# Question
Title: What are the ideas behind the Blackmar-Diemer gambit?
I have a new chess student who likes risky openings. We conducted an exercise where we played the first 4 or 5 moves to see which openings come naturally to him. He chose the Scandinavian Defence and Queen's Gambit Accepted as Black, and the Blackmar-Diemer gambit as White.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. e4

```

My problem is that I have only come across this opening once, and it does not appear in any of the books I have. It also is that my style of play is very different from my student's. I have a much more cautious style.

So, my question is, **to help my student, I would like to know what are the main ideas and variations in the Blackmar-Diemer gambit**?

# Answer
I've used BDG countless number of times and won virtually everytime over weaker players. This is a dangerous opening if Black simply plays normal development moves, quite tricky to play in a 5-minute blitz game.

White has to attack because he is a pawn down. The most direct and surprisingly effective setup is:

* Position the light bishop on the d3-h7 diagonal
* Move the white queen d1-e1-h4
* Prepare for an exchange sacrifice on the f-file
* Prepare for bishop sacrifices on the h6 and h7 squares

Why is this effective in a blitz game? An unprepared Black player might just simply make normal development moves, as if there was no gambit. By the time Black sees the checkmate, it'd be too late. If Black plays h7-h6 or g7-g6, White has the the two bishops and f1-rook to do further damage, for example sacrificing by Bxh6.

This gambit can be refuted, possible ideas:

* Castle to the queen-side
* Delay castling and strike on the weak d-pawn. If white plays c3, Black has ...c5 to challenge the pawn and try to open the weak g1-a7 diagonal.

I've personally found very difficult to deal with Black castle queen-side, because it is harder to exploit the space advantage in the king-side while the Black king is on the other side of the board.

Here, I give a sample game that I've used many times.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 exf3 4.Nxf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 e6 6.O-O Bd6 7.Bg5 O-O 8.Qe1 Nbd7  9.Qh4 c5 10.Ne5 cxd4 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.Rxf6
*

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
Student T covered the ideas clearly and RemcoGerlich pointed out the best counterattacks.

IM Martin has a video explaining the finer points. He has this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGcegnDqz0.

I did play this opening during my teen years, and found that even if Black castles queenside, the pressure against f7 will win the pawn back. Now I occasionally transpose into it, while playing blitz, when my opponent plays the Scandinavian Defence.

http://tws27.weebly.com/blackmar-diemer-gambit.html has the basic opening lines.

Gary Michael Danelishen wrote "The Final Theory of Chess." He left Fritz running for days analysing the opening, and it claims the the BDG is the best opening. He shows the lines suggested by the computer and its evaluation. Although I would not recommend the book, it does have interesting line for the French.
> 4 votes

# Answer
If I was trying to explain this to a beginner, I would say that black is up a pawn with no compensation.

Yes, white's position is dangerous but black is fully equal. Refer to the engine for specific lines.
> -1 votes

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


# Question
Title: Does the pawn's initial double square move have a special name?
Does the pawn's initial double square move have a special name, akin to how special capturing move that the pawn has is called en passant?

# Answer
No, it's a standard move. By definition, pawns are pieces which can move 1 square forward or 2 on the first move, and can capture diagonally. These actions don't have special names as they're easy to define, but en passant requires a bit more explanation (as most pawns never do it in any particular game).
> 4 votes

---
Tags: pawns, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Are there any online public chess databases I can upload my own games to?
Does there exist any online public chess database that I can upload my own games to (so that others can look at them)? I know that sites where you can play online will store games (that you played on that site) so they can be viewed, but I'm trying to find somewhere to store my OTB games that were not played online.

I was thinking that chess-db.com might be a possibility, it seems at first glance like that's what it's supposed to be for - but I note that it is aware of me (it knows my USCF ID and everything), but it has my rating wrong (what they have is years out of date) and it also has a list of games supposedly played by me that I never played. So I am not sure if that site is actually legitimate.

# Answer
I would suggest going to lichess.org and creating one or more studies for this. You can choose to make these public or private or only visible to those you give the link to. Within a study, you can upload the PGN of your games as separate chapters. You will need an account to make studies, but creating an account and using any of the study features is entirely free.

For each game, you can fill in as much or as little information about the players/situation as you want. Lichess studies also have advanced commentary features, so that you can describe your thoughts as well as annotate which moves you thought were interesting, blunders, etc. Personally, I find it useful to add variations I've found that I feel are worth further consideration - whether I found the variation during or after the game.

As an example, here is one study I made to contain the most interesting Tabletop Simulator games I've played, as well as my annotations of the games.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If all you want to do is share your games with others via the internet then the easiest way is to create your own database of your games and upload the file to your cloud storage area, be it Dropbox, Google Drive or Microsoft One Drive. Then you can share read-only links to the file. This is the only free method of doing this that I know.

If you are prepared to pay then you can do something similar with a Chessbase account but you can only share with other Chessbase users. There is an article on the Chessbase site explaining how this works here.
> 1 votes

# Answer
When you play in a tournament (especially a FIDE rated one) and submit a carbon copy of your notation, that's how the game can end up in some database (such as chess-db). Chess players wouldn't be allowed to upload whatever they want to well known database sites since then they could deliberately mislead people who look them up to prepare for them.

You can of course upload your games via your own methods (such as on your own site), but this won't be very popular on a Google search.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: database, online
---


# Question
Title: How to break through a stubborn Semi-Slav?
With every other middlegame formation, I know more or less what I would do if I were given a load of free tempi, and thus, what I should aim for in the present. However, concerning a highly defensive Semi-Slav still with "fangs," it seems like there's not much I can do but twiddle my thumbs and hope Black opens up the position for me (which is of course a terrible strategy):

```
r1bq1rk1/ppn1bpp1/2p1pn1p/8/3P3B/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPP/R3K2R w KQ - 6 13

```

Black currently has five (!) defenders locking down d5, with the possibility of bringing in an additional rook or fianchettoed bishop if the current defenders were relocated/exchanged. Thus, I wouldn't have any idea how to launch a successful central takeover (in particular, whenever I push e3-e4 in these situations, my center pawns only seem to turn into a liability for me).

As well, the kingside is without any real defect to exploit, and starting a kingside pawn storm would (afaict) be to bet my whole position on an attack with less-than-ideal odds.

So, it seems to me that at present the queenside is White's best option to secure a weakness-free advantage. Let's say I get the opportunity for free to push my pawns and reposition my rook. The issue is that it seems Black often has the ability to liquidate the queenside at his will in his favor, for example:

```
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppn1bpp1/2p1pn1p/8/PP1P3B/2NBPN2/2Q2PPP/1R2K2R b KQ - 0 1"]

1... a5 2. bxa5 Ncd5 3. Nxd5 Nxd5 4. Bxe7 Qxa5+ 5. Nd2 Nxe7

```

Usually, however, Black commits to some expansion before White has the time to engineer a true queenside pawn storm, often in the form of a fianchetto for his weak bishop. This in turn tends to create a weakness on c6 that, personally, I'm glad to see, because it's at least *something* for White to begin to target.

But from my tabiya in the first diagram, how does White ideally want to take advantage of Black's position in the Semi-Slav, without giving himself weaknesses in the process, and without relying on Black's cooperation to loosen his own position?

# Answer
The position you are looking at is indeed very common in the semi-Slav defense and the solid control of the d5 square is exactly the underlying idea for Black, often after having played ...dxc4 at some point in the opening. Looking at White's piece placement, in particular at the e pawn on e3 and the White dark squared bishop on the king's side, this seems to have originated from the classic Moscow variation, namely

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Merano defense, Moscow variation"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4

```

At this point White has to play aggressively to avoid Black keeping *both* the pawn and maintaining the *initiative*: the standard continuation for White is 7.e4 (that you have not played) to threaten the knight on f6 and force Black to play 7...g5 and weaken their king's side. Playing 7.e3 instead gives Black the possibility to continue developing their pieces calmly; they played possibly something like 7...Be7 but could have played instead 7...b5, pushing on the queen's side and threatening ...b4 at some point.

