess masters have debated the best first few moves of chess for hundreds of years and famous openings are the result. If someone one goes off book too early, often it means if you look enough moves ahead, they will be forced to give up material.

The lines we have now are not necessarily perfect, but they have a lot tactical sense behind them.

I would suggest beginner's try ignoring book lines for a time. The only way to know where the mistakes are is to play through them. Then you'll recognize them and know what to do when an opponent falls into one.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Some very helpful and knowledgeable answers here but I thought I could contribute a very basic one that might help when explaining to a novice. As a near-novice myself it seems to me that there are two basic reasons that the first few moves often follow familiar patterns.

1. The first few moves in a game of chess have been played more often than later moves – the longer a game goes on, the more likely it is to be unique - so **more is known** about which moves do and don't work, and about how to exploit the weaknesses of those that don't.
2. As a game progresses it very quickly gets extremely difficult to memorize all the likely continuations and their strengths and weaknesses. But this is possible for the first few moves of the most commonly-played openings.

For a novice player this means I am using my limited memory to effectively **play above my real strength** by using the amassed knowledge of players throughout history. I can play the opening 4 moves of the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation as well as Kasparov!
> 1 votes

# Answer
I agree you need to react to the opponent. But doing an entirely pre done game will get you killed. You need to think about moving your pieces and out of the other players attack and protecting your king. This is just the basics.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone give good primary resources on Deep Blue?
I'm researching deep blue, but I want more info. Can anyone give good primary resources on Deep Blue?

# Answer
> 1 votes
One place to look is the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. Some of the hardware is there (but it's not very interesting). More important, though, is that you can do a site search that gives a fairly long list of articles.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The book Behind Deep Blue,written by Feng-hsiung Hsu, the system architect and principal designer of Deep Blue, has an appendix called *further reading*, which might be a good place to start.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: What chess books should a Class A player read to reach Expert Class?
What are some book recommendations, tips, and ideas for a Class A to reach Expert Class? What knowledge do most Class A lack compare to Experts?

# Answer
I'll start with a few tips and ideas. None of them are original, but all of them have some value and bear repeating.

(1) If you have the opportunity to play in tournaments where there are stronger players, this is the best way to improve. The hard lessons you learn from your tournament games are ones you remember best. Moreover, every mistake you make in a tournament game is showing you a gap (a poker player might say a "leak") in your play. It is no coincidence that all really strong players played hundreds (if not thousands) of serious games before they got really good.

(2) Learn to sit on your hands. Not literally, of course, although you could try it if you are really impulsive. Many players make mistakes they could avoid if they just slowed down a bit, sat on their hands, and thought a little instead of moving quickly. When I started slowing down and making myself take a little time and think about every move, even the obvious ones, I made a big step forward.

(3) Learn to fight hard through the entire game. Don't relax until the game is over. When you have a won position or an almost-won position, this is when your opponent is often at his most desperate and dangerous, and you should be very careful. Chess is a game where you can spoil everything with a moment's inattention. Learning to win won positions in an absolutely relentless fashion without giving your opponent the slightest chance is a very important skill. Learning to create as many practical difficulties as possible for your opponent when you have a bad or lost position is also very important. Never stop fighting until the game is over.

(4) Do lots of puzzles. Tactics puzzles, positional puzzles, endgame puzzles, it doesn't matter much which. They will develop your ability to solve problems over the board. People often read through game collections, middlegame manuals, and the like on autopilot without doing a lot of thinking for themselves, and then expect to improve. But abstract ideas are practically useless in chess. Knowing that the bishop pair is usually an advantage is nice, but does you no good at all unless you have some concrete idea about how to exploit this advantage, and can apply this idea in practice. You need concrete understanding, and to get it you must be thinking and calculating for yourself all the time. The more you think for yourself, the better you get at it. Puzzles are one way of forcing you to think for yourself. Solitaire chess is another. I am a big fan of solitaire chess (any at least lightly annotated game collection will do), as it presents you with problems to solve which cover all aspects of the game.

(5) My last idea is rather murky, but nonetheless very real. The single characteristic shared by all strong chess players I have known is that they have a strong desire to win: they are highly invested psychologically in the outcome of every game. They really hate to lose, and they really love to win. As a result, when they sit down at the board they are highly motivated, they have a lot of fighting spirit, and they are hard to kill. Anything you can do to increase your motivation (find a rival, set a serious goal, play on a chess team, etc.) is a plus. In my experience, people who are not highly motivated usually don't get very strong, no matter how talented.

