title: How to improve king safety

text:
# Question
Title: How to improve king safety
I really wish to improve my chess skills a bit, albeit I am pretty sure that I do not want to become a grandmaster.

One of my problem is my king's safety. Chess is very different from some other board games. E.g. in checkers you must either kill or immobilize every single opponent's pieces in order to win; however, the rule of mandatory capture repulses me quite a lot from playing draughts. Chess is much nicer, it's more elegant and has much more possibilities. But having your queen, rooks, bishops, knights and pawns in good squares, a good attacking position and knowing strategy and tactics, openings and endgames etc. is nothing if you are so, so bad at providing safety for your king.

In fact, I would say I'm quite good in endgames where pieces are so few. If I have a pawn or a piece advantage and manage to get to the endgame, then I can make my way to a win. But my opponent rarely allows me to play so many moves. The game ends in the opening or middlegame. That is, I'd like to say I've studied fool's mate, scholar's mate and so on. I know how to avoid them. Most often, the opponent checkmates me in the middlegame.

I've seen a couple of great chess games on youtube. For example, 1851 "immortal game" (Anderssen–Kieseritzky) impressed me so much. And of course, using my chessboard I studied (played back) quite a bunch of other famous games played by very good chess players. Many of them seem to have the same theme: the stronger player constantly gives checks and thus blocks a good majority of squares around the opponent's king. Then, he/she delivers checkmate, using a great advantage from those blocked squares.

I am not sure if I should keep my own king open or closed. An open (bare) king seems to be a bad thing since it is very easily separated from my pieces and then driven to the edge of the board. But isn't a king surrounded by friendly pieces from different sides even worse? They are used as an advantage by the opponent. Moreover, I am often checkmated with a knight, so it can be a smothered checkmate.

Unfortunately, my search for "king safety" on this site did not provide too much useful information.

The question is if they are any videos or maybe sites or written material which would help me to improve my king's safety? Apart from very obvious advice, e.g. an early castling. Believe me, I know my castling well.

When playing chess, I still try to concentrate on capturing enemy pieces and thus to make my way to the endgame. I know it can be criticized but it's my style.

# Answer
It's a very general question, no concrete examples (where you struggle to defend) are provided in your post, and as such one cannot really answer meaningfully. However, here are some **rough** hints that might help you:

**Pawn structure** is a key factor in king safety. Any pawn move commitments on the side you've castled should be taken into account with extreme care, else you're irreversibly creating hooks for your opponents attacks or simply holes for the opponent's pieces to land on. E.g., when you castle short and play `h3,` when your opponent hasn't castled short, there's a very concrete attack threat on your king: black pushes the `g` and `h` pawns and opens a file towards your king, as `g4` will challenge `h3`, and often however you react to it, a file will eventually open. Instead if all the pawns are on the starting squares, it's very hard for your opponent to find a breakthrough (for more on this see the discussions here and in particular the showcased Kasparov game).

Similarly argued, if you finachetto your bishop on a castled side (e.g. `g3-Bg2`), and lose/trade that bishop, all the weakened squares turn into holes (entry points) for your opponent's pieces towards your king.

**Defending pieces:** Another aspect to king safety is presence of defending pieces, e.g. if you castle short and all your minor pieces are on the queenside, your king's left naked and can be easily prone to various sacrificial attacks which you won't be in time to defend.

Here are some diagrams showing some typical examples:

* **Left:**`h3`, a hook for your opponent's attack.
* **Mid:** Weakened Fianchetto structure.
* **right:** knights are great defenders.

**Neutralize opponent's key attacking pieces:** Given your established structure on the side you've castled, or simply where your king stands, ask yourself which of your opponent's pieces can best exploit these weaknesses against your king and try to force a trade of those pieces. And vice versa, try to preserve your good defenders by disallowing your opponent from easily forcing an exchange.

**Play for initiative:** Try to create threats and attacks to divert some of your opponent's play and pieces away from your king. If you pose no challenge to your opponent, they will simply mount everything they have onto your king. To play the defense side is always harder, as you have to consider all the tactical options for your opponent in order to defend against them, whereas for them, if a tactic works or not is not a major risk (unless they've sacrificed heavily of course) as either way it doesn't concern *their* king.

Anyhow, the list goes on and this is by no means exhaustive, but it hopefully gives you additional hints for how to think about your king's safety.
> 5 votes

# Answer
> Apart from very obvious advice, e.g. an early castling. Believe me, I know my castling well.

The first thing to note is that early castling is only recommended to complete beginners and in positions where the center is open. Castling too early in closed or semi-closed positions can be catastrophic. It is often wise to wait until you see which side your opponent is going to castle before committing your own king. If the center of the board is completely blocked then the center may be the safest place for the king. Then the rooks should be connected by moving the king to the second rank rather than castling.

There are two other important aspects of king safety.

First, when you have castled or intend to castle be wary of moving pawns in front of the castled king position. Moves like g3, to put the bishop on g2, or h3 to stop a piece from coming to g4, create a levers which the opponent can use to open your castled position.

This doesn't mean you should never make these moves, just that you shouldn't do so gratuitously and when you do you need a plan for what you are going to do if your opponent attacks via an h-pawn push against g3 or a g-pawn push against h3. You also have to watch out for possible piece sacrifices against a pawn on h3.

Second, don't abandon your king! If you've castled kingside then don't launch an all-in queenside attack without keeping an eye on your own king safety, especially if your opponent's king is also on the kingside. Look out for dual purpose moves. For instance, a rook on an open 3rd rank can be very effective at both attacking and defending at the same time.

Make sure you pay attention to possible dual purpose moves by your opponent. An innocent looking queen or bishop move that looks like it is just defending something on the queenside can at the same time create threats on your kingside. If you have tunnel chess vision you can easily miss this.
> 4 votes

# Answer
1. Castle quickly. Don't let your king get caught in the center.
2. Don't move the pawns in front of your king unless you absolutely have to. Every pawn move in front of the king creates weaknesses.
3. Develop your pieces, play to control the center and make sure you can swing enough defensive pieces over to match the attack. Your opponent won't be able to create a sound attack without at least one of those advantages.
4. Play for the initiative. If your force your opponent to defend they won't be able to attack. When your opponent creates a threat look to create a bigger one. Look for moves that both attack and defend at the same time. Always look for ways to flip the attack and put your opponent on the defensive.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: middlegame, pawn-structure, kings, defense, king-safety
---


# Question
Title: Why do players play this move (bishop to b6) in bullet chess?
I've often seen (on lichess, I play only bullet, at ratings 1800ish) black play the f8 bishop to c5, and then if white challenges it by playing their c1 bishop to e3, black retreats their bishop from c5 to b6, and then if white captures, black recaptures with the a7 pawn.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1

1. Bc5  Be3 2. Bb6 Bxb6 3. axb6

```

Why is this a good move? I've see it CONSTANTLY in a variety of openings, and I myself never play this way.

It seems a bad move for black to me because

a) you lose a tempo.

b) you double your pawns.

c) yes, you do get an open file for your rook, but ... so what, quite frankly? It's a bullet game. You are probably not going to have the time to think of some ingenious rook lift in the middle of the game. It just seems too risky to utilize that a-flank with the rook in a bullet game, at least for the players at my level. Indeed, I can confirm that I can't recall a single game where black utilized the strategy above and actually got something worthwhile out of it. The rook never made an impact on the a-file in a single bullet game that I've played where black played above strategy.

So why do players do this?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Actually, ..Bb6 is a sound move not just in Blitz. The Italian and Scotch game are filled with it. There are plenty of reasons why you would make it:

* After `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3` White is threatening to win a piece, so Black can retreat to b6 and prevent his bishop from hanging.
* Let's assume a central formation like e4+d3 vs e5+d6, with a Black bishop on c5 and a White bishop on e3. It is good for Black to retreat to b6 (even if ...Bxe3 or even just leaving it on c5 could sometimes be considered) in order to trade them on that square and open the "a" file. In your post you give a lot of importance to the fact that this doubles pawns and very little to the opening of the file. But I would say that, specially in Blitz, the file is way more important! White will have to worry about the a8 rook for the entire game.
* Finally, Black could have retreated to b6 (or a7) to prevent a trade and keep a powerful bishop on the a7-g1 diagonal.

# Answer
> 4 votes
## It's a trap.

You really try to reason too much about strategic aspects. This is a move that may not be considered sound in real chess... but we are talking about bullet here. And not Magnus Carlsen level bullet, which often almost looks like real chess, but Patzer level that more often than not is just bloody chaos.

Premoving is very common in bullet and there are tons of cheesy traps that try to exploit that.

This looks like one of them. Black hopes that White premoves Be3xc5, which (after Bc5-b6) will actually play out as Be3-c5 without capture, followed by ...Bb6xc5.

# Answer
> 1 votes
After ...axb6 the a file is open, a Pawn goes nearer to the center, and these might be assets for Black. Black's Pawn structure now is not inferior in my view. Furthermore, if a Pawn was on d6, defending Black's Bishop, White probably threatened Bxc5, worsening Black's Pawn structure after ...dxc5. And if Black instead took on e3, White could play fxe3, increasing control of the center and opening the important f file.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Keeping the Bishop on that diagonal is very aggressive which is good in fast time controls.

Trading the bishop often gives the other side more control of the center and an open f-file.

By moving to b6 white will waste two moves and accomplish nothing where black now has a rook on an open file (which is a gain of time). Furthermore, the rook is a more powerful piece than the bishop and the pawn on b6 can support c5.

Doubled pawns aren't inherently weak. They typically increase mobility. They're only weak if the other side can exploit the weakness.

---
Tags: bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: Does the first-move advantage for White have real meaning apart from the highest levels of play?
Most games that involve taking turns, with one player going first by lot or agreement, have some sort of advantage to going first. Tic-tac-toe, for instance, is a guaranteed draw for player 1, assuming correct play. Connect 4 is a guaranteed win for player 1, assuming correct play. The first move in Go is considered so powerful that player 2 receives a bonus of 5.5-7.5 points. The first-move advantage in Chess is less obvious, although statistically speaking White has an advantage of ~52-56%.

White's advantage is essentially that of time. He can count on starting ahead of Black and in theory should not go behind except by choice. He can even attempt to trade material for time.

Black's advantage is that of choice, or response. She can let White develop the game as he chooses, or she can force the game into a different line of play altogether. Presumably she knows her purpose in playing her responses to White, and can take advantage of White's loss of choice.

This being said, does it have meaning outside the highest levels of play? Is the game theoretically close enough that there isn't a way to equalize it 100%? (Related previous discussion suggests that the first move is "worth 25-45 rating points". However, the question didn't directly deal with the first-move advantage, instead referring to it tangentially in a discussion of handicaps.)

# Answer
I think any real answer to your question will have to be statistical in nature. There's rationale behind the advantages and disadvantages of having the first move, but really, we'd be mostly guessing regarding how important these factors are.

With that in mind, I quickly ran some code to check what patterns I could pick up through the million base PGN library (check below for disclaimer / methodology):