However, given your position on the board, White usually pursues the plan of the minority attack on the queen's side rather than going for control of the d5 square, pushing the a and b pawns to threaten b5 or c6. In order to do so it is fundamental to give rook support on the c-file with something like 0-0 followed by Rfc1. Stockfish gives the following idea, after castling:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Merano defense, Moscow variation: Stockfish analysis"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e3 Be7 8.Bxc4 Na6 9.Bd3 O-O 10. Qc2 Nc7 11.O-O b6 12.Rfc1 Bb7 13.Ne5 Rc8 14.a3 Nce8 15.b4

```

and White can play trying to break on the b-c files somehow. Perhaps you want to play 12.Rfd1 instead, to avoid ...c5; dxc5 and already having control of the d-file instead.

As an example let us have a look at a famous match Topalov-Kramink, one of the many regarding (semi)-Slav variations and Queen's gambit declined as in the fashion of two amongst the most productive players of those lines:

```
[fen ""]
[Event "Corus"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2008.01.22"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Veselin Topalov"]
[Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[ECO "D44"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "89"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5
8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxf7 Kxf7 13.e5
Nd5 14.Ne4 Ke7 15.Nd6 Qb6 16.Bg4 Raf8 17.Qc2 Qxd4 18.Qg6 Qxg4
19.Qxg7+ Kd8 20.Nxb7+ Kc8 21.a4 b4 22.Rac1 c3 23.bxc3 b3 24.c4
Rfg8 25.Nd6+ Kc7 26.Qf7 Rf8 27.cxd5 Rxf7 28.Rxc6+ Kb8 29.Nxf7
Re8 30.Nd6 Rh8 31.Rc4 Qe2 32.dxe6 Nb6 33.Rb4 Ka8 34.e7 Nd5
35.Rxb3 Nxe7 36.Rfb1 Nd5 37.h3 h5 38.Nf7 Rc8 39.e6 a6 40.Nxg5
h4 41.Bd6 Rg8 42.R3b2 Qd3 43.e7 Nf6 44.Be5 Nd7 45.Ne6 1-0

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
The position you are concerned about doesn't qualify as a *stubborn* Semi-Slav in my opinion. At most, it is a very *passive* Semi-Slav where the Nc7 lost two tempi to reach a waiting spot, and neither of Black's usual breaks, ...e5 and ...c5, will be attractive in the near future. Moreover, the hook on h6 has provided you with a very nice target.

White has three possible, natural plans:

* Queenside expansion

This is the continuation you consider, with a4-b4-Rb1. Indeed, in your line, ...a5 come handy notably because your king sitting on e1 makes the weakening of b4 annoying and allows Black to exchange two minor pieces - a relief for him given his lack of space.

You should instead take your time to implement this plan: 0-0, Rfd1, Rac1 or Rab1, a3 if need be, b4, possibly Ne5 building pressure against c6, and then you look for an opportunity to breakthrough with b4-b5 when Black cannot counter with c6-c5. If you keep everything under control this could lead to a serious weakness on c6 and a winning squeeze down the c-file. Even if you don't break through, the completed development and the space gained should be enough to prevent any ...a5 or ...c5 by Black and free your hands for switching to the center with e3-e4.

* Central squeeze

Maybe the simplest way to enhance your space advantage is to build up in the center with 0-0, e3-e4, Rad1-Rfe1 or Rac1-Rfd1. In case Black offer a bishop exchange with ...Nd7, you decline with Bg3. Then Black is extremely passive and can only hope for c6-c5 to free himself (after b6, Bb7, and maybe some half-useful rook moves but he lacks space so much that it is hard to propose a way for him to finish development). Not only can you try to block c5 (with Rc1, or Ne5-d3, or b4), but even if Black achieves it the opening of the center after dc5, d5, or ...cd4 should rather benefit your more active pieces. Meanwhile, he also needs to be careful that you won't mount an attack on his king (e.g. with a Bb1-Qc2 battery then e4-e5 chasing the Nf6, or with Ne5 followed by a rook lift on the third rank).

* Direct kingside attack

With the weakness on h6 on the board before you have castled and the stable center, I would really give a go to the caveman approach (aka 'latvian' or 'bayonet' attack) with 11.Rg1 intending g4-g5, Ke2 (or 0-0-0), opening the g-file and mating on move 20. All your pieces can join the attack while Black's Nc7, Bc8 and Ra8 won't be able to help their king before long...

Choosing between the three plans is merely a question of style and taste. In any case, White enjoys a great advantage and will try to avoid piece exchanges.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, attack, semi-slav
---


# Question
Title: Potential exchange sacrifice in a King's Indian Defence middlegame
```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. Be3 f5 11. f3 f4 12. Bf2 g5 13. b4 Nf6 14. c5 Ng6 15. cxd6 cxd6 16. Rc1 Rf7 17. Nb5 a6 18. Nc3 Bf8 19. Na4 Bd7 20. Nb6 g4 21. Nxa8 g3 22. hxg3 fxg3 23. Bxg3 Nh5 24. Bf2 Ngf4 25. Nb6 Rg7 26. Nxd7 Qxd7 27. Kh2 Nxg2 28. Nxg2 Rxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Nf4+ 30. Kg1 Qh3 0-1

```

I won this game, but I think that I was lucky. I feel that allowing `21. Nxa8` was a blunder.

What if white captured `21. fxg4`? Then I have to play `21. ... Nxe4` . White then captures my rook at `a8`. I don't see any compensation for black for the loss of material. I also don't see how to continue the attack through this variation.

# Answer
> 2 votes
First, it is highly unlikely that you will get a definitive answer here since computers are not great in these types of positions where the danger to white might be 10 moves down the road. It is also not uncommon for black to "lose" a rook in this opening, the Classical King's Indian, however, we often find that black's k-side attack is simply too strong in practice.

Computers are not yet strong enough to see this deeply, and even if they could, you are playing a human being. As a practical matter, positions like these, which are so complicated and dangerous, even if technically not correct, they are fine to play in practice...ask Tal. :) Still, you also missed some quicker wins too.

In the line 21.fg Ne4, you clearly have compensation since the eval is only +.7, and falls to about +.4 the move after taking on a8 and the recapture, however, the question is if you can ignore the immediate recapture, and just play something else. I do not think so since white's q-side attack comes too quickly. I think you have to take back immediately, and then bring the queen back to the k-side. If you have to do that, you are right that it is probably wrong.

All of this is a bit moot since the most popular move is 18...h5, which scores at only 33% for white compared to 83% after 18...Bf8. I like the idea of the pawn roller there since it is more flexible when you play g4.