I am a little hesitant to recommend specific books: different people react well to different types of material, and honestly I am not sure what "Class A" means. There is quite a big difference between an 1800 elo player and a 1999 elo player.

However, I would primarily recommend puzzle books for anyone below about 2100 elo. Any one of the modern "1001 tactical problems" type books would be good (e.g., Zenon Franco's "The Giant Chess Puzzle Book," Richard Palliser's "The Complete Chess Workout," Igor Sukhin's "Chess Gems," etc.). An endgame puzzle book rather than an endgame manual (e.g., John Hall's "Endgame Challenge," Bernd Rosen's "Chess Endgame Training," or the like). Maybe a book with some positional/strategical puzzles as well (something like Johan Hellsten's "Mastering Chess Strategy" would be good, there are probably others).

Maybe add an annotated game collection from one of your favorite players (like Tal or Fischer or Karpov or Kasparov or Anand), or an instructive game collection (like John Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move," or "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games"). Actually, it doesn't matter so much which book you choose as how you use it. If you really grapple with the material and try to master it, if you constantly set yourself problems and try to solve them, any decent book can take you a step forward.

I am not going to address openings, as most players below 2200 elo study openings way more than they should. Just find some solid openings that you like and stick with them, so that you build up some experience in the lines that you play. If you have a problem with a particular line, look up the position in the database and find out what stronger players are playing in that position.

But mostly, a serious approach, motivating yourself to fight hard through the entire game, and a lot of tournament games are the main things.
> 5 votes

# Answer
As someone rated 2200 USCF, one specific tip that I can offer you is the following... Try to maximize the coordination potential of your forces on every move. There's the idea of "useful" moves and it's generally a bad thing to run out of them because that means your position is no longer getting stronger even though you're making moves and spending tempi.

That's the main problem with solid, yet passive moves. You are limiting the potential activity of your other pieces. Instead, you have to fight for the initiative on every move and that means playing as aggressively while soundly as possible.

That's one of the main ways I beat class A players consistently. By playing passively, they run out of useful moves and have trouble coming up with a good plan in the middlegame. They give up the initiative too easily and once they have a worse position, tactics naturally favor the stronger position. Then it's just a matter of technique.

I hope this helps you reflect on your game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: How to choose a chess opening?

text:
# Question
Title: How to choose a chess opening?
I want to start studying chess but one thing I'm having trouble with is the openings. I don't know what openings to use. Should I learn a bunch, then choose one randomly before a game, or should I choose a couple of openings and get good with those? Is there really a better thing to do or is it mostly based on personal preference?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Take the following factors into account:

* roughly how many moves you can memorize (if you can't memorize 5 moves or so, at least avoid stuff like the Ruy Lopez)
* style (don't play the King's Gambit if you are a positional player)
* your ability to gauge whether an opening fits or doesn't fit any of the above (this is kind of an abstract concept)

# Answer
> 1 votes
Most people have their "favorite" openings. That's only natural, because people need to learn fewer openings.

One important thing to do is avoid your "unfavorite" openings. For instance, if you dislike playing Ruy Lopez as Black (as I do), learn non e5 openings such as the French and Sicilian defenses. And if you play e5, learn the Petroff Defense.

If you dislike Queen's Gambit Declined, play Queen's Gambit Accepted. Or learn the "Indian" openings.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I would say it's personal preference largely, yes. One thing I didn't see in the other answers though: consider the openings you're most likely to face from an opponent first, especially as black. It won't do a lot of good to "learn a bunch" and then find that you never end up facing most of them.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Try playing a couple of games with different openings. Learn their variations so you don't get bored playing a particular line continuously, failing to maximise the exploration process. With time, you will probably get comfortable playing certain openings and go on to build your opening repertoire. But try a lot of openings first, don't restrict yourself.

If you need help, you can go through openings and their variations on

http://www.chessfiles.com/openings.html

---
Tags: opening
---


title: King's indian defense plans

text:
# Question
Title: King's indian defense plans
I'm working with my kid on playing KID (he's about 1300 USCF, I was peak 2000 years ago). I'm not too interested in learning exact lines (and I think that's beyond him right now anyway). I think we get the basic idea of the classical K-side pawn storm by black. However, here are my opening issues:

1. When white doesn't push d5 but rather keeps the tension in the center, what are some tips about when to take ..exd4? What are the followup plans? My vague understanding is to play ..Re8, ..Nc5 to pressure the e4 pawn. Then the idea is to play ..c6 and ..d5. Then with the g7 Bishop unleashed, it's just a game. Are there more basics to know?
2. When white takes dxe5 often I have pawns on c6 and d6 and Nd7. Is it better to take d6 x e5 or Nxe5? Now what?