```
ELO                  %W      %D      %B
1700: 56    games:  37.50 / 33.93 / 28.57
1800: 192   games:  34.38 / 35.42 / 30.21
1900: 736   games:  37.23 / 34.24 / 28.53
2000: 4682  games:  36.27 / 32.14 / 31.59
2100: 10568 games:  36.56 / 34.79 / 28.64
2200: 23486 games:  34.42 / 38.11 / 27.47
2300: 33444 games:  31.25 / 45.06 / 23.69
2400: 49706 games:  28.53 / 51.73 / 19.74
2500: 40264 games:  26.38 / 57.28 / 16.33
2600: 16946 games:  27.88 / 56.14 / 15.97
2700: 3581  games:  28.43 / 56.07 / 15.50
2800: 68    games:  27.94 / 55.88 / 16.18

```

As you can see, at the highest levels (around 2500 and above), the majority of games are draws (around 55%), and from the remainder, wins by White outnumber wins by Black with a ratio of around 1.75:1. A very significant advantage, indeed.

The ratio drops rapidly at lower levels, and by the time we are around 2000 in rating, it's closer to 1.2:1. From here, it doesn't seem to change much, and I don't really have data for under 1700 rating. Of equal importance is the percentage of drawn games - along with the White / Black win ratio, the number of draws drops significantly. I would interpret this data along the following lines (although I'm reading a bit into the data here):

White does have a tangible advantage, but needs to play very accurately to capitalise on it. At the "lower levels", tactics (and thus mistakes) play a far larger role, almost drowning out the underlying small advantage. It is still noticeable, however, even at the 1700 rating level, and with a small sample size. So, to answer your question: yes, the choice of colour is relevant even at lower levels, although much less so than at GM level.

Disclaimers and whatnot - I ran through the million base PGN library (+- 1.7 million games), and simply discarded any games with a greater than 50 rating points difference between the players, in order to select only games between similar strength players. Statistically, this shouldn't make all that much difference (the "unfair" games should have each other balanced out, given sufficient numbers), but there are a number of exhibition and simul games in that library which I was attempting to exclude from the data set. In any case, this is not meant to be strictly scientifically correct; it's just the results of a few minutes of programming.
> 39 votes

# Answer
Since you asked for experience apart from the higher level of plays, I can give you myself as an example, with a rating of ~1900 (FIDE rating is 1871) I've never felt at a disadvantage playing black or advantage playing white.

Most openings give a lot of play for both sides and small inaccuracies will trample the advantage white might have before you'll even notice it.

I've never played for a draw just because I was black and I know players up to 2200 that feel the same. I don't know what you consider "highest level", but "weak" International Masters and Grandmasters already take this into account (of the 4 I got to talk to anyway).
> 15 votes

# Answer
I would say the first move has a large advantage. I am not at the highest level (1), nor have I ever played against someone at the highest level, but I have played several GMs. I'll give two situations where I thought it was a large advantage. They relate to opening choice - which has a large impact on the rest of the game.

The first I had white against GM Khachiyan, and he played `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6`, which I only knew vaguely. But the temptation for a GM to "play to their class" is strong, and they are willing to play weaker openings in order to achieve this. The game continued

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 e6 4.a3 d6 5.Nc3 g6 6.e4 Bg7 7.Be2 O-O 8.O-O Re8 9.d5

```

I wasn't too familiar with the opening, but I knew enough to play `a3` when I did, and the same for `d5`. I came out of the opening with a slight plus, the game was a little bit of a see-saw, and we agreed a draw around move 30. I attribute it to the opening choice of my opponent, which was in my opinion guided by the colors.

The second I had black against GM Ivan Ivanisevic. The game opened

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 O-O 5.Nf3

```

I was out of book already, only knowing `5.e4` (not the strongest) and `5.a3`, which is normal. So I figured, perhaps erroneously, that my chances lay in potentially transposing to the `a3` lines, so I played `5...b6`, which didn't work out so well after `6.e4!` and white has a much favorable variation of the `5.e4` lines. White might even be close to winning with equal opponents, and with a GM against me it was a bit of a bloodbath. As black against a GM, you really have your work cut out for you, and taking chances like this (trying to transpose into something you know) is not something I would do as white.

1: I'll consider highest level to mean a situation where both players are top 20, and the game is not an exhibition, or it is a world championship.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Historically, the first move advantage of White is a real one, as evidenced by the larger number of White victories in tournament play.

One way to balance this is to give Black "draw odds," that is, Black wins if the game goes into a forced draw.

That might tilt the playing field too much toward Black, so White might have to get a second (or third) "first" move to compensate.

But Go basically works along this principle, with the value of the first move having risen (in the eyes of the pros) from 5.5 to 7.5 points over time.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I think, unless Black is ambitious to get the upper hand, White doesn't have a winning advantage, with perfect play. Because, Black can close the game with suitable pawn formations, so slow the game down, and can catch up with White.

The reason White is winning more often statistically is Black's over ambition I think.

Me? Even believing that Black should not be over ambitious, I play for a win too with Black pieces, as an amateur.

However, if I would be a top GM, I would never be over ambitious with Black. Because when you are an amateur, you know that a lot of inaccuracies will happen, so White's advantage is very insignificant. But in a top GM game, trying to win a position where you don't have an advantage would often end with disaster.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In the Appendix of my article on "Pairwise comparison of chess opening variations" I made an estimate of white's first move advantage using controlled engine experiments. A sample size of 900 games was used. The mean estimated value of the first move advantage is 5.89% (with a 95% confidence interval of 4.4% to 7.4%). This means that white enjoys a 5.89% probability of winning because it is always one move ahead of black. Of course this advantage is easily squandered as for example in 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Bxc6 instead of 4. Bxc6. Here is a link to the paper that contains the estimation of the first move advantage.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2472783

Your comments greatly appreciated.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I have made some calculations that suggest that the advantage could have something to do with this fact:

* At the beginning of the game, both players have a "board coverage" of 22 squares (manually counted). This number is very low because the pieces are not yet put into activity.
* White moves, let's say 1. Nf3, and advances to 26 covered squares (it could be 28sq if 1. d4)
* It is Black's turn, and Black finds herself at a slight disadvantage: 22 squares against 26 squares. She moves and regains balance: 26 squares against 26 squares.
* Now White moves and advances 29sq against 26sq.
* During the opening, each time that White must move, he finds a "balanced" board. On the contrary, each time that Black must move, she finds an "unbalanced" board.
* There is a sort of "roof" at approximately 40 squares, (manually counted in many different games), and it takes approximately 10 moves to jump from the "undeveloped" state of 22 squares to the "fully developed" state of 40 squares.
* 40-22=18. A gain of 18 squares in 10 moves means 1.8squares per move and corresponds roughly to the number of squares covered by a pawn.
* Converted to pawn units, we could estimate that Black is "1 pawn down" each time that she must play. When White must move, he finds 0 pawns of advantage.

--\>The average between 0 pawns and 1 pawn is 0.5 pawn, a possible measure of the first-move-advantage.

* Less coverage for Black means that some places are not accesible because White has already taken control. It also means less pieces defended and/or less pieces attacked.
* The advantage is small but sistematic, and persists during the opening phase. When the battle begins (middle game), it is more likely that White has gained a slightly better position.
> 0 votes

# Answer
White's advantage is that he can claim a stake in the center that black can't immediately match. If white plays 1.e4 then no matter black plays white will still be at least a little better. If 1..e5 white can respond with d4 (either immediately or after Nf3) and his e pawn is better than black's d-pawn. Some lines play c3 first with the idea of keeping pawns at e4 and d4 with a much better center. f pawn openings are the same idea. The lopez is more subtle but it still is based on pressure on black's e5 pawn.

Typically black is considered equal when he has an equal center.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, statistics, grandmaster, advantage
---


# Question
Title: Is there a list of hidden/deleted Stockfish commands?
I have downloaded the latest version of Stockfish, and I am running it on the command line.

There is a hidden command 'd' which displays the current board. Also, the "debug on" command is not implemented, even though it is part of the UCI protocol.

Is there a list somewhere of all commands, all "un-implemented" commands, and/or command line switches for Stockfish?

I have already downloaded and read the UCI protocol.

Before someone sugests it, I would like to write my own GUI, so downloading arena and just running it isn't an option.

# Answer
Look at the source code:

> https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/uci.cpp