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

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. Be3 f5 11. f3 f4 12. Bf2 g5 13. b4 Nf6 14. c5 Ng6 15. cxd6 cxd6 16. Rc1 Rf7 17. Nb5 (17. a4 {a4 is a more common move here.}) 17... a6 18. Nc3 Bf8 (18... h5 {h5 is a more common move here.}) 19. Na4 Bd7 20. Nb6 g4 21. Nxa8 (21.fxg4 Nxe4 22.Nxa8) 21... g3 22. hxg3 fxg3 23. Bxg3 Nh5 24. Bf2 Ngf4 25. Nb6 Rg7 26.Nxd7 Qxd7 (26... Rxg2+ 27. Nxg2 Qg5-+) 27. Kh2 Nxg2 (27... Rxg2+ 28. Nxg2 Qh3+ 29. Kg1 Qxg2#) 28. Nxg2 Rxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Nf4+ 30. Kg1 Qh3 0-1

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
21.fg4?! leads to complicated positions that should objectively favour White but that Black often ends up winning in practice. After 21...Nxe4 22.Nxa8 Qxa8, at the price of an exchange you have broken White's pawn chain and can expect active piece play.

The text 21.Nxa8! is much stronger and should have brought White a clear advantage if after 21...g3 he had not touched this pawn but continued 22.Nc7!

Then: 22...gf2 23.Rf2 gives a decisive material advantage for White, who can continue with Bf1, Rfc2 and Ne6 without being bothered by any counterplay by Black.

22...Nh5 is usually countered with 23.Kh1! Qh4 24.Bg1 gh2 25.Bf2, but here White even have the simpler 23.Ne6! Qh4 24.h3, when there is no ...Bxh3 sacrifice available and Black's attack is not at all in time.

22...gh2 yields nothing serious after either 23.Kh1 or 23.Kxh2.

Black's mistake came earlier, probably with 18...Bf8 which is just too slow.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I would be pretty happy with my position after `21. fxg4`. At least, I think it's even more favourable than `21. Nxa8`. The central pawns are just too strong and can become ddangerous if you manage to play `...e4` (your opponent had no good way of preventing it). You will also have several plans based on pressure on `d5` and/or a kingside attack. Still, concrete analysis is required for a definite answer.

So the practical question is, in my opinion. Was it really necessary? Would your attack be slowed down too much by just playing \`\`20...Rb8`? Sure, he can take your`d7\`\`\`bishop, but that's also the case in the line you played! So, the soundness of the sacrifice probably depends upon the answer to that question. In a Blitz game, I'd definitely go for it!

---
Tags: analysis, blunder, attack, kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: Position-jugdment problems simulating actual play
I'm interested in collections of chess problems where we are not told beforehand what is happening in the positions presented, but we have to decide by ourselves, whether something clear exists (a winning or drawing combination, a good move or plan that keeps the initiative) or whether the position presented is still unclear. Clearly the goal is to exercise analysis, intuition and general judgment of positions, by simulating actual play.
So are there collections of problems of this type, in print or online?

# Answer
You can find such positions in Dvoretsky's books. Also, in "The Defense Triumphs" by Kotov. But in general I am not aware of a collection of positions without a clear objective presented.

Then there are a couple newer "positions you must know" books that you might explore.

Of course if you go over annotated GM games as if you are playing the game, thinking before reading the next more or comments -- this is a good way to achieve such training.
> 2 votes

# Answer
First, in a real game, you can often get a sense of how things are going, so there are always some "hints" just by looking at the board.

I just went up and looked at my library, and opened up a number of books. The old Dvoretsky books really do not do this much, but the "School of Future Champions" and "School of Chess Excellence" series do have many sections that just say "white (or black) to play", and nothing more.

Other Dvoretsky books that do that significantly are "Recognizing Your Opponent's Resources", which has 154 such examples. Also, "Chess Lessons" and "Maneuvering: The Art of Piece Play". That said, all of Dvoretsky's books are quite advanced, and you need to be above 2000 OTB, preferably 2200, to really benefit.

A couple of other tough books, but not as tough as Dvoretsky, are the classic "The Best Move" by Hort and Jansa, and "Test Your Chess Skills" by Sarhan Guliev and Logman Guliev. Again, both are a bit advanced, but still OK for a wider range of players.

My recommendation for most players are two outstanding series of books. The Yusupov series "Build up/Boost/Chess Evolution". There are 10 books in the series, and in each one, there is a lesson, and then a series of 12 test exercises for each lesson with just who is to move. The first four books are not simple, but they are accessible to players of a very wide range of OTB ratings. They get harder after that. This series is like having your own former top-10 GM as your teacher.

The other is the Jacob Aagaard series "Grandmaster preparation". There are 6 in this series, and there are many problems within each book.

Start with the first four Yusupov books, and go from there, is my recommendation.

P.S. The Yusupov books cover everything, from opening to tactics, to endgames, to positional play, as you specifically asked about.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: puzzles
---


# Question
Title: What are the maximum number of pieces that can be checking a king at once
Was just thinking about this. It's easy to have two pieces checking the king via a discovered double check, but three is where it gets interesting. Finegold said in a video he was TDing for a game and a player's king was in check from five different pieces. Sounds like an exaggeration, but I'm curious what input people have.

# Answer
If you have an unlimited number of pieces to place, and ignore the mechanics needed to get them there in actual gameplay, it's easy to show you can surround a king with eight queens and eight knights for a total of sixteen checks.

In actual gameplay, however, you have only fifteen non-king pieces to use, and there are serious difficulties in getting more than two pieces to an attacking position *in the same move,* remembering that the opposing player cannot leave his king in check after his own move. Answers to this question even claim that triple check is impossible in standard chess, never mind quintuple.

Under standard rules, a double check can result from a move giving both a direct and a discovered check. In the case of an en-passant capture, it is even possible to invoke a double discovered check, but the moving pawn is then not in position to give a third direct check.

It is also possible to consider more than two pieces to be "attacking" the opposing king, in the form of batteries (which would need to be set up via discovered check) or absolute pins. However, these do not directly count as checking pieces, only as complications to the problem of getting *out* of check.

Do you have a link to Ben Finegold's video? He's a respected player, so I'm sure there's some context being missed here.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: theory
---


title: Trade a bishop in the opening

text:
# Question
Title: Trade a bishop in the opening
In several openings white or black trades a bishop for a knight (Ruy Lopes exhange, Sicilian Rossomilo, Nimzo Indian etc).

I have learned the bishop pair is worth a half pawn, and I have difficult to understand these trades, which to me look bad. The opponents pawn structure get worse, but is this enough compensation for the trade?

# Answer
First, you should never say "X is worth Y amount of pawns". You could think in terms of it being worth ABOUT that amount all things equal, but never make assumptions about exact values. The position always determines the value of the pieces. Often quoted values are only rules of thumb or guidelines. There are entire books written about how to value pieces in various positions.

Second, there is no "right" answer other than what happens over the board. The three openings you mentioned all score very well for the side without the 2 bishops. Some people believe the 2 bishops is worth the disadvantages. Others point out that these openings score really well for the other side. Most people, however, just copy what their favorite players do without much thought. Nobody knows which is truly better, all they can offer is their opinion.

Lastly, at lower levels, (\<2000) practical advantages mean a lot more than objective advantages. What good is it to have the 2 bishop advantage when you aren't familiar with the all of the positional subtleties and the opponent can't calculate knight moves two moves ahead (many can't at that level)? Playing for positions you are comfortable in means a lot more than gaining miscroscopic positional advatanges, at least below master level.
> 8 votes

# Answer
In general there are two scenarios in the opening where one side might want to exchange one of their bishops for a knight.