It's embarrassing to say, but I personally find either 1) or 2) more frustrating than when white pushes d5. At our level, I sometimes wonder why white allows the pawn storms at all since even if white has Q-side play, black has a simple plan.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It's definitely a different game when white doesn't close the center and go for the "classical" pawn storming lines. While those lines are often the easiest to play (black can play f5, f4, g5, g4, g3 without thinking too much), those are also the lines that are arguably the most challenging for black to face.

When white keeps the tension in the center, black has to decide when to break that tension. Generally speaking, black should do everything possible to develop before playing exd4, as this move nearly always cedes white the entire center. If black is going to turn over the center to white, it's vitally important to be able to immediately counter attack. This means that moves like c6, Qc7, and Nbd7 should be played before committing with exd4. The plan with Nc5 pressuring e4 is often best, but make sure that you can support the Nc5 with a move like a5, preventing b4 chasing the knight away. The queen on c7 is often useful because it allows the rooks to come to e8 and d8 where they defend the backwards d6 pawn and pressure e4. Black's plan in these structures is almost always to push d5. The light square bishop can support this push from e6, but if the white knight stays on f3 then `...Be6` can be well met by `Ng5`.

In conclusion, these structures are very double edged and black must be precise in order to maintain equality.

When white takes on e5, black usually can achieve a very good game with some precision. The trick here is to notice that black can use the d4 square, but white can rarely use the d5 square because black can always post the c pawn on c6 and keep pieces out forever. A common plan is to rearrange the black pieces with Qc7, Rd8, Bf8, and some lengthy maneuver with the f6 knight. This is often `...Nf6-d7-f8-e6-d4`. The black bishop is frequently left on g7 until the knight has reached d4, and only then is it transferred to the queenside with `...Bg7-f8-c5`.

These plans are very common, but they're also topical. If white is trying to prevent one or more of these re-positioning efforts, then black will have to use tactics in order to justify the moves.

It's very hard to explain quickly, but these plans are usually much easier to play in a long game when you can dedicate dozens of minutes to planning the maneuvers and then carefully execute them. It's well worth the time investment to play long games with these structures, even if you don't want to make the KID your primary black weapon against `1.d4`.

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


# Question
Title: Is this same colored-Bishop ending really drawn for Black?
I was playing as Black. Was there something I could of done to win in this position? Or was the game truly drawn? What are some endgame ideas for this position as Black?

**Black to move**

# Answer
> 3 votes
```
[FEN "4B3/8/7p/p1p1k1p1/P7/1bP1KP2/7P/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Be6 2. Bb5 h5 3. Be8 h4 4. Bc6 Kd6 5. Bb5 Kd5 (5...Bd7?? {White has an attack now} 6. Bxd7 Kxd7 7. Kd3 { Targeting both e4 and c4} Kd6 8. Kc4 {Threathening with Kb5} Ke5 {Only thing to do is counter attack} 9. Kb5 Kf4 10. Kxa5 Kxf3 11. Kb5 g4 12. a5 g3 13. hxg3 hxg3 14. a6 g2 15. a7 g1=Q 16. a8=Q {With tempo, white will capture the last pawn of blacks, and keep his last pawn, mates in 42 according to Lomonosov tablebase}(8...Kc6?? 9. h3 { Black in zugzwang, White mates in less than 55 moves}) )6. Kd3 Ke5 7. Ke3

```

Black has fortress: All black pawns are in black squares, also the king in the center in a black square.

Potential White attacks: White has white bishop but there is no target. White king can try to sneak into blacks position via white squares but black can avoid this with his white-square bishop.

Verdict: White cannot progress.

White has a weaker fortress: White king occupies center with opposition, that's nice, but there are white-squared pawns which can be target for Black.

Potential Black attack: Black can target white-squared pawns by bishop, but these can be easily defended by bishop.

King can try to sneak but again, opponent bishop can successfully block it.

Also for any side, trying to sneak would result losing center and enemy can successfully counter-attack instead of preventing wing sneaks.