```
   // Additional custom non-UCI commands, mainly for debugging
      else if (token == "flip")  pos.flip();
      else if (token == "bench") bench(pos, is, states);
      else if (token == "d")     sync_cout << pos << sync_endl;
      else if (token == "eval")  sync_cout << Eval::trace(pos) << sync_endl;

```

Your "d" command is there, and others.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I have created this gist which is the best documentation I could find - most links I found where dead

https://gist.github.com/aliostad/f4470274f39d29b788c1b09519e67372
> 4 votes

---
Tags: stockfish, uci
---


title: Looking for a Python chess engine

text:
# Question
Title: Looking for a Python chess engine
I am looking for a Python chess engine package. It must be fully contained in Python, I don't want to download separate files for the engine itself and link them up somehow.

All I want it to be able to do is take a FEN and provide best move. It should obviously be a strong engine, at least 2500 rating.

# Answer
I have experience with only SunFish, but I doubt it's 2500+ level.

> http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67025

This link should help you. If you're not happy with the folks at talkchess, you probably won't find a better answer anywhere else.
> 3 votes

# Answer
An alternative to Sunfish is PyChess: http://pychess.org/ (or https://github.com/pychess/pychess)

It's stronger than sunfish (has 2100 bullet rating on lichess: https://lichess.org/@/PyChessBot ) and also allows playing chess variants, such as antichess or fisher random.

It has a lot more code than sunfish though, so pulling it out as a separate library takes a bit more work. See also http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=67025
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, python
---


# Question
Title: Cases of grandmasters renouncing titles, tournament victories, etc?
Apart from Bobby Fischer "renouncing", in a sense, the World Championship title in 1975, are there any other famous cases from chess history of strong players voluntarily renouncing titles, tournament victories, and the like, for personal, political, religious, or other reasons?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I have been playing tournaments for 39 years, 34 as a USCF Master, so I follow chess closely; but other than Fischer, I have never heard of anyone doing it voluntarily DURING their reign. Alekhine is the only other male World Champion not to defend his title, but did it involuntarily (he died). :)

Other cases of not defending their title include Hou Yifan, who decided not to defend her Women's World Championship title in 2015 due to another commitment, and after winning it back in 2016, again she chose not to defend in 2017 protesting the knockout system (I do not blame her).

Of course, some have not defended their lesser titles for various reasons, like political and moral. Anna Muzychuk refused to defend her world titles in rapid chess and blitz in 2017 due to Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women.

I have heard of a few, who were stripped of their titles like GM Gaioz Nigalidze for computer cheating (demoted to IM). GM Igors Rausis is most likely facing the same sanctions for his recent cheating incident (He admitted it, and announced his retirement).

# Answer
> 3 votes
A.N Other is not correct. Regardless of the fact that he still considered himself WC, he did, in fact, resign (renounce) his WC title. From the NY Times in 1974:

“I resign my F.I.D.E. \[Federation International des Echecs\] world championship,” the American grandmaster said in cable received today by the federation, which is meeting concurrently with the chess Olympiad at Nice, on the French Riviera.

The cable was signed “Sincerely yours, Bobby Fischer,” rather than “Bobby Fischer, World Chess Champion,” as he usually writes.

I would have just added a comment, but I am new here, and my rep is not high enough.

---
Tags: tournament, history, world-championship, grandmaster
---


title: Who has the advantage here?

text:
# Question
Title: Who has the advantage here?
Who has the advantage here? In general whar will perform better in this scenario- 3 pawns vs. 3 pawns, or 4 pawns vs. 2 pawns?

# Answer
> 6 votes
**Black is better** here, but this is much more due to piece activity and coordination than to the pawn structure.

Once upon a time (i.e. a century ago), it was thought that such structures gave a big advantage in endgames for the camp with 3 pawns on the queenside - because in the long term they can create an outer passed pawn. However, this has been debunked in practice since the times of Alekhine (who would enter such endgames on either side as long as he had more activity) and in theory at least since the works of Shereshevsky (who notably analysed endgames by Capablanca and Alekhine). Many examples in (online available) chapter V of this book by Srodovsky. In a 2001 book, Glenn Flear showed that even in pawn endgames the queenside argument is not void but generally not the most important.

Here Black controls the only open file, enjoys centralised and coordinated minor pieces, is on move and has no pawn weaknesses while a2, f2 and e4 might become useful targets. wNa3 is offside, wBf3 is unprotected and restricted by its own pawn on e4, and white rooks are undeveloped.

After, say 1...Rd8 2.Rad1 Ne5 3.Be2 (or 3.Rxd6 Nxf3+ 4.Kg2 Nh4+ 5.gh4 Rxd6 -/+) Rd2, Black is clearly for choice. 1...Rd2 2.Rfd1 Ne5 3.Bg2 Rfd8 is similar.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I like Evargalo's answer although I think the position is closer to equal than he credits.

Shereshevsky's book is great for late middle-game to early endgame study.

**Concerning the opposing pawn majorities**, it is easier to play the endgame with the side having the majority furthest from the kings. As play usually has both sides castling king-side, the queen-side majority is desirable. Your hope is to get an "outside passed pawn" to distract the king away. But, as Evargalo points out, it's the pieces that decide what is going on. Better would be to consider such positions with king an pawns only.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Black is slightly better though a draw is still the most likely outcome. White's a3-knight is poor, and Black has the superior bishop (White's f3-bishop is somewhat "bad" due to the e4-pawn). Also, the 3v2 queenside majority is better than White's central majority in this specific case. The reason is that Black can more easily create an outside passed pawn, while I don't see White starting anything soon in the centre.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The position is roughly equal but I would give a slight edge to black based on piece placement and the queenside majority. All 4 of white's pieces seem to be misplaced where black is a little better coordinated.

You don't say whose move but black can play to control the d file with rooks or Nc5 attacking the e pawn and then look to create a passed pawn on the queenside. White is just responding to black. His knight isn't doing much. His bishop is vulnerable to Ne5. He needs to take control of the d-file but the e pawn could quickly become a target and if white loses that he's playing for a draw.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Assuming black to move, black is definitely better, but he still must make sure that his Be6 cannot be driven to the unfavorable c8 square, or that too many trades occur along the d-file. I concur with Evargalo that the slight pull is primarily due to activity, and due to control of the only open file. In addition, white's queenside can be attacked soon.

In addition, white's pieces do not have the best squares, especially the Na3, which even given a few reasonable moves, like Nc3-e3, it still has not improved much. The best square would be c5, or e4 after e5, but neither will happen anytime soon. In addition the black N will soon get to b4, and a2 will be very touchy, or have to move, weakening the q-side that much more.

The best way to make use of black' slight advantage is: 1...Ne5; 2.Bg2 f6! (this secures the B retreat to f7, which will keep the Na3 off c4. Normally, white would not want to play f4-f5 there, but if it secured the c4 square for the N, and drove the B back to c8, then the trade off might be OK. That would be a similar idea to the famous Lasker-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914 game.); 3.f4 (or 3.Rfd1 Rfd8; 4.Rd6 Rd6 and Rd2 will be unavoidable) 3...Nd3 (and this is a bit akin to the famous Karpov-Unzicker, Nice 1974 game where Karpov blocked the a-file with Ba7, then tripled on the file, and although he never actually moved the Ba7, had he done so, he would have had control of the file); 4.Rad1! (White will defend a2 with Rf2, and try to keep the black rook off the 7th.) Rfd8; 5.Nc2 a5, and black's pressure is growing. He will continue with Nc5 and a4.

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, advantage
---


# Question
Title: Guarding my seventh rank and a king walk assualt
A few weeks ago. I won a game as Black on lichess.com..