1. The knight controls key squares in the center which are being contested. In the Nimzo, for instance, the knight on c3 controls e4. White would really like to put a pawn there. Pinning and then exchanging that knight makes the e4 pawn push far less likely. Similarly in the Dutch black sometimes plays Bb4 to pin the knight on c3 to weaken white's control of e4 and will swap if a3 or O-O is played.
2. Where one side has control of most of the space on the board that normally gives them an advantage because they have more room to manoeuvre their pieces and can switch the point of attack more easily. The side with less space, conversely, often struggles. However there is balance between space and number of pieces. More space with lots of pieces confers an advantage. Reduce the number of pieces and the pawns defending that space become overextended as the few remaining pieces struggle to defend them. Similarly a cramped space with lots of pieces becomes a comfortable one when pieces are exchanged. So, again, in those positions it is often worth one side exchanging a bishop for a knight.
> 9 votes

# Answer
With each of the trades that you mentioned, it is not just a B for N. Beyond that, the side giving up the B also doubles the other side's pawns, but it is still deeper than that. In each case, the doubling also leaves one of the remaining Bs with less prospects.

For example, in the Nimzo, after Bb4xc3, after bc, the Bc1 is often a bit of a problem in many lines. So it is really B for N plus doubled pawns, plus I limited one of the remaining Bs. It makes up for the half a pawn (more like a 1/4 pawn according to many).

Lastly, there is a practical matter that I had never really thought about until I heard Hikaru Nakamura mention it: It simply unbalances the position. Chess at the highest level is so often a draw, that unbalancing the position can be desirable, especially if you need to win.
> 9 votes

# Answer
Very good question! This illustrates a deeper conflict between chess "principles" and "practice"

> I have learned the bishop pair is worth a half pawn

Very dangerous piece of advice here! That is true in certain spots, I'd say most, but definitely not all the time. Piece activity, pawn structure, king exposure and many other factors can determine whether the bishop pair is an advantage or not.

By the way, what on Earth does "half a pawn" even mean? It's just a heuristic used by computers. There are no half-pawns in chess!

Pawn structure can definiely be a factor to consider. Indeed, knights often operate better in positions with a lot of weak squares, but let's take a look at a couple of different examples

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3

```

In this position, Black would be very happy if he could trade his light-square bishop for an opponent's knight because it is a pretty bad piece, even with no improvement in the pawn structure! Indeed, some players have even tried `3...b6` or `4...b6` with the idea of `...Ba6`. You can even see manoeuvres like `...Bd7-b5` (not in the mainlines, but that's because White does not allow that to happen)

The fact that, in general, the bishop pair is an advantage is an irrelevant consideration here. Games are not won with abstractions, but with concrete moves on concrete positions.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]

1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6!

```

Here White trades his bishop without any pawn structure gain, and the bishop wasn't even that bad! But the control of the d5 square is critical here, so it's definitely worth losing the bishop pair!
> 7 votes

# Answer
As you mentioned, White weakens Black's pawn structure in all these trades, causing the c-pawns to become doubled. The question of whether this is worth giving up a bishop for a knight is a good one, and many chess players disagree on it.

Basically if you're the kind of player who isn't that biased towards bishops over knights, such trades could be good for you. But if you like the bishops (like Fischer), you wouldn't choose such openings. There's no objective answer whether these trades are necessarily good or bad, but it's a matter of taste. You're right to question them.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, trading
---


title: Top players strongly in favor of 1.e4

text:
# Question
Title: Top players strongly in favor of 1.e4
Which are some top players known to be strongly in favor of 1.e4 in the opening?

In this respect I find interesting a comment by Fischer on Alekhine: "there is nothing light or breezy in his style". As Fischer clearly belongs to the 1.e4 group, do you think this "light and breezy" feel is in some way attached to this move, or is it an entirely subjective opinion that cannot be taken too seriously?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Another notable top player was Karpov in the 70s and first half of the 80s. But after Kasparov successfully employed the Sicilian against him and took the world championship title, Karpov switched to 1.d4 mainly.

Kasparov also tended to favour 1.e4, although as he matured as a world champion he played other opening moves too (as any top player should).

Nowadays I can't think of many players who favour 1.e4 predominantly. One exception I can think of though is Maxime Vachier-Lagrave. He is known for being a strong proponent of 1.e4 as White and the Najdorf Sicilian as Black. In general though, most modern top players play 1.e4 and 1.d4 (as well as other moves) since it broadens their repertoire. If you always play 1.e4 then people can prepare to surprise you (and it's harder for you to surprise them).

# Answer
> 4 votes
Chess players at the highest levels today tend to be more versatile in opening choices because of engines. If you played the same thing over and over you would slaughtered by engine analysis no matter how good you are.

Magnus plays e4 more often than any other choice but the difference is fairly small and combined plays all other openings more often.

Anand plays e4 about 7x more often than d4.

Morozevich plays e4 about 2.5x more often and Topalav is fairly similar.

Throughout history I would say up until about 1920 e4 was more common with virtually every player. From 1920 to about 1950 it was fairly equal with both Capa and Alekhine playing both but slightly favoring e4. After 1950, there was a divergence and you see many strong e4 players (Fischer, Tal) and many more d4 players. In the 80s, Kasparov was the first to see the value of playing a very broad rep and played both. That has carried over to the chess we see today.

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4
---


# Question
Title: Does anyone have a version of the 50x50 article by Nikita Plaksin?
In 1979, Nikita M. Plaksin published a reportedly fascinating article containing 50 problems all related to the 50 moves rule. Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere, the only links that I could find are old and broken.

If anyone has it, would you please share it with the community and not let it get lost to time?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Last night, to my surprise, my reasking of this question over on the Matplus.net forums about received an; answer. There, a user by the name of Valery Liskovets provided a link to a PDF of the original article, which has pictures of all of the pages.

Here is the link: http://www.janko.at/Retros/Articles/Plaksin-50x50-Problem-1979.pdf

# Answer
> 4 votes
Hi Arnaud thanks for your question.

The problems themselves can all be found in pdb.dieschwalbe.de. Type K='50' AND A='Plaksin' AND S='Problem' AND YEAR='1979'. All 50 are there numbered, with solutions. If you are typing from a phone make sure that you select the correct single-quote character: the vertical one.

The query reveals that they were published in the now-defunct magazine Problem, but it does not give the article text. I suggest Arnaud that you send your request to the Retro Mailing List retros@janko.at. This will put you in touch with all the current retro greats who would probably love to hear from you.

If that doesn’t work then let me know and I will approach someone individually.

EDIT: the 50x50 article is now available at https://www.janko.at/Retros/Articles/index.htm in Russian but I guess that google translate will work - and the diagrams are the not important part.

---
Tags: history, books, problems, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: How can I set up en passant in the Popeye engine?
I want to solve a problem with Thomas Maeder's excellent Popeye engine, and to specify that a possible en passant in the diagram is ok. How can I do this please? The documentation seems opaque. Thanks so much!

See https://github.com/thomas-maeder/popeye/releases/tag/v4.81

EDIT: Outside chess, I see stackexchange used widely to ask technical questions about software use (indeed use it myself like this sometimes), and I think this is fair use in chess too.