Thus we can say, any side who tries to sneak on wings using king, will lose center and will face a strong(probably winning) counter-attack from center.

Therefore the position is drawn.

Notes about edits: Edited the diagram to cover Dag Oskar Madsen's attacking idea.

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


# Question
Title: What first moves would be advantageous for black?
What White moves give away the first-move advantage?

# Answer
I'll let Stockfish decide it. :-)

```
Analysis by Stockfish 6:

1. +/=  (0.33): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 a6 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nxe4 7.d3 Nf6 8.Re1 Be7 9.Bg5 0-0 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.h3 Bb4
2. =  (0.18): 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 Be7 5.Nbd2 0-0 6.Bd3 Nh5 7.c3 Nxf4 8.exf4 Nc6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.a3 h6
3. =  (0.17): 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.e3 Be7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.cxd5 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd5 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd2
4. =  (0.16): 1.e3 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 Be7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.Be2 d5 6.0-0 c5 7.d4 Nc6 8.Bd2 dxc4 9.dxc5 Qa5 10.Bxc4 Qxc5
5. =  (0.15): 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bd2 a6 8.Re1 Bd7 9.a3 h6 10.e4 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Rxe4
6. =  (0.00): 1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 Nd4 7.0-0 0-0 8.d3 Bd7 9.Be3 Nxe2+ 10.Qxe2 Ng4 11.Nd5 f5 12.h3 Nxe3 13.Qxe3
7. =  (-0.01): 1.c3 d5 2.d4 Bf5 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Bd6 5.Bxd6 cxd6 6.Nd2 Nf6 7.Ngf3 0-0 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.0-0 Qb6 10.Qb3 h6 11.Qxb6
8. =  (-0.03): 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 Bb4 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Bf5 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Ne4 10.Nd2 Nxc3 11.bxc3 h6
9. =  (-0.06): 1.h3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 0-0 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.0-0 Bxc3 7.dxc3 Nxe4 8.Bd5 Nf6 9.Bxc6 dxc6 10.Nxe5 Bf5 11.Be3 Qxd1
10. =  (-0.10): 1.d3 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Bd3 e6 7.Bd2 Bd6 8.Bxf5 exf5 9.0-0 0-0 10.a3 h6 11.h3
11. =  (-0.17): 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Be2 Be7 5.d4 0-0 6.0-0 Bd7 7.c4 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.Nc3 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nc6
12. =  (-0.12): 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Nh4 d5 4.d3 exd3 5.cxd3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Bc5 7.Qc2 Be7 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Bf4 0-0 10.Nc3 d4
13. =  (-0.18): 1.b3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bd3 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 a6 7.Bb2 Nc6 8.Na4 Ba7 9.Nc3 Bd7 10.Nd5 b5 11.c3
14. =  (-0.19): 1.h4 d5 2.d4 c5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.a3 c4 7.Qe2 Be7 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 0-0 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6
15. =  (-0.22): 1.a4 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nxe5 Qe7 6.Qe2 d6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Nc3 Bd7 9.Bf4 h6 10.h3 0-0-0 11.0-0-0 Kb8
16. =/+  (-0.32): 1.Nh3 e5 2.e3 d5 3.d4 Nc6 4.Bb5 exd4 5.Nf4 Bb4+ 6.c3 dxc3 7.Nxc3 Nge7 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.Ba3 Bf5 11.Qa4
17. =/+  (-0.37): 1.Na3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.d3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Be2 Bc5 7.0-0 0-0 8.Bd2 Bf5 9.Nc4 f6 10.a3 b5 11.Ne3 Nxe3 12.fxe3
18. =/+  (-0.47): 1.b4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Nxe5 Bxb4 4.c3 Be7 5.d4 d6 6.Nd3 0-0 7.Nd2 Nc6 8.e3 d5 9.Be2 Ne4 10.Qb3
19. =/+  (-0.42): 1.f3 e5 2.e4 Nc6 3.Ne2 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nbc3 Qd8 6.Ng3 a6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.d3 b5 9.Bb3 Bb4 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nge4 Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Qd4+ 13.Kh1
20. =/+  (-0.69): 1.g4 d5 2.e3 e5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Be6 5.d4 e4 6.h4 Be7 7.g5 h6 8.f3 exf3 9.Qxf3 hxg5 10.hxg5 Rxh1 11.Bxh1

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
Firstly, I find it quite silly to copy paste engine evaluation tree as an answer. Engines are not strategists, actually, engines are silly when it comes to strategy, comparing to humans. Therefore, it's wrong to use engine evaluation tree, and it is not a contribution, anybody can copy paste engine output.

As it's a total-beginner question, I would recommend you to go 1.e4 for an open and tactically rich play to improve your game, instead of searching for best opening move(s), because it's not a simple question, actually extremely hard one.

But if you really want an answer, all top-level playable first moves are secure enough to play(so you won't lose your first move advantage). If top level players(black side) can't refute them, your opponents can't refute them too. Including but not limited to these: 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.e4, Nf3, 1.Nc3, 1.g3 etc.

There are two moves I'm quite certain that loses advantage, 1.a4 and 1.h4, which achieves nothing useful, and weakens pawn structure.

Lastly, an opening is strong when the practitioner understands the underlying strategy. So, try to understand the opening(which opening you decide to play), memorizing variations is not enough. Even if you memorize all variations in 10 moves, if you don't get the idea of the opening, you can't put the resulting position to good use.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Aggressive Line against Alekhine's Defence?
I am looking to patch up a lot of my holes in my opening repertoire. One of them is the Alekhine's Defence. Do any of you know a good, aggressive line against the Alekhine's Defence? (If there is no good aggressive lines, any line that doesn't give black the advantage right away is fine, too) Thanks!

# Answer
> 5 votes
**Spielmann Gambit**