```
[FEN ""]
[startply "48"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d5 3. Bd3 c4 4. Be2 e6 5. d4 cxd3 6. Qxd3 Nc6 7. exd5 Qxd5 8. a3 Nf6 9. c4 Qxd3 10. Bxd3 Bc5 11. O-O O-O 12. Be3 Bxe3 13. fxe3 e5 14. Ng5 h6 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. Bxe4 Be6 17. b3 Rac8 18. Nc3 b6 19. Rad1 Ne7 20. Bd5 Bxd5 21. Nxd5 Nxd5 22. Rxd5 f6 23. Rd7 Rf7 24. Rfd1 Rc7 25. Rd8+ Kh7 26. h4 Kg6 27. g4 h5 28.  gxh5+ Kxh5 29. Rh8+ Kg4 30. Kg2 Kf5 31. Rf1+ Ke4 32. Rf3 Kd3 33. Rd8+ Rcd7 34. e4+ Kxe4 35. Rh8 Kd4 36. Kg3 e4 37. Rf4 Rde7 38. h5 Kd3 39. Rf1 e3 40. Rd1+ Kc2 41. Rh1 e2 42. Re1 Kd2 43. Kf2 f5 44. Rd8+ Kc3 45. Rxe2 Rxe2+ 46. Kxe2 Kxb3 47.  Rd3+ Kxc4 48. Kd2 f4 49. Ke2 f3+ 50. Kd2 f2 51. Rc3+ Kb5 52. Rb3+ Ka4 53. Kc3  f1=Q 54. Rb4+ Ka5

```

To solidify my position, I pushed my pawns forward to create chains on both sides of the board. In order to defend against a rook infiltration, I doubled my rooks on my own seventh rank in order to guard my pawn. I then went on a long King walk and won a few pawns. Finally, I pushed my new passed pawns and promoted for the win.

However, in hindsight, I'm not so sure it was a good strategy. My opponent defended inadequately, so I can't tell. How sound was my long-term strategy?

# Answer
> 3 votes
White was slightly better after 23.Rd7. This is one of those cases where you should have gone for activity with 23...Rcd8! Now, if he just doubles with 24., you can trade and then play Rf7; or if 24.Ra7 then Rd3 with active counterplay and better chances, but white is still better.

That said, the reason you won is that white knows nothing about the endgame, and tried to mate you with h4 and g4, and that is not what the position called for. He only weakened his position, and improved your K since there was not going to be any mate on g4 or e4. It required a gradual improvement of the white K, and then the gradual advancement of the q-side pawns.

By the time you started advancing e5-d4, that was generally the right plan, but you should have started with 36...f5 first so the pair could not be blockaded with Rf4.

In any case, you were already cruising by then.

# Answer
> 2 votes
By the time it got to 24. Rfd1 I'm not sure it mattered what you played. Re8, Rcf8 etc. all look about the same. Rc7 does give white an extra option of Rd8+ though. White's rook lift and doubling on the open file were pretty textbook. Your problems started with 17...Rac8 From there you were playing pretty passively. You should be looking to control the d-file, create threats (ie Na5, f5 etc) and exploit the fact that white is behind in development.

I would just say you're overthinking things. You're worrying about minor pawn structure issues and missing the big picture. You should be playing aggressively and forcing white to respond to you but instead you're sitting back, playing passively, letting white do what he wants and then trying to respond.

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, learning, middlegame
---


title: Weakening the kingside with g5

text:
# Question
Title: Weakening the kingside with g5
I am having trouble deciding whether a move such like g5 (g4 in case it is White) is worth it or not. I am looking for advice on my particular position and if possible, a general explanation for any other case. In the position below I was Black:

I actually considered playing g5 during the game because the bishop on h4 is quite annoying as it is pinning my f6 knight. However, it is hard for me to understand how this move can be good if after 12. ...g5 13. Bxg5 hxg5 14. Nxg5 and that knight and the combo bishop and Queen is very threatening and both exerting pressure on the king.

What is the reason to make such move? Personally, I would go with something like Be7.

Thanks a lot before-handed.

P.S. : The link to the game is

https://lichess.org/BBzc4Y46/black

# Answer
> 4 votes
In this case it's tactical. d4 looks like a really strong move but the problem is after 12...d4 13. Bxf6 black has to play 13...gxf6 because 13...Qxf6 drops a piece to 14.Ne4.

However, if you play 13...g5 first followed by d4, then d4 trades off the isolated pawn and equalizes for black. Black also has a little bit of an initiative going at that point.

In general, you don't want to move the pawns in front of your king if you don't have to or unless it benefits you (like in this example).

How to deal with pins? Study unpin combinations. There are a lot with sacs on f7/f2 and h7/h2. There are also some where the knight captures like Legal's mate or captures on d4/d5 sometimes winning a piece.

You can also play actively. For example creating a threat with the queen and then moving the knight to a center square or just playing aggressively in general will sometimes make the pin meaningless. You also have to remember an early pin by the queen's bishop is usually bad. For one it leaves the b pawn unprotected but also if you haven't castled on that side he isn't really threatening anything.

Lastly, if the opponent captures and doubles your pawns that's not always bad. For one, that means you have the two bishops and an open g-file which is typically the file right in front of the opponent's king. It depends on the position but it's not uncommon for your opponent to hand you a ferocious attack by capturing the knight.

Just as an example, to illustrate some points, this is a game I see at least once a week in blitz:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. c3 Nc6 6. Qb3 with a double attack on both b7 and f7. Black has a lot of ways to go wrong in this position and 6...Bxf3 (which leads to 7. Bxf7+, Ke7 or d7 8. Qe6#) is fairly common.

# Answer
> 3 votes
First, the question is not if 12. ...g5 13. Bxg5 hxg5 14. Nxg5 is dangerous, since white is just giving up a piece, and the tactics after 14...d4 are just winning for black (15.Ne6 is nothing since the Nf6 defends h7, and 15.Nh7, you can take on c3 since Nf6+ Qf6 is also nothing).

The real question is what to do after 12...g5; 13.Bg3 d4; 14.Na4 or 13...Rc8. Stockfish indicates that it is roughly equal, but I would not want to weaken my k-side that much without knowing white's K was already castled k-side too, if at all.

Lastly, with your isolated d5-pawn, you should be looking at d4 on every move to see it is a good time to push it.

---
Tags: analysis, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: Deep Fritz 14, Show Plans-How to activate?
Does anyone who uses Deep Fritz 14 know how to activate "Visualize Search," aka "Show Plans"? I went to File, Options, and Engine. "Show Plans" is one of the options, but it won't let me activate it. How do you activate it?

# Answer
It appears to be for future use: Although it is two versions later, to quote the Fritz 16 online manual: "Show Plans - Displays the planned Manoeuver of the engine. The function is not supported by any engine!"

Fritz 16 Manual
> 2 votes

---
Tags: fritz
---


title: Good resource for annotated games

text:
# Question
Title: Good resource for annotated games
I'm finding annotated chess games very handy to increase my level of chess knowledge.

Are there any recommendations on good online resources for annotated games? I've found a few, but the annotations are either not very good, or the ratings of the players are very low.

# Answer
> 11 votes
There are blogs and news sites that regularly publish analysis of recent games. Chess24 also provides a lot of videos with analysis of games, competing in that regard with various youtube channels.

You can also find annotated games on Chessgames.com, most easily in the form of game collections via google "site:chessgames.com annotated".

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here are some of Annotated game archives I found:

GameKnot Annotated Games

ChessGames.com Annotated Archive

PGN Mentor

Use this method to search for annotated games: Search for annotated games

Will add more when I find them.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'm glad some have found the downloadable annotated PGN game archives at Path to Chess Mastery - https://pathtochessmastery.blogspot.com/ \- useful. Although the individual game analyses (my own tournament games and commentary on Master games) have been posted on the blog for training purposes, I think a number of the positional and tactical insights gained could be of general interest for improving Class-level players. I'm a Class A player that uses the Komodo engine for position evaluation (with my own explanations), so you get what you pay for, heh.

As a more general answer, I find that there are a lot of good Chess.com master videos that in fact consist of annotated games - often disguised as training in particular openings or on middlegame principles or whatnot - but there is a paywall, so no unlimited access.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The best annotated PGN game collections I found were added to my website after searching for days, see

Annotated PGN file download page

I added 950+ annotated games and every world championship match game ever played. You can get a good free PGN reader app from there too, which comes with Stockfish built in.

If any one knows about any other annotated ".pgn" sites please can you post here?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here are a bunch, although they are supposed to be used with a defunct product called ChessVU: http://www.angelfire.com/games3/smartbridge/ Note the huge and deeply annotated middle-game database. Edit: I have since tried some of these games out with SCID vs. PC, and it works great. That middle-game tutorial seems to be a really great resource; and there are many other there, too.

Follow-up: Many of these links are broken and/or pop up ads. While it's still worth going through, I'd make sure to either use a sandbox, or a chromium variant. Some of those same materials are here:

Chess Openings: Opening Analysis on the Web

Some of these are annotated games, some are raw PGN, and some are other materials. They are nicely broken down by opening.

This guy at https://pathtochessmastery.blogspot.com/ calls himself only "ChessAdmin", and calls himself a Class C player. On the right column of his blog, he has two databases you can download, one with 180 of his own games, and 77 games of masters, that he's commentated.

Here's a small, older cache of annotated games, for those who are still using the discontinued Chessmaster software:

Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition Downloads | Forums

---
Tags: annotation
---


# Question
Title: Python-chess : Are the move scores enough to rank moves from the most to least likely moves played by an engine?
My goal is to make a script to finding the most and least likely move an engine will play, and then make a list it. I tried using the scores to make such a list, with the best score equalling the most likely move, but every time I got d ifferent scores for the same position.

After compering high-scoring moves with engine moves with the code `engine.play(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=0.100))`, I noticed that the engine moves are totally different from the move that have the highest score on my outputs.

When I use the same version from my engine, but onvother sites that have the engine installed, I found that it chooses a different move from what my engine script chooses. I know that the engine is not just a bot who is repeating moves every time, but what's the best way make it as such?

Here is my code if you want to have a look:

```
import asyncio
import chess
#import chess.uci
import chess.engine
import chess.pgn
import io
from chess.engine import Cp, Mate, MateGiven
#Let's try our code with the starting position of chess:

fen = 'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1'
board = chess.Board(fen)

#Now make sure you give the correct location for your stockfish engine file
#...in the line that follows: e.g., /home/.../stockfish_6_x64

engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci('/home/shar/Desktop/cheat detect python/stockfish-10-linux/Linux/stockfish_10_x64')

if board.turn: print( 'White to move');
else: print( 'black to move');
counter = 0
while counter < 1:
  # do processing
  counter = counter + 1

  result = engine.play(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=0.100))
  print('the engine move',result.move)

#getting legal moves scores part
for el in board.legal_moves:

    pgn = io.StringIO(board.san(el))

    thnwpgntofen = chess.pgn.read_game(pgn);
    nwinfo = engine.analyse(thnwpgntofen.board(),chess.engine.Limit(time=0.100));

    print(board.san(el),nwinfo.get("score"), nwinfo.get("depth"))

    print("-------------------------");

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
The volatility of the score here is caused by the time limit you have set. With `time=0.100` you're restricting the engine to `100 milliseconds`. With such a small time limit, there are a lot of small factors that can dramatically change the results. You can try increasing the time limit, or instead of using a time limit you can try a `depth` limit instead. This will make the engine search to a specific depth, rather than searching for a set amount of time. A depth limit will probably make your results more robust.

An example of depth limit would be:

```
chess.engine.Limit(depth=20)

```

---
Tags: engines, analysis, programming, python
---


# Question
Title: Where can I play Quantum Chess online for free?
I saw some videos featuring a chess variant called Quantum Chess on YouTube. It looked very interesting to me, so I decided to try to find it online for free, but I couldn’t. Does anyone know of such a place?

# Answer
Try truly quantum chess. It is an implementation of quantum chess by yours truly, the rules are sligtly different from the rules of the steam version though, for example, pawns can quantum move.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, online-chess
---


title: Freely available PGN databases

text:
# Question
Title: Freely available PGN databases
I am looking for a relatively large PGN-formatted database (with at least 500k+ games), that is downloadable, with possibly the following properties:

* Simple formatted (no time indication after moves, etc), i.e. game info headers on top, followed by the moves, an example: *(it doesn't have to contain all the headers of this example)*
* Few such, but very small (2-3 thousand games) databases can be found here.
* It would be preferential if the database was diverse, for example not being only composed of man vs. machine games or somesuch. No real constraint on the ratings, whether the levels (amateur to super grandmaster) are fairly balanced or whether it's a 2000+ rating database.
* Although a single-file database would be easiest to work with, say for parsing purposes, one that is divided onto multiple PGN files would also be perfectly fine, as long as they were formatted similarly and did not contain too many duplicates.

In other posts, one mentioned database with similar properties to the above is the ICOFY database, but unfortunately it does not seem to be maintained any longer, nor can a trustworthy download link for it be found.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Do not know if it really suits you but on http://www.theweekinchess.com/twic you can download a lot of PGN files. I once saw an explanation how somebody used this to create an opening book out of it. I could not find one big file with all games but there are quite a lot of files that date back to 25/06/2012. You can always make 1 big file out of it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are a lot of PGN file database download sites, the best and most comprehensive one is probably PGN Mentor at https://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html

They have several databases containing thousands of games that can be downloaded and easily merged into a single DB using a command window

But very few of these games are annotated, so I have put about 950 annotated games, which are in 9 separate ".pgn" files, here

Annotated PGN file download page

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here! Indexed by openings ECO code. http://www.logicalchess.com/learn/lessons/openings/pgndb/index.html.

---
Tags: pgn, database
---


# Question
Title: Where to download chess master games(pgn format)/databases for android for free?
Self explanatory title, Most of the sites i have visited, Only allow downloading one game at once, So if i want to download several, It takes ages. So, is there is a website which allows downloading several pgn master games at once?