# Answer
The github page lists several help files in various languages: English, French and German. These are text files which can be downloaded. English is clearly not Thomas Maeder's mother tongue, I'm guessing German. Perhaps the German help file is clearer than the English.

As far as I can tell from the English file there is a long list of options you can pass to the program to define the problem you want it to solve. For en passant it defines the "EnPassant" option as follows:

> EnPassant - Must be followed by 3-4 squares which indicate the pawn move just played:
>
> * departure square
> * avoided squares
> * arrival square
> 3 votes

# Answer
Thanks, inspired by Brian's response, I have tried the following input:

```
begi
prot outputp.txt
piec White Kf5 Qf8 Ph5 Black Kh7 Pg5
stip #1
opti enpa g7g6g5S
next
piec White Kf5 Pg4 Rf6 Black Kh4 Pf4
stip h#1
opti enpa g2g3g4
end

```

which successfully gives the following outputs:

```
1.h5*g6 ep. #
1.f4*g3 ep. Rf6-h6 #

```

So I think that's it. Thanks again.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, en-passant
---


title: Variant chess effect

text:
# Question
Title: Variant chess effect
Variant chess is a relaxing break from standard chess. But in my chess club we are usually discouraged from playing such chess. I have not seen any visible problem in my games. Can anyone tell me why variant chess is supposed to be bad for your game?

# Answer
Well it's not necessarily *bad* for your game, but it can easily lead to confusion because the evaluation and the gameplay in general in chess variants are very different compared to standard chess. As a result, because you are in a completely different mindset, routinely playing these variants *may* make your understanding or judgement over standard chess games a bit rusty.

**tldr:** Obsessively playing a variant may make your standard chess feel a bit rusty, and also consume a lot of time that you would otherwise be spending to study standard chess (say endgames...), specially if you are a serious club player. On the flip-side, playing variants can *potentially* make for good training of your calculation skills and attacking techniques/instincts, to name a few. But all in all, a healthy dose of them can be a lot of fun in fact, specially among friends :)

To explain a tad on what I mean by different mindset or gameplay:

Let's take **crazyhouse** as our first variant of choice: In this variant, any piece you capture from your opponent goes to your pocket (and vice versa), which means that during your turns you can either make a normal move according to the rules of chess, or insert a piece into play from your pocket. First consequence is the fact that there will be no endgame emerging from this variant of chess, because the pieces keep getting reshuffled around and re-enter the game. On the other hand, any gambit opening becomes unplayable, becomes you'd be giving free pawns that your opponent can place now anywhere they need! Finally, how you assess a given position would have to take into account all the variations branching out from different piece insertions. So naturally, when returning to standard chess, you'll be left with a strange feeling at first, but I wouldn't necessarily argue that playing crazyhouse will have a negative effect on your play. Because if anything, it does teach in a very direct way how to exploit weaknesses by immediately setting an attack using your pocket pieces (for instance you'll get a lot of chances to practice different checkmating techniques such as the smothered-mate). Simple example below:

```
 [title "Checkmate in 2: white to play (pocket: 1 pawn, 1 queen)"]
 [fen "r1bk3r/ppppbppp/1p1N4/2n5/1pQ1N3/8/PPP2PPP/R1B1KB1R w KQ - 0 1"]

```

**Solution:**

> `1.Q@e8+ Rxe8 2.Nxf7#`

**Three-check chess:**

This is more of a extreme example where even though usual checkmating is still valid, the game becomes all about avoiding checks no matter what, because one can also win by giving 3 checks to the opponent king. So you will be exposing and sacrificing all sorts of good material just to prevent a check (and conversely to give checks) that in standard chess wouldn't be a problem to face. So again, you see the mindset with which you will play and assess positions will be widely different from standard chess (see example below). All to say that, hopping back and forth between variants and standard chess, will at first leave you with confusing feelings when returning to standard chess and your evaluation will become a bit shaky, but after some playing you will quickly re-adjust again and it all comes back again of course ;)

```
 [title "Three-check variant, typical mis-play example:"]
 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 {`h6` would be a somewhat acceptable move to play had it been standard chess, to prevent Ng4, but in three-check it's a disaster of a move, because multiple forced wins in 6 moves follow for white from here! Try to find it one.}

```

**Solution:**

> One possible solution: 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 (4...Kxf7 loses in 2, with e.g., Nxe5+ and Qf3+ last 2 checks) 5.Nh4 Nb4 {black's only attempt to delay the incoming two last checks by forcing a check with Nxc2+} 6.Ng6+ Kd6 7.d4 Nxc2+ 8.Qxc2 c6 {doesn't matter which move, the last queen check is unavoidable} 9.Qxc6+ {game over by 3 checks.}
> 8 votes

# Answer
> Can anyone tell me why variant chess is supposed to be bad for your game?

No, they can't because it's not bad for your game.

> I have not seen any visible problem in my games

So where do you get the crazy idea that it is bad for your chess?

> But in my chess club we are usually discouraged from playing such chess

Your club is obviously very different from my club. We actually have a competition every year for a chess variant - handicap chess. Handicaps vary according to the difference in grading between the two players and vary between just the move (weaker player has white) through to queen and rook (stronger player has white but remove his queen and a1 rook).

Apart from this one variant, though, most of the players are not keen on other variants. One summer I tried to get people playing bug house. It worked for one evening and then they lost interest. Certainly no interest in a summer competition. Then I tried chess960. I managed to get 2 or 3 players to have one game and that was it. No more interest.

I think the problem you will find also in your club is not that people think it is bad for your chess but that they just don't like it. The reason for that I think from my attempts to get people to play 960 is that they have invested a lot of time, in some cases decades of their life, becoming good at the regular version of chess. Playing any variant which moves too far away from that essentially means losing the benefit of all that work.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: learning, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Adventures in the ODCL Pt. 2 - How about this endgame?
Another week, another match, and this time as Board 2 for the second team instead of bottom board for the firsts. Background: In the review my rating has gone up slightly to 142 ECF (~1765 Elo). My opponent I've played a couple of times before with one win a piece, but this is my first black against him. I know he doesn't like to mess about and is pretty direct, but then again that's my style as well so no problem there! I'm mildly surprised to see he is now ECF 126 (~1645 Elo), he's been higher than that. The time limit was 75 minutes for all moves (no increment), and time is a bit of a factor as at the end I have ~20 minutes left whereas he is down to his last 2.

```
[White "A.N.Other"]
[Black "Ian Bush"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A60"]
[PlyCount "86"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. e3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Bd3 Bg7 8. Nge2 O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Qc2 Na6 11. a3 Nc7 12. e4 b5 13. Nxb5 Nxb5 14. Bxb5 Rxe4 15. Bc6 Rb8 16. Bg5 Bf5 17. Ng3 Re5 18. Nxf5 Rxf5 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. b4 cxb4 21. Rab1 a5 22. axb4 Rxb4 23. Rfe1 Rxb1 24. Qxb1 Rxf2 25. Qb6 Rb2 26. Qe3 Qd4 27. Qxd4 Bxd4+ 28. Kf1 Rf2+ 29. Kg1 Re2+ 30. Kf1 Rxe1+ 31. Kxe1 f5 32. Kd1 Kg7 33. Kc2 Kf6 34. Kd3 Ke5 35. g3 Bg1 36. h3 Bf2 37. g4 fxg4 38. hxg4 h5 39. Bd7 Kf4 40. gxh5 gxh5 41. Kc4 Kg3 42. Kb5 Be1 43. Kc6 Bb4 0-1

```

I have four points of interest.