```
[Event "?"]
[ECO "B02"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]

[Setup "1"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 Nfd7 ( 3... d4 {Black dodges the gambit, resulting and open, even game with even material, which is quite satifying anyway, if you want to dodge Alekhine Defense theory} 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg7 cxd2+ ) 4. e6 {Spielmann Gambit! White gives up a pawn to disorganize Blacks pieces, and will try to keep Black disorganized as long as possible. White has also good attacking possibilities on king side.} fxe6
5. d4 g6 (5... e5? { Trying to free up immediately, but... } 6.dxe5 e6 (6... Nxe5? 7. Qxd5 {Black has no material advantage and white has better position}) { Black gave up his extra pawn for reaching this defensive position. Worthy? I don't think so. White has a good play without giving up material.} ) {I think this is the best move for Black here. Fianchettoing bishop would give black a nice control over black squares in the center. Also ...g6 move closes e8-h5 diagonal, which will be used by white queen in some variations}

```

This is my favorite and totally awesome for a white player who wants to get initiative and attack.

After 5.d4, white plays to maintain control of central black squares, avoiding blacks freeing move ...e5, not letting black to develop, and attack from king-side using f7. I won a lot of games with whites in this variation, most importantly I had great fun avoiding Alekhine opening and gaining an attacking position instantly :)

Bonus: You can reach the same position in Scandinavian Defense too! 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6.

For all this reasons, this is a very nice variation to put into repertoire as white.

However, black can dodge White's gambit by 3... d4, which results with even, open game. But anyway, Alekhine is avoided.

Notes about edits: I'm trying to add more analysis and more variations as you ask in comments, but it's really hard to cover all the analysis details in here. I also know there is not much material out there to study this gambit, so I'll do my best to cover as much as I can in my spare time.

**Less preferable alternative**

```
[ECO "B02"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]
[Setup "1"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Bc4 Nxe4 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Qh5+ Kg8 ( 4... g6 5. Qd5+ e6 6. Qxe4 )
5. Qd5+ e6 6. Qxe4  *

```

If you opponent is greedy enough, you can go for this, but I don't like resulting position as white, I would prefer black side, so I didn't ever play this. Anyway, this is an option.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Maybe it is a good idea to take a look at books that discuss Alekhine's defence from *black's* perspective? These books (should) cover all possible (main)lines for white. You can pick the line that you like the most.

Recently, a opening book has been published by father (GM) and son (IM) Sveshnikov, in which they propose Alekhine's defence as a repertoire for black: A Chess Opening Repertoire for Rapid and Blitz.

That being said, according to the Game Database of ChessTempo, the most popular replies for white are: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6

* 4.Nf3 (the mainline)
* 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 (the Four Pawns Attack) and 5.exd6

```

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "6"]

      1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 (4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 (5.exd6)) 4...Bg4 (4...dxe5 5.Nxe5) (4...g6 5.Bc4) 5.Be2

```

---
Tags: opening, alekhines-defense
---