# Answer
http://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html

Allows you to download by player, by opening or by event where the game was played.
> 6 votes

# Answer
".pgn" file chess game databases can be opened, viewed and edited in apps that run on Android, Windows, Linux etc. There are many download sites, depending on what your looking for. For current event games try

The Week in chess

For comprehensive collections by players (mostly grandmasters), events or openings try

PGN Mentor downloads

For annotated PGN games (which are very hard to find) I have added 950+ to my website in 9 separate downloadable ".pgn" files at

Annotated PGN games
> 2 votes

# Answer
http://smallchess.com/Games/Magnus%20Carlsen.pgn for games on Magnus Carlsen. It doesn't need to be unzipped as in pgnmentor, it's also more recent (includes the recent world championship).

Alternatively, you can download games for free at: http://smallchess.com/Games/ . Again, no need to unzip anything.

Updated: I own the site and personally prepared those files.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you're only getting one game at a time, you are **really** hitting the wrong sites. There are literally thousands of sites you can do collections at, ranging from the University of Pittsburgh Chess Club, to Mark Crowther's excellent This Week In Chess to New In Chess's pgn versions of the games in their yearbooks and magazines. Google is your friend, in this case, because there are far too many to list in a forum post: "PGN Chess games" yields over 6 million hits and "PGN chess games database" over 300K of them. Have fun.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I maintain a large chess games database, you can download it (and even contribute) here:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/codekiddy-chess/
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


title: Chess software to analyze games

text:
# Question
Title: Chess software to analyze games
My son is into chess and plays chess tournaments. I would like to know what good chess software is available to analyze his games. The software should analyze move-by-move and should point out weak/strong moves, alternative moves, blunders, tactics etc. What do you use for this? I googled, I see lots of options and I don’t know which one is good or bad. Thank you.

# Answer
> 21 votes
One of the problems with chess-analysis software for weaker players is that it just shows the strongest move per the computer, without any explanation why. There are some programs, like the ChessBase programs that, using their "Tactical Analysis" feature, attempt to give some explanation to the moves, but they are all wanting.

That said, decodechess.com seems to do better than most for newbies. As a USCF Master, the explanations are pretty good from what I can see, and the underlying "engine" (program) is Stockfish, which is A LOT stronger than the best humans in history. Although a premium account is $99/year (right now, 50% off with the promo code "DECODESPRING". for the record, I have no affiliation with the site, nor am I a member), you can create an account, and "decode", or analyze three games per day for free. If you like it, I would jump on the promo.

This is not analysis software, but I would also recommend the book "Logical Chess Move by Move". It is a classic, and there is an new algebraic edition for $12.98 on Amazon.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Lucas Chess is a very good free software I used for several years. It has an intuitive interface and gives in-depth analyses and move recommendations.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Stockfish is very strong and free. Lichess.org makes it available under the analysis section.

For my phone I use the droidfish app and with that you can download any engine you want. There are hundreds of freely available engines including stockfish.

In the old days I would download a free version of Fritz and then replace the Fritz engine with the best engine I could find. It seems a little impractical though nowadays.

# Answer
> 5 votes
My suggestion would be to get your hands on ChessBase. This software allows you to store your games in a structured format, coming back to them whenever you need it, with many options for variations, annotations and comments. Also, many chess books can be read in a very practical way in this format (with the software showing the moves for you on a board)

I would be more hesitant towards the use of a chess engine, though. Game analysis is one of the best ways of training, and leaving it for a computer to do it for you will make you miss that opportunity. I analyse all of my games by putting them into my database, but I do the analysis myself, rather than with Stockfish, Fritz, Komodo or the engine of your choice.

My advice would be to use an engine like Stockfish (it's free!) to correct his analysis, rather than to analyse the games themselves. For the opening moves, checking what's been played in previous high-level games (and what happened next) is often a great idea, too!

# Answer
> 3 votes
You can get a good free PGN Viewer app from

PGN ChessBook

which comes with the very strong Stockfish analysis engine built in.

The best annotated PGN game collections I could find were also added to my website at

Annotated PGN download page

It took me several days to find these. There are 950+ annotated games in “.pgn” files and I added every world championship match game ever played.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess.com membership might be an option both in general for this specifically. It has a feature that allows games - whether played on the site or elsewhere - to be analysed. This includes a "retry" feature where the analysis will find weak moves with the challenge of finding a better one. It'll also graph the relevant strength of the position of board as the progress.

Chess.com does have free features and several levels of membership at different costs. It also has various lessons and other features as might be expected.

I've no affiliation other than as a (paid) user.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The most feature rich tool for making recommendation I have used is chess-pro app. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/chess-tiger-pro/id423198259

My favorite feature is that you can page through the position in the game where the computer thinks you have made an error. It also can alert you to threats and has other guidance features.

To learn the most from your games it is important to review them yourself first before analyzing them with a computer.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chessbase is your best bet if your son is serious about playing for years to come. I believe the base version is around $100, but it comes with default (super strong) engines to help analyse. The software also allows you to input your games and save them, allowing you to review them later on.

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


# Question
Title: Great Chess match resources (PGN) suggestions anyone?
Using Arena with a number of Chess engines, I love configuring Arena to use its 'book' feature. There are books of *openings*, books of *famous games*, books of *particular players*, *surprise wins*, etc.

Therefore I'm constantly on the search for PGN resources, such as the ones found here:

Question:

> Can anyone recommend specific "*must have*" PGN files **OR** PGN sites where such files may be downloaded?

Recommended files or sites should be:

* Well organized
* Correct
* Comprehensive or complete
* Noteworthy

# Answer
> 1. The first site I'd recommend is Chessbase:

This site has a massive searchable database containing over 8 million games, including very recent matches, meaning at the time of this post 2016. The interface is very well designed and feature rich (such as presenting per move statistics). The site's authors do a reasonably good job of establishing comprehensive sets by pursing all extant copies of a particular player or tournament.

Although this database is essential, the site's features favour those who log in. The basic account is free, and it's credentials are accepted at sister sites, however to getting PGN of particulars game you need a premium account.

> 2. The second, more historical site to check out is ChessGames:

This site's vast database of historical chess games has over 812,000 games, all searchable via the sites Search feature. Many of the not-so-recent historical games can be found in this gem-of-a-site. That said, the games are accessible in PGN format *one at a time*.

> 3. The third site to checkout, more specialized, is 365Chess:

Many players have seen as high-profile sponsors of top calibre competitions, or great match GM commentators. Accounts are free to create, and the site has other useful features such as the "*Chess Opening Explorer*" which allows you to create notes for particular openings (useful for study).

Also, the site presents a subset database of openings by players of 2400 ELO or more. The games included in the Masters Database are also part of the Big Database, but if you search or browse the database you'll obtain only games of the most talented masters. This database is called "The Masters Database".

Another really nice feature is the ability to download all games by a particular player, but this feature requires a full membership, so not available to the free hobbyist.

> 4. The fourth site to check out is PGN Mentor:

This site freely gives away complete sets of PGN games for specific players. They download as .zip files. Likewise, the site gives you the ability to download compilations of games categorized by opening. The sets you get aren't entirely current, and the sets not always complete (meaning important games for examples are left out), however they are free and generally pretty good. That makes this site invaluable!

> 5. Finally, check out Mark Weeks collection:

This is another recommended site with surprising curiosities such as **Kasparov vs. IBM's Deep Blue** and very early (historical) games. The site is not fancy looking but nicely organized grouping by "Pre-FIDE" and "FIDE". It claims to have millions of games, but honestly, I haven't yet given this site the attention it merits to get a sense of this.

> 6. A recommendation that came from a read is This Week In Chess

This site keeps you up to date by delivering you Weekly updates, specifically, daily Chess news and games are in this weekly digest for download, by Mark Crowther. The site says "*Every Monday The Week in Chess covers all the latest news and games from international chess. Download the zipped file of games in PGN or ChessBase (cbv is the modern format) format for reading off-line.*"

> If you have other recommendations and 'must have' sites that provide PGN resources, please
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess books in ".pgn" format are hard to find because most books (except those out of print) are copyrighted and so cannot be made available for download in ".pgn" format.

There are some annotated ".pgn" collections on the web...but these are VERY hard to find. After much searching I found these annotated games, which can be viewed online one at a time for free but can't be downloaded

Gameknot annotated games

Also see these two very good collections, which are chess books in everything but name. The first collection has about 1000 games in various downloadable files, and the second has about 80 games

About 1000 annotated games

80 annotated games

If anyone knows of any other good chess book type downloadable ".pgn" links please post here so that other players can find them
> 3 votes

---
Tags: books, pgn
---


title: Gambits out of Nimzowitsch Defense

text:
# Question
Title: Gambits out of Nimzowitsch Defense
What are some aggressive gambits that White could use out of the Nimzowitsch Defense? 1. e4 Nc6 d4 d5

# Answer
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5:

> 3.Nc3

scores best for White according to my database and it is the move I play.

3...dxe4

Your opponent can go into the French Defense with 3...e6, but this is not a good French with the N on c6 blocking the c-pawn.

4.d5 Ne5 is the most common.

5.Qd4 Ng6

Now White can consider Qxe4, h2-h4, f3... White has many aggressive options.

The safe 6.Qxe4 Nf6 7.Qa4+ Bd7 8.Qb3 continues to give Black problems. The pawn sac offer of f2-f3 seems to have clear compensation based on the development advantage it gives. But the problem with non-queen moves is that they allow Black to play e7-e5 which is close to equal.

> Alternatively 2.Nf3

a common line is 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 offering Black to return to a standard opening with 2...e5. If 2...d5 you get an odd Scandinvian/Center-counter. Black usually plays 2...d6 and after 3.d4 Bg4 4.Bb5 a6 5.Bxc6 White scores better.
> 3 votes

# Answer
There's 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 as an interesting option, but I don't really think it's worth it as you will trade a slightly advantageous position for an equal/worse one and how many times are you gonna play 1.e4 Nc6 as White anyway? Your opponent will almost certainly be more prepared than you are!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: gambits, aggressive-play
---


# Question
Title: Identify a problem where a potentially winning move draws because of the 50 move rule
I'm trying to recall a particular chess problem. It's related to retrograde analysis. All what I can remember is this: it's an endgame where there is only one way to reach the position, and during last 49 moves there were no captures, so a potential winning move draws instead.