1) (Least important) I forgot to ask him afterwards but the body language clearly said his 4. e3 was a finger slip-I assume he got ahead of himself, forgetting Nc3 (and cxd5) came first. My thoughts here were "Great, no nasty flick knife attack, and the bishop isn't getting to f4 quickly so I should have a nice easy opening as d6 won't be under pressure," so I just played the obvious moves. It went OK, but in the very unlikely event I ever see this again, can anybody see anything better?

2) Again I'm pleased with my play, but any constructive comments are appreciated

3) For once I remembered something from Mr. Silman, enough to know that the opposite coloured Bishop ending was winning for black, hence Re2+ as the extra pawns are sufficiently separated. Is this the most practical decision here? Is there any easier way to convert? If it is relevant, time pressure was beginning to tell on my opponent by that point.

4) I have a feeling that my opponent didn't make life as difficult for me as he could in the ending, again possibly time pressure. So did I play the ending OK, did I have the right ideas? And is there anything different I should have done, especially if my opponent had found some stronger moves?

# Answer
Overall you played a wonderfully strong game. White played weakly, and you used that to your advantage. I plugged the game into Stockfish to see if the computer could find any moments of missed tactical shots. Here are answers to each of your four questions.

1. Instead of playing 4... exd5, next time you could play the Stockfish recommended 4... g6. It is slightly better, preparing to fianchetto the bishop and gain a marginal lead in development
2. You missed a chance in the middlegame. 20. b4?! was in fact an inaccuracy by White. This is because you have a battery comprised of your queen and bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal. 20... Qxa1! is in fact the best move, giving up the queen for two rooks. Black now has a much better position.
3. Your move 29... Re2+? indeed misses an opportunity as you suspect. There was a chance to win a piece. This is because of the move 29... a4!, and White must give up a piece for Black’s passed pawn at some point. If White plays 30. Bxe4, Black wins the White bishop via a discovered check from the rook. If White moves their king to h1 avoid it, 30... a3 is next. Now White’s light-squared bishop cannot reach it. White's rook will have to capture the promoted Black piece, if not take the pawn earlier, as Black’s dark-squared bishop protects the promotion square.
4. I think that what you consider the endgame is after the rooks are exchanged. As such, I will answer this question regarding the moves that happen after 31. Kxe1.

> Playing your pawns out to get a passed pawn and activating your king are good, standard practices. All in all, you played this endgame more strategically than White did, although you did miss a few moves. It also boils down to the fact there were no stronger moves that White made. White’s attempt to create their own passed pawn was a natural strategy, but it was not perfect. Yours wasn’t either, but it was superior.
>
> After White played 35. g3?!!, a blunder, you were correct to play 35... Bg1. While 37. g4?! was another blunder, you missed the better move 37... f4! gaining a second passed pawn. After 43. Kc6? you should have played 43.. a4! instead, the second time you didn't see it. After 44. Bf5 a3 45. Bb1, 45... h4! is the move to play, and would have promoted soon.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, endgame
---


title: Analysis of chess by Philidor in PGN

text:
# Question
Title: Analysis of chess by Philidor in PGN
Where can I find games annotated by Philidor in his book in a PGN file?

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can find Philidor’s 1790 book here in a free Google Books scanned eBook of it.

---
Tags: books, pgn
---


# Question
Title: When exactly does a checkmate or stalemate take effect?
I'm not enthusiastic about chess in particular, so if I use terminology incorrectly please correct me. I use "phase 1 & phase 2" for each player's move, and "turn *n*" for each pair of phases.

I'm a novice programmer writing a chess program as a personal challenge, and would like to know exactly when checkmates and stalemates take effect.

Specifically:

* If a player 1's move causes checkmate or stalemate, does the game end during phase 1, or at the beginning of phase 2?

## Edit:

It seems I wasn't clear enough that I wasn't looking for a programming answer, I wanted to know about chess standards. Even if my program can work without detecting the exact final phase, I would like that information to be available.

I looked at the FIDE rules as mentioned in Laska 's answer \[link\], and Section 5 points out what I was looking for:

* 5.1 a. The game is won by the **player who has checkmated his opponent’s king**. This **immediately** ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.
* 5.2 a. The game is drawn when the **player to move** has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This **immediately** ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal.

From these rules I gather that if I cause a checkmate, the game ends before my opponent's next phase, and if I cause a stalemate, the game ends during my opponent's next phase.

Please correct me if you think I'm not understanding something correctly. Also, I know I've seen the term FIDE before but I'm not sure if their chess laws would generally be considered a widely accepted and robust standard. I figure a chess community is the right place to ask about whether or not I should be using their standards.

# Answer
> 10 votes
Take your pick.

Conventionally in computer chess, we express your idea of phases as "plies", or half-moves, where 2 plies is one "turn".

You can detect checkmate in the ply where the checkmating move is made, but it is more common for checkmate to be detected in the following ply, where your program generates legal moves for the mated player, only to find that there are 0 available.

It is often more convenient and efficient that way, as the work to generate moves would have been done anyway had the position not been mate, so no extra work is done to determine whether a position is checkmate.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Thanks for the question.

The FIDE rules are not great here. A turn ends when a game-ending move has been played (Article 6.2.a.1). The clock does not need to be pressed. But in order to compute whether the move ends the game, there has to have been some kind of hypothetical look-ahead as to what would happen at the beginning of the next turn. The simple purpose of this I suppose is to avoid the chance to lose on time after just having e.g. played a mating move.

A particular question is who has the move in the final position? In cases of mate it’s sort of obvious but in cases of stalemate it is not clear at all. Is this showing the position in the actual time or the position in the hypothetical look-ahead? Argh!

However from a programming point of view this hypothecating is not necessary. The move is completed, and the opponent loses or is stalemated etc in their own turn. The final position cleanly shows who has the move.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Checkmate and stalemate end the game *immediately*, as soon as the move is played (that is, when the hand lets go of the piece -- but that's not relevant for computers).

If that move was White's, then that move was the last move of the game. Black never gets their turn, so in your terms "phase 2" of that turn doesn't exist.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> From these rules I gather that if I cause a checkmate, the game ends before my opponent's next phase, and if I cause a stalemate, the game ends during my opponent's next phase.

Your understanding is wrong. Both checkmate and stalemate take effect immediately the move has been made. The move is made immediately the player's hand loses contact with the piece. It happens even before the player presses the clock. Hence even if the player's flag falls the checkmate or stalemate still stands.

In your terminology both cause the game to end before the opponent's next phase.

> Also, I know I've seen the term FIDE before but I'm not sure if their chess laws would generally be considered a widely accepted and robust standard

FIDE is the international chess federation. It stands for "Federation International des Echecs" and is French for "International Chess Federation". It is the chess equivalent of FIFA in the world of soccer. If you understand that the FIFA rules of soccer govern the play of soccer throughout the world then you will also understand that the FIDE Laws of Chess govern the play of chess throughout the world.

Individual chess federations (governing bodies of national chess federations) may vary some rules in special cases but when they do so the tournaments affected can not be internationally rated. They can only be nationally rated.

The most common variation that I am aware of is that for competitions for weak/young players the rule which says that two illegal moves loses the game is suspended because these players play many illegal moves without thinking.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is no reason not to exit the loops your program uses after a checkmate or a stalemate. The rules of the game says there is no move for the opponent. The game is finished.

You should just break your looping and send an alert with the result and update the statics of your program.

There is not any .pgn or FEN more notation to write so no sense to still use code to perform your program.

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, stalemate
---


# Question
Title: In what way is it allowed to alter tournament pairings in favor of a player?
The FIDE Rules for Swiss Systems state:

> **C.04.2 A** It is not allowed to alter the correct pairings in favour of any player.

and then further state:

> Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made to help a player achieve a norm or a direct title, a report may be submitted to the QC to initiate disciplinary measures through the Ethics Commission.

What I can get from this is that (for example) if my friend, who is one point away in the final round to achieve a title, is a player in a tournament, and I am the arbiter of that tournament, I can alter the pairings in such a way that he plays an 1100 player and have an easy title shot.

Is this what can be concluded from the above section of the rules? If not, what is meant by "modifications" there?

# Answer
> 4 votes
It says the exact opposite.

> C.04.2 A It is **not allowed** to alter the correct pairings in favour of any player.

So no, you can't.

> Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made to help a player achieve a norm or a direct title, a report may be submitted to the QC to initiate **disciplinary measures** through the Ethics Commission.

FIDE could try to punish the player or you.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> I mean, can you give an example of altering the pairings and it gets approved by FIDE? Put in another way, in what way can the arbiter alter the pairings without getting penalised?

OK, this is the scenario.

You are the chief arbiter of a norm tournament. It is the last round. One of the players has norm chances, say if he/she wins his/her last game against a player with a rating above a certain rating. The default time is 30 minutes.

After 30 minutes the opponent has not turned up and is defaulted. In these circumstances you should have some spare players who act as "fillers". These players do not play in the full tournament but are on standby in case something like this happens. In this case you may choose a "filler" who has a high enough rating for the norm to still be possible. This is a change to the original pairings and is acceptable.

As a side note this business of repairing in the case of a default is a tricky business. In general if you want to force the player to accept a new opponent then this must be stated in the terms and conditions for the tournament before the tournament starts. If this is not done then the player can refuse and must then be awarded the full point for the default. If it means a cash prize then obviously the player is going to take the point for a default.

---
Tags: rules, tournament, fide, swiss-pairing
---


title: Fianchetto bishop vs. normal bishop?

text:
# Question
Title: Fianchetto bishop vs. normal bishop?
I have found the following disadvantages of the fianchetto bishop:

1) The diagonal it controls is often blocked by the knight in its natural square.

2) The diagonal it controls is often blocked by central pawns of the same team or of the opponents.

3) Advancing the knight pawn (b2 -b3 or g2 - g3) somewhat weakens the pawn structure.

4) If the other bishop is developed along its normal diagonal, for eg.to b5,then advancing the knight pawn - b2-b3 cuts off the escape route for the other bishop - after for eg. 4) B-b5 a6 5) B-a4 b5 and 6) B-b3 is not possible because of the pawn at b3 and the bishop is trapped. So it somewhat impedes the development of the other bishop.

5) The fianchetto bishop cannot be defended by a pawn and is vulnerable to attack from the sides. Also the 'hole' in the pawn structure can make the rook vulnerable if the fianchetto bishop is moved from its b2 or g2 spot.

For these reasons, I've personally never preferred the fianchetto.

Yet, despite these drawbacks, the fianchetto development is often used in certain openings such as the Sicilian dragon and variations of QGD. Some players even open the game with the fianchetto.

So, overall, is fianchetto development a good idea and under which conditions is it justified? What are the points to keep in mind during fianchetto development?

# Answer
All the things you say are true! But fianchettoed bishops have some advantages as well. Here are a few:

1. They control multiple central squares at once. A fianchettoed bishop attacks half of the center four squares (e.g., a bishop on g2 attacks e4 and d5). Bishops not on the long diagonals can't do this.
2. They also can attack multiple squares around the opponent's king at once. A Dragon bishop on g7 facing a queenside-castled king on b1 casts its eye on c3, b2, and a1.
3. They can attack and defend simultaneously. A bishop on g2 has a lot of influence over the center squares of e4 and d5, not to mention that it can also eye a black pawn at b7 or the rook behind it at a8. But it also protects a castled king, covering f3 and h3.
4. It's not easy to attack them. A bishop at b5, say, is often forced back to b3 with ...a6 ...b5. And Black often even attacks it again from there, say by ...Na5. On the other hand, a fianchettoed bishop on g2 is nicely tucked out of play. Usually the only thing you have to worry about much is an opposing bishop coming to h3 supported by a queen.

Deciding where to put your bishops involves a lot of tradeoffs, which include the positive aspects mentioned here as well as the negative ones in your question.
> 14 votes

# Answer
> 1) The diagonal it controls is often blocked by the knight in its natural square.

It's not too bad, the knight is a dynamic piece and sooner or later it will be moved.

> 2) The diagonal it controls is often blocked by central pawns of the same team or of the opponents.

Maybe the main strategy in the opening and middle game after fianchetto is try to not block the diagonal by self pawn and opening the center. A common method is let the opponent make his center by pawns and after that you attack to the center by f or c pawns, in this situation the fianchettoed bishop is useful.

> 3) Advancing the knight pawn (b2 -b3 or g2 - g3) somewhat weakens the pawn structure.

Yes. *“Pawns cannot move backwards”* you made your decision to fianchetto and you should pay something. After advancing b or g pawns, neighbor squares in third row are like holes. Try to keep the fianchetto bishop to stop opponent put his pieces in the holes.

> 4) If the other bishop is developed along its normal diagonal, for e.g. to b5, then advancing the knight pawn - b2-b3 cuts off the escape route for the other bishop ...

Yes again. After fianchetto a bishop, another bishop can not used to pin the same side knight. Because after attacking to the bishop by pawns a or h, the bishop should give a tempo and comes back or exchanges by opponent knight which is not desired sometimes.

> 5) The fianchettoed bishop cannot be defended by a pawn and is vulnerable to attack from the sides...

The main defender is the king. Not to worry about that since you have options to defend your position. Anyway it's chess and everything depends on the exact calculation not broad pieces of advice.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Such bishops attack the center and the opponent's knight pawn and rook. If the financhetto is on the wing opposite the opponent's castled king, it's a dagger. Any queen move onto that diagonal is can be a double attack. So a perfectly good plan would be to clear the diagonal, planning to pick up undefended material with the queen, after all the exchanges happen.

Until the diagonal is clear, it supports pawns and knights occupying the center, or puts pressure on the opponent's pieces that are there.

What's not to like!
> 1 votes

# Answer
All of your alleged disadvantages are offset by compensating advantages:

1) "The diagonal it controls is often blocked by the knight in its natural square." Yes, but when the knight moves it can "discover" an attack by the bishop, while making its own (second) attack.

2) "The diagonal it controls is often blocked by central pawns of the same team or of the opponents." Yes, but the bishop can be a power weapon in attacking the opponent's pawns (in conjunction with your pawns and pieces), or defending your own.

3) "Advancing the knight pawn (b2 -b3 or g2 - g3) somewhat weakens the pawn structure." Yes, but the bishop actually strengthens the whole structure. This is particularly true if the opponent's bishop of the same color has been exchanged for say, a knight.

4) "If the other bishop is developed along its normal diagonal, for eg.to b5,then advancing the knight pawn - b2-b3 cuts off the escape route for the other bishop - after for eg. 4) B-b5 a6 5) B-a4 b5 and 6) B-b3 is not possible because of the pawn at b3 and the bishop is trapped. So it somewhat impedes the development of the other bishop." Developing the light squared bishop might require pawns on d4 and e3, blocking the dark squared bishop, which might then be best placed at b2 (or a3).