# Answer
> 18 votes
There are dozens of problems that illustrate a potential winning moves that instead leads to a draw because of the 50 move rule.

One example is the following mate in four published by Léon Loewenton in 1956 :

```
[fen "5KBN/p2ppp1r/1p4pp/b7/RP6/1PP4P/1RpPPPkP/n1B1Q1N1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf3 Rg7! 2. Kxg7! (2. Qg1+?? draws)

```

There is an apparent mate in three moves: **1. Nf3** followed by **2. Qg1(+)** and **3. Qg3 mate**.

However, after **1. Nf3 Rg7! 2. Qg1+** black claims a draw according to the 50 moves rule (the retrograde analysis is left as an exercise to the reader!).

If white plays **2. Kxg7!**, the capture breaks the 50 move chain and white can mate with **3. Qg1(+)** followed by **4. Qg3 mate**.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Welcome to stackexchange.com, dveim.

There's a great answer already, but I think there's a couple of interesting points that I can add.

First, in the composition world, there's a convention which states whether the 50 move rule applies by default only to retro-problems. See Chess Problem Codex Article 17. So all these very long "cursed wins" found in the tablebases don't get interrupted. However the retro problems mostly rely on the rule. But for some problems the convention would work the wrong way round, and in these cases the convention would be ignored, e.g. Elkies' famous problem.

Now, some problem composers think that castling should reset the move count. I personally think that this is illogical: if this were so then *any* king or rook move which disrupts castling rights should reset the move count. But there are great enthusiasts for this interpretation.

Another corner-case is what happens when the 50th move delivers checkmate? The FIDE rules for 75-move draw are clear: mate trumps draw. However to conclude the same thing for 50-move rule requires looking at the mechanism for claiming draws. It assumes that no-one delivering checkmate would want to claim a draw instead, and that coupled with the fact that someone would be checkmated before they can claim a draw in their own turn effectively means that "mate trumps draw" for 50-move rule. But, although this is the FIDE intent, it doesn't explicitly say so, and some composers like the idea of creative ambiguity here. I personally think that mate trumps draw for 50-move rule.

Finally, there are currently 160 problems in PDB Chess Problem Database See overview here, of which an amazingly proportion of 94 are by the late great Russian composer, Nikita Plaksin.

EDIT: STOP PRESS: I deliberately skipped over the fact that the Codex of Chess Problem Composition had no formal notion of 50-move rule (or draw by repetition)! The sections of the FIDE Laws which cover these were deemed not relevant by the Codex. In the last few days, in Vilnius, at the annual Congress for Problemists, Footnote 12 of the Codex has been fixed in this regard. There is still the problem of how to *translate* these rules to the Problem world - the castling and checkmate issues are problems for the 50 move world, and the happy acceptance that composers are “free spirits” means you can end up with vague compromise assertions which are a barrier to retrograde analysis.

---
Tags: problems, retrograde-analysis, 50-move-rule, identify-this
---


title: Is there any way white can win?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there any way white can win?
```
[fen "1K6/1P3q2/1P6/P7/3k4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Is there any way that white can win or draw in the above game?

# Answer
This position has six pieces on the board, and is hence present in a number of chess endgame tablebases.

For example, the Syzygy tablebases show that this position is a theoretical draw, but that there is only one move which guarantees the draw: `Kc8`. All other moves allow black to force a win.

```
[FEN "1K6/1P3q2/1P6/P7/3k4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc8 Qe8+ 2. Kc7 Qe7+ 3. Kc8

```

This position is a draw because White is constantly threatening to promote and win, which leaves Black with no choice but to perpetually check White. The problem with Ka8 and is that Black can pin the White pawn and gain tempo through constant checking, gaining time to advance their king and win.

If this position were to occur in an actual game, the result would likely be unclear as it would be incredibly easy for either blunder, and end up losing.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: endgame, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Move-order issue in the Grunfeld: ...Nc6-a5 vs ...Nc6-e7
My question relates to certain lines given by Avrukh (2018).

```
[FEN "..."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. e3 e5 9. d5

```

Here 9...Ne7 is the most popular move (88 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives the continuation 10. e4 Bg4 11 h3. Bxf3 12. Qxf3 0-0 13. 0-0.

while 9...Na5 is the second most popular move (22 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives the continuation 10. 0-0 0-0 11 b3.

```
[FEN "..."]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. e3 O-O 9. O-O e5 10. d5

```

10...Na5 is the most popular move (537 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives 11 b3, transposing to a line given under the first diagram.

10...Ne7 is the second most popular move (437 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives 11. e4 Bg4 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3, transposing to a line given under the first diagram.

Thus according to Avrukh it doesn't matter which move order is chosen.

**Given that is the case, why in the top diagram 9...Ne7 is so much more popular than 9...Na5, whereas in the bottom diagram 10...Na5 is somewhat more popular than 10...Ne7?**

Avrukh, Boris (2018). *Grandmaster Repertoire 2A – King’s Indian and Grünfeld*. Quality Chess.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Analyzing this position it seems like the N to the rim has potential issues getting back into the game. W will play b3 and both of the black N's on the Q side are very limited.

After Ne7 the N gets back into the game via c8 and d6 playing an important role blockaiding the p at d5.

That is the best I could find. Transposing to the same position did not come up in my analysis so maybe I am missing something.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There appears to be some additional options to White in the line without castling. I haven't checked a database but perhaps for example, 9...Na5 10.Qd3!? threatening Qb5+ and grabbing the knight on a5. So now if 10...0-0 Black has declared his king and White can consider 11.h4 going for attack.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Eventually I came to suspect that in the top line the ...Nc6-e7 plan (forcing e2-e4) is relatively more popular than ...Nc6-a5 because there is at least one viable line in which a quick ...c7-c6 can be played to hit back at White's centre.

After 8...e5 9 d5 Ne7 10 e4 Black can try 10...c6. White might get an edge following 11 d6 Ng8 but it's complicated. 10...c6 isn't the most popular move in this line, but it's been played by some strong GMs. By contrast, after 8...0-0 9 0-0 e5 10 d5 Ne7 11 e4 then 11...c6 isn't an option as it just loses a piece to 12 d6.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The reason 9...Ne7 is more popular than 9...Na5 is that it gives Black more possibilities than just transposing with castling. I.e.: 9...Ne7 10.e4 c6!? is quite popular in my database, the point being that 11.d6 is answered with 11...Ng8. Note how this wouldn't be possible if Black had castled, since the g8-square wouldn't be vacant.

It may seem odd how the ability to strike immediately with 10...c6 would make 9...Ne7 way more popular than 9...Na5. But consider: why would someone bother playing 8...e5 in the first place (instead of being safer by castling first with 8...0-0) unless he was intending to deviate? If a player is content with the main lines you give, it makes more sense to castle immediately. Being combative with an early 8...e5 implies the player may be looking for an offbeat line, and if this is the case then 9...Ne7 is the natural choice over 9...Na5.

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: Why is 7 Bd3 in the Cambridge Springs QGD more often met with 7...Ne4 than 7...dxc4?
My question relates the Cambridge Springs QGD when Black deviates from the main line by playing the well-known inaccuracy 7 Bd3.

```
[FEN "..."]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Qa5 7. Bd3

```

I had always been taught to play 7...dxc4 8 Bxc4 Ne4 here. However, searching an up-to-date database of OTB games I see that of the 292 games to reach the position after 7 Bd3 118 players chose 7...Ne4, while only 97 chose 7...dxc4. Furthermore of the 13 players above 2200 who have got to this position as Black, 8 chose 7...Ne4, 4 chose 7...dxc4, and 1 chose 7...Bb4.

However, I don't understand why this should be. It seems to me 7...Ne4 8 Bxe4 dxe4 9 Ne5 (the usual continuation) White is doing relatively better than they would be doing after 7...dxc4 8 Bxc4 Ne4.

Am I missing something, or is the case that Black players are making a mistake by choosing 7...Ne4 instead of 7...dxc4?

# Answer
> 5 votes
7...dxc4 is absolutely just as good as 7...Ne4. Stockfish 10 (at depth 32) gives 7...dxc4 an evaluation of -0.31, while 7...Ne4 is 0.23. A difference of 118 games vs 96 games isn't a big deal and has very little weight in determining the objective strength of a move. So this is one of those cases where deciding which move to play is a matter of taste.

EDIT - according to online saved results, Stockfish (as of Aug 1 2019) at depth 47 gives 7...dxc4 a -0.43 evaluation. So it's definitely sound :)

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, queens-gambit-declined
---


# Question
Title: Why is 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Bg5 almost never played?
Why is

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Bg5

```

almost never played? Isn't it a logical opening move? OK, it goes against the rule of "Knights before Bishops in the Opening", but is a general rule enough for this move to be virtually never played at top level?

# Answer
> 7 votes
Your bishop can be chased with h6, g5 and h5, after what white barely equalizes. It also gives black calm options, for example some c5 with Qa5 ans Ne4 ideas. It's just committing the bishop too early. So yes, it's typical position on why 'knights first' often works!

# Answer
> 9 votes
After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Bg5, the position resembles the Tromposvky Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5), where white often gives up the bishop pair in exchange for a lead in development and the center. For example, one main line goes 2....e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6.

However, in the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Bg5, the move c4 doesn't fit well in this plan. Moreover, it weakens the dark squares, helping black's plans with c5 or Bb4+.

```

      [StartPly "2"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 (2.Bg5 e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6) e6 3.Bg5 h6

```

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, indian-defence
---


# Question
Title: Who revitalized 5. Bf4 vs the Queen's Gambit Declined?
It seems to me that after the popular move order

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7

```

the most popular option - at least at top GM level - is currently 5. Bf4. Yet, back in the 1980s and 1990s, 5. Bf4 was not considered a particularly challenging way to fight the Queen's Gambit Declined. Every strong GM was playing 5. Bg5 (or the Exchange Variation). Who revitalized 5. Bf4, and why is it considered a strong / challenging move nowadays?

# Answer
> 2 votes
One of the possible reasons why 5.Bf4 has gained popularity at the very top-level, is because white seems to have difficulties obtaining an advantage after 5.Bg5.

The critical variation is 5....h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Rc1 c5 9.dxc5 Nxc5 10.cxd5 g5!, which occured for the first time in Wojtaszek-Kramnik (2015). Moreover, black can also play 9....dxc4, which happened in another famous Kramnik game: Matlakov-Kramnik (2015). After 8....c5, white's main alternative is 9.cxd5. In this line too, there is an impressive Kramnik win: Salem-Kramnik (2014).

To answer the question "Who revitalized 5.Bf4?": Kramnik, by posing some questions as black in the 5.Bg5 line.

```

      [StartPly "8"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 (5.Bf4) h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Rc1 c5 9.dxc5 (9.cxd5) Nxc5 (9...dxc4) 10.cxd5 g5

```

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, queens-gambit-declined
---


title: Coding chess engine

text:
# Question
Title: Coding chess engine
I have always wanted to start coding a simple chess engine. I do have basic understanding about the general architecture of such a program, but I would love to see some examples first. Anyone have tried his hand in coding a chess engine? can you guys suggest good online resource that is clear and organized about how to start such a project?

Thanks

# Answer
> 4 votes
There are some very basic chess engines which are very instructive for a beginner chess programmer. The list can be found here. This page is also has a lot of useful resources about chess programming, I recommend you to take your time reading articles on this site.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I recommend the TSCP chess engine. The implementation is a plain alpha-beta with no optimisation, thus it'll be easy for you to study. Furthermore, the board representation is array-based (stronger engines usually use bitboard), so it shouldn't be a very challenging task for you to go through the move generation code.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess programming wiki has good resources. https://www.chessprogramming.org/Recommended\_Reading

# Answer
> 1 votes
This engine was created just with the idea of being of help to beginners on the chess engines coding world:

https://github.com/emdio/secondchess

---
Tags: engines, software, programming
---


# Question
Title: Could this kind of inaccurate sacrifice be countered?
I recently played a Lichess Bullet Game as White.

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.h4 Nc6 3.d3 Nf6 4.g3 Bc5 5.Nc3 d6 6.a3 O-O 7.b4 Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Ng4+ 9.Ke1 a6 10.Bh3 Nd4 11.Bxg4 b5 12.Bxc8 Rxc8 13.Nge2 Nxe2 14.Qxe2 c5 15.bxc5 dxc5 16.Rb1 c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.Be3 h6 19.g4 f6 20.Bxh6 gxh6 21.Qe3 Kf7 22.Qxh6 Ke7  23.Rb7+ Ke6 24.Rf1 Rh8 25.Rxf6+ Qxf6 26.Re7+ Kxe7 27. Nd5+ Kf7 28.Qxf6+ Kg8 29.Ne7+ Kh7 30.Qg6#

```

After Black's 24th move, I thought I was doomed, but I found the rook sacrifice, Rxf6, which forces Black to capture Qxf6. I could have gone for Rb6+ next, taking their queen, but I missed that and played Re7+ sacrificing both rooks. They had to capture with the king, and now, what I foreseen, is that Nd5+ forks the Black king and the queen.

My question is this: If Black ran better with his King, would they have a chance to defend against my attack? It seems to me that d7 is not a better square for black to move his king to because he has to block Qe7+ and there is also the Nb6+ threat of forking the rook. It's possible that their next best move would be Rce8, which is met with 1. Qf7+ Kd6 2. Qc7+ Ke6 3. Qc6+ Kf7 4. Qf6+ Kf8 Ne7+, forcing him to take with the rook, because otherwise it's mate. It looks like the game was mine anyways.

Nevertheless makes for a more spectacular win.

# Answer
When asking questions about tactics and sacrifices, chess engines are usually the most efficient and accurate way of determining the answer. The following is based on analysis from Houdini 6.03 in tactical mode:

By the end of move 24, in the following position, a forced mate (in 8) already exists for white

```
[FEN "2rq3r/1R6/p3kp1Q/4p3/2p1P1PP/P1N5/2P5/4KR2 w - - 5 25"]

1.Rxf6+ { #8/58 } 1...Qxf6 2.Rb6+ Rc6 3.Rxc6+ Kd7 4.Qxf6 Rh6 5.Qxh6 Ke7
6.Rc7+ Kd8 7.Qd6+ Ke8 8.Qe7#

```

And `Rxf6+` was indeed the optimal move. Later on, `Rb6+` was completely fine, but not optimal (see analysis above). As it turns out, you lose your mate in 7 and are tragically left with the following mate in 19:

```
[FEN "2r4r/4R3/p3kq1Q/4p3/2p1P1PP/P1N5/2P5/4K3 b - - 1 26"]

1...Kxe7 { #19/50 } 2.Nd5+ Kd7 3.Qxf6 Rhf8 4.Qe7+ Kc6 5.Nb4+ Kb5 6.Qxe5+ Kb6 7.Qd6+ Kb7 8.Qxa6+ Kc7 9.Qc6+ Kb8 10.Qb6+ Ka8 11.Nc6 Rxc6 12.Qxc6+ Kb8 13.Qd6+ Kc8 14.Qxf8+ Kd7 15.e5 Ke6 16.Qd6+ Kf7 17.Qf6+ Kg8 18.h5 Kh7 19.h6 Kg8 20.Qg7#

```

It turns out the best move for black (the one which holds off mate for longest) is in fact to take your rook and allow themselves to be forked.

On move 27, the played move `Kf7` allows the mate in 3. The best option, `Kd7` is shown in the mating line above. It delays mate much longer than 3 moves, but obviously still loses.
> 7 votes

# Answer
That sacrifice could not have been countered once Re7+ was played, though on move 26 white could also have played Rb6+ since that would have won the black queen for free and is materialistically superior to Re7+.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: sacrifice, attack, bullet-chess
---


# Question
Title: 50-move rule: only the last 50 or any consecutive 50?
Suppose that, as a result of White's move, there have now been 100 single-moves (50 full moves) since the most recent pawn move or capture. White didn't claim a draw because they're going for the win. Every option for Black's next move is a pawn move or a capture. Does this mean that Black has now lost the opportunity to claim a draw under the 50-move rule?

(Art. 9.3 of FIDE's Laws of Chess (2018) suggests that they have, but I wanted to check. If I've understood correctly, the opportunity does not just occur on the 100th non-pawn non-capture and then vanish forever --- you may claim at any point from the 100th onwards in a series of more than 100 --- but there must be a series of at least 100 including the very turn in which you make your claim. That is, retrospective claims do not stand.)

This question was prompted by my reading up on Art. 9.3 of FIDE's Laws of Chess (2018) to respond to this question.

# Answer
> 7 votes
She can claim a draw. Article 9.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, 2018, emphasis mine:

> **9.3** The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
>
> **9.3.1** he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in thelast 50 moves by eachplayer having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, **or**
>
> **9.3.2** the last 50 moves by each player **have been completed** without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

9.3.2 is the case you describe, where the moves have already been completed. 9.3.1 is the case that counts the move the player is about to make.

Edit: but you link to the other question. In real tournament chess, checkmate would certainly trump this -- checkmate *ends the game*, so the other player would never get another turn to claim a draw in. But problems *are not tournament chess* and they use their own conventions, like the famous rule that castling is allowed unless you can prove it isn't.

---
Tags: rules, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: What is the right path to be followed on Chess.com for learning Chess?
I am a beginner in Chess. I know the basics but I have very very little practice as of now and I've shortlisted Chess.com to learn and improve my game.

I am yet to buy a premium subscription there but before that I want to test the website with (as much as possible) content available in the basic (free) version. But, there are so many sections in the 'Learn' area only like Puzzles, Lessons, Videos, Openings, Drills and then so many lessons inside each of them.

I'm getting a little confused as to where to start. The reason I'm asking for a right path is because I don't want to mistakenly throw away the option of learning from Chess.com just because I started with things that were probably too advanced for me to start with.

Also, if anyone has any other suggestion besides Chess.com for online platforms for a beginner to learn Chess, then that's also most welcome.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Have a look at The path of learning chess and see how you can match this with what chess.com offers.

Starting with tactics, a couple of basic general chess principles and playing slower time controls is probably a good start. Avoid learning openings by heart. Watch videos aimed at beginners on youtube, chess24 or any other website (there are questions on SE about recommended websites as well).

IMO there is so much free material for beginners out there that I'd rather invest the money in a good book or for joining a chess club than paying for some website.

Once you are beyond the beginner stage you will want to figure out your main weaknesses and work more on those. Having a stronger player look over your game is very useful in this respect.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I recommend these collections of mate-in-1 and mate-in-2 puzzles. They are powered by a unique software system not available anywhere else:

(1) the computer plays multiple defense lines before admitting success

(2) the system allows alternative solutions to be played out to success rather than prompt the irritated user to find a better solution

(3) the system allows the user to play wrong lines and keeps replying with moves and not just with words like "wrong, try again".

(I am the chess programmer, author of this chess publishing platform.)

Mate in 1 interactive exercises

Mate in 2 interactive exercises

---
Tags: learning, online-chess, training, beginner
---


title: The move Bg4 in the Pirc defense

text:
# Question
Title: The move Bg4 in the Pirc defense
I am having trouble understanding a move studied in an opening book. The move is Bg4 in the Pirc defence in this position.

What is the point of aiming to exchange the bishop on f3? The point d4 does not seem to be the reason.

# Answer
Compare that position with other variations where White does not allow ...Bg4 to be played. Black often struggles with the development of the c8 bishop.

Also, the central dark squares are indeed a target, so ...Bg4 is clearly helping there (what else could he possibly do in a different square?) Pawn breaks with ...e5 or ...c5 are a possibility as well
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: How would you make a queenside pawn storm opening idea work?
I played a Lichess bullet game as Black in which I disregarded any opening theory because I just wanted to mount up a pawn storm on the queenside. Has anybody come across this idea? It seems to me that a French Defense-like position with the e6 and d5 pawns blocked would make this to work. Also, the pair of bishops seems quite important here and I think that when established, this pawn structure would limit White's space and, if he castles, allows for pressure along both sides of the board. How would you make this work though?

```
[Title "abranzyck-LIR1618, Lichess, 8/24/19"]
[FEN "*"]

1. f4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d3 a5 4. e4 c6 5. e5 Nh6 6. h3 b5 7. Be2 Bd7 8. O-O Na6 9. Be3 c5 10. Bf2 d4 11. Bh4 Be7 12. Ng5 Nf5 13. Qe1 Bc6 14. Bf3 Bxf3 15. Rxf3 Nxh4 16. Qxh4 h6 17. Qh5 g6 18. Qh4 Qd5 19. Nd2 O-O-O 20. Nde4 hxg5 21. Qf2 f5 22. Nxg5 Bxg5 23. fxg5 Rh5 24. g4 fxg4 25. Rf7 Rxg5 26. Kh2 Rh8 27. Rf1 Rxh3+ 28. Kg1 g3 29. Qf6 Qh1#

```

# Answer
You may want to take a look at some games with the English opening (after, for example 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3, where white rushes for a strong queenside attack based on Rb1, b4-b5.

The Sicilian Defence (Classical, Closed, Najdorf, Dragon, Taimanov or Scheveningen variations also provide good examples)

Some lines on the French Defence also have examples of queenside storm from Black, but I cannot recommend you anything in particular. Of course, even in the openings I mentioned, there will be plenty of examples where other plans are used instead. Be patient with your search until you find something useful for you
> 2 votes

# Answer
That is a beautiful checkmate, but I personally don't consider a pawnstorm in the opening or early midgame a really good idea, since its easy to penetrate and it loses in terms of development.

But if you were to make a queenside pawnstorm, you could probably start with the queens gambit? You can probably push your queen pawns and still end up with a playable midgame in that case. As you mentioned, the bishops are important (and so are the knights) so you maybe would like to get your minors out and attacking or supporting the pawns.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In your example the game was basically played on the kingside only as your "pawn storm" did not get beyond the 5th rank. With or without pawn storm white would not really want to put pieces on the queenside. White made some strange decisions starting with Bh4. Likely a better plan for white would have been to develop pieces quickly (e.g. a knight to e4) and open the position while black was still somehwat less developed.

Anyway, IMO, having a fixed plan like a "pawn storm" for every game in mind is a bad idea. You should investigate the position at hand and then decide what plan to follow based on that.

If you like positions with queenside pawn storms, see David's reply for openings where it often is a good idea.

Generally speaking pawn storms are often started in opposite side castling and if there is already a weakness (e.g. a pawn has moved out of line) in the opponent's position that you can attack with a pawn storm. You also want to have your development completed or almost completed before you open the position.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning, strategy, pawn-structure, attack
---


title: Using the king to prevent castling

text:
# Question
Title: Using the king to prevent castling
What is a more difficult problem which involves using the king to prevent castling than the following problem?

White to play and win:

```
[FEN "r3k3/5p2/2K2P1P/b1N1P2P/8/8/4n3/8 w q - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 13 votes
In this famous problem by H. Hultberg (1944), the white king **castles** to prevent Black from castling:

```
[FEN "r3k2/1p1p2p1/2pP3p/8/8/5R2/PPPP4/4K2R - - - 0 0 "]

```

White to mate in two moves.

According to chess problem conventions, castling is presumed to be legal unless it's provably illegal. In this position, you can prove that at least one player has lost the right to castle, but you don't know which one. (If the white rook on f3 came from a1, the white king must have moved to let it out. If the rook on f3 is a promoted piece, it must have visited a8, e8, or f8 before escaping the 8th rank, so the black king or rook must have moved.)

1.Rhf1? fails to 1...O-O-O.

1.O-O! and 2.Rf8#, as Black is now unable to castle.

# Answer
> 6 votes
In a comment, the OP asked for a non-retrograde analysis problem in which both castling rights are known, and, for fun, I have done so.

```
[Title "me, chesstackexchange.com 8/27/2019, Mate In 4"]
[FEN "4k2r/2p1p2p/P1P1P2P/8/8/8/6P1/nn2K2R w Kk - 0 1"]

```

Clearly, in order to checkmate Black in just four moves, White's pawn must be promoted. However, if White pushes their pawn, then Black will castle and there is no mate! Thus, White must prevent Black from castling The only way to do that is with their rook.

But if White plays 1. Rf1?, then Black will play 1... Nc2+!, also preventing a mate in time. Therefore, White's only option to prevent Black from castling is to castle themselves-1. 0-0!

Here is a shorter mate in 3 version. It shows the idea much more clearly

```
[Title "me, chesstackexchange.com 11/5/2019, Mate In 3"]
[FEN "4k2r/4p1p1/1P2P3/1N6/8/8/7P/n3K2R w Kk - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
The answer to your puzzle is 1. Kb7 followed by 2. h7 (unless Black throws in a spite check with 1...Rb8+ or 1...Ra7+).

---
Tags: problems, castling
---


# Question
Title: Professional match where neither player castles?
Are there any professional matches from serious players where neither player castles during the course of the game?

# Answer
> 11 votes
It won't be terribly common, but it's not unheard of either. Here are a few examples involving well-known grandmasters:

Ivanchuk-Csom (1989):

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Yerevan"]
[Site "Yerevan"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Vassily Ivanchuk"]
[Black "Istvan Csom"]
[ECO "E20"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "49"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nh5 7.g3
f5 8.e4 f4 9.dxe6 fxg3 10.Qd5 g2 11.Qxh5+ g6 12.Qe5 Qh4+
13.Ke2 gxh1=Q 14.Qxh8+ Ke7 15.Qg7+ Kxe6 16.Bh3+ Kd6 17.Qf8+
Kc7 18.Bf4+ Qxf4 19.Qxf4+ d6 20.Rd1 Nc6 21.Qxd6+ Kb6 22.Qg3 h5
23.Bxc8 Rxc8 24.Nh3 h4 25.Qf2 1-0

```

Sutovsky-Morozevich (1998):

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Pamplona International"]
[Site "Pamplona ESP"]
[Date "1998.12.31"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "05"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Emil Sutovsky"]
[Black "Alexander Morozevich"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "2575"]
[BlackElo "2625"]
[PlyCount "52"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6
gxf6 7. Nf3 a6 8. Qd2 b5 9. Qh6 Bb7 10. Bd3 Nd7 11. Ng3 f5
12. Nh5 Bf8 13. Qe3 Nf6 14. Qe5 Nxh5 15. Qxh8 Bxf3 16. gxf3
Nf6 17. Rg1 Qxd4 18. Rg8 Ke7 19. Kf1 Bg7 20. Qxg7 Rxg8 21. Qh6
Qxb2 22. Re1 Qc3 23. Qh4 c5 24. Rd1 c4 25. Bxf5 Qxf3 26. Qd4
Nd5 0-1

```

Andreikin-Jumabayev (2009):

```
[fen ""]
[Event "48th World Junior Championship"]
[Site "Puerto Madryn ARG"]
[Date "2009.10.31"]
[EventDate "2009.10.22"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Dmitry Andreikin"]
[Black "Rinat Jumabayev"]
[ECO "E38"]
[WhiteElo "2659"]
[BlackElo "2548"]
[PlyCount "41"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 c5 5. dxc5 Bxc5 6. Nf3
Qb6 7. e3 Qc7 8. g4 h6 9. Rg1 b6 10. g5 hxg5 11. Nb5 Qd8
12. Nxg5 Bf8 13. c5 Rh5 14. Nd6+ Bxd6 15. cxd6 Bb7 16. Nxf7
Be4 17. Qxe4 Nxe4 18. Nxd8 Kxd8 19. Bg2 Rg5 20. Kf1 Rxg2
21. Kxg2 1-0

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
I know of two bizarre games in which neither player castles. They are both mentioned in the "Longest immobility" section of Tim Krabbe "Chess Records" page.

In this game, none of the four rooks moved whatsoever!

```
[Title "Szabo-Ristoja, Helsinki Finland, 1975"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. Nge2 Nf8 8. Ng3 g6 9. h4 h5 10. Nf1 Ng4 11. f3 Nh6 12. g3 a6 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. a3 Qb8 15. a4 Bd8 16. a5 Bc7 17. Bg5 Ng8 18. Nd1 f6 19. Bd2 Kf7 20. Nfe3 Nh6 21. Nf2 b6 22. axb6 Bxb6 23. f4 a5 24. Be2 Kg7 25. f5 Be8 26. g4 hxg4 27. Nfxg4 Nxg4 28. Bxg4 a4 29. fxg6 Nxg6 30. Nf5+ Kg8 31. h5 Nf4 32. Bxf4 exf4 33. h6 Ba5+ 34. Kf1 Kf8 35. Qf2 Qb3 36. Qxf4 Bc7 37. h7 Bf7 38. Qh6+ Ke8 39. Qxf6 Qd3+ 40. Kg2 Qxe4+ 41. Bf3

```

In this game, neither of the kings moved at all!

```
[Title " Thorhallsson T.-Johannesson, Hafnarborg Iceland, 2003"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 Nc6 5. e5 Nge7 6. h4 h6 7. h5 f6 8. exf6 gxf6 9. a3 Ba5 10. b4 Bb6 11. Na4 e5 12. Bb2 e4 13. Bc1 Bg4 14. c3 Qd7 15. Bf4 Nd8 16. Qc2 Ne6 17. Bd2 Qc6 18. Qb3 Nf5 19. Rc1 Nd6 20. Rh4 Bxe2 21. Bxe2 a6 22. Rg4 Ng5 23. Nc5 Ba7 24. Rf4 Rf8 25. a4 Bxc5 26. bxc5 Nc8 27. Rb1 Rb8 28. c4 Ne7 29. cxd5 Nxd5 30. Bxa6 Qxa6 31. Qxd5 Rd8 32. Qxb7 Qxa4 33. Be3 f5 34. Qxc7 Ne6 35. Qe5 Qa2 36. Rc1 Qd5 37. Rh4 Qxe5 38. dxe5 f4 39. Bd2 Rd5 40. c6 Rf7 41. c7 Nxc7 42. Bxf4 Ne6 43. Bxh6 Rxe5 44. Be3 Rff5 45. h6 Rh5 46. Rxh5 Rxh5 47. Rc4

```

---
Tags: history, castling, master-games
---