5) "The fianchetto bishop cannot be defended by a pawn and is vulnerable to attack from the sides. Also the 'hole' in the pawn structure can make the rook vulnerable if the fianchetto bishop is moved from its b2 or g2 spot." A fianchettoed bishop is protected by a king. A bishop in the "open" can be trapped by opposing pawns in e.g. a "Noah's Ark" trap.

A fianchettoed bishop is not necessarily in a worse (or better) position than the same bishop in another position. It all depends on what type of game you're playing, against what type of opponent, and what you're trying to accomplish (win, or merely draw).
> 1 votes

# Answer
First off, A fianchetto allows a lot of advantages. The bishop is moved to a position where it has a lot of control of the center and potentially a lot of mobility. The position is versatile and allows the fianchetto side to develop freely and dictate the position to some extent. If the opponent castles queenside, he is castling into a ferocious attack. If he castles kingside the opponent can decide between a kingside attack (like the KID) or play for a very strong endgame advantage in most cases.

to answer what you said:

1) "blocked" isn't the right word. "Blocked" means there are no legal moves. What you mean is that the knight controls the same squares. Given that the bishop is better in most cases this really isn't an argument.

2) The bishop can indirectly control squares. For example, if you are black with a pawn on e5 and your opponent plays d4 the bishop is indirectly controlling d4

3) I'm not sure what you're getting at. You would have to move the g-pawn to fianchetto in the first place.

4) True, although the other bishop can often find a useful function and there are many "standard openings" where that bishop isn't doing much.

5) Weak squares aren't that big of a deal if you know how to defend and can arise just as frequently from non-fianchetto openings. This isn't a problem unique to fianchettoes.

All that being said, where should that bishop move to? c4/c5 is a pretty classical approach but can be countered easily.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, tactics, fianchetto
---


# Question
Title: List of famous, but incorrect, chess problems
Surely it has happened, that a famous chess problem turned out to be incorrect because some move was overlooked. Maybe a chess engine found out that a classic problem was incorrect! Is there a collection of such problems? Please give an example as well, if you know any.

# Answer
You can find a list of 8039 cooked, which is the official term that means incorrect, chess problems here on the site Yet Another Chess Problem Database, often shortened to YACPDB. Another option is a list of 28670 problems on the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database that can be found by inputting 'COOKED' into the search bar.

A famous example of an incorrect problem is this problem, which calls for White to play and checkmate Black in 8 moves.

```
[Title "William Shinkman, St. Louis Globe-Democrat 1885, Mate In 8"]
[FEN "k7/P7/P7/P7/P7/P7/P7/R3K3 w - - 0 1"]

```

The intended solution was 1. 0-0-0!, White castling queenside, followed by 1... Kxa7 2. Rd8 Kxa6 3. Rd7 Kxa5 4. Rd6 Kxa4 5. Rd5 Kxa3 6. Rd4 Kxa2 7. Rd3 Ka1 8. Ra3#.

But as it turned out,, 1. Kd2! also checkmates on the 8th move, thereby making the problem incorrect. An example of a possible continuation is as follows: 1. Kd2 Kxa7 2. Re1 Kxa6 3. Re7 Kxa5 4. Re6 Kxa4 5. Re5 Kxa3 6. Kc3 Kxa2 7. Re1 Ka3 8. Ra1#.

On Tim Krabbe's website, there is an article entitled "The Kuwait Immortal, that is linked in Journal Entry #140. Within, Krabbe published a correction of Shinkman's problem by Bader Al-Hajiri. The White king is now on g1, utilizing Chess960 to allow for a cook free long-range castling as the key.

```
[Title "Bader Al-Hajiri After William Shinkman), Tim Krabbe's Website  9/19/2007, dedicated to Tim Krabbe, Mate In 8 Under Chess 960"]
[FEN "k7/P7/P7/P7/P7/P7/P7/R5K1 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
'Famous' I don't know about. Few problems become famous in any real sense. Problem tourney winners (which should be thoroughly tested) sometimes turn out to be cooked, but that removes their fame, and they're largely forgotten, and so no longer famous.

Rudolf Willmers won 1 pr in American Chess Association tourney 1857 (part of the 1st american congress), but one of the problems in his set was cooked

Samuel Loyd won first prize in the Chess Monthly, 1857 tourney, but his 4# was cooked.

The 'professional's prize' in the Frere Tourney, 1859 (conducted in Frank Leslie's, but seems to have been his own private affair) was won by T. M. Brown, but three(!) of his five problems were later found to be cooked.

The most famous mess is probably that concerning J. Campbell in the 1862 tournament of the British Chess Association. He won the best prize as well as another prize (1st? 2nd?) for best set. After the prize problems were published, the best pr. problem was found to be cooked. That made his set incomplete, and so it had to be cancelled. Another of his problems were given the best prize, ... but it too was found to be faulty. All that after the judges report had been published, and prizes had been handed out!

Of course, more than 150 years since then provides lots of additional opportunities for similar messes.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: history, problems
---


# Question
Title: What is it about Soviet born players that makes them winners in the brutal 128-player knockout format of the World Cup?
Teimour Radjabov has just won the World Cup.

The first two FIDE World Cups, in 2000 and 2002 had 4 groups of 6 players with the 2 group winners going into an 8-player knockout. They were both won by Anand and were stand-alone tournaments.

In 2005 the tournament morphed into its current form, a 128 player knockout with a place in the Candidates as the prize (apart from large bundles of cash) played every 2 years.

Knockout is a brutal format which favours the toughest players over the very best. Even though the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991 every single winner of the current format World Cup was born in the former USSR. Here is the list:

2005 - Levon Aronian (born 1982 in Yerevan, USSR)
2007 - Gata Kamsky (born 1974 in Novokuznetsk, USSR)
2009 - Boris Gelfand (born 1968 in Minsk, USSR)
2011 - Peter Svidler (born 1976 in Leningrad, USSR)
2013 - Vladimir Kramnik (born 1975 in Tuapse, USSR)
2015 - Sergey Karjakin (born in 1990 in Simferopol, USSR)
2017 - Levon Aronian (born 1982 in Yerevan, USSR)
2019 - Teimour Radjabov (born 1987 in Baku, USSR)

The very best non-USSR players have entered multiple times and failed. Players like Carlsen, Caruana, Ding, Anand have entered but failed to make it all the way though the tough competition.

What is it about Soviet born players that makes them winners in this format?

# Answer
**Most top participants were ex-USSR. Almost all of the World Cups were held in ex-USSR countries. And the rest is coincedence.**

Especially in earlier years, most of the top participants were born in the USSR.

E.g. in 2005, the top-25 by rating of the participants was Ivanchuk, Bacrot, Aronian, Grischuk, Gelfand, Shirov, Akopian, Radjabov, Ponomariov, Tiviakov, Sokolov, Dreev, Kamsky, Bologan, Lautier, Bruzon, Bareev, Mamedyarov, Vallejo Pons, Smirin, Harikrishna, Malakhov, Sakaev, Volokitin, Moiseenko.

Only 6 in 25 (Bacrot, Sokolov, Lautier, Bruzon, Vallejo Pons, Harikrishna) were not born in the USSR. And only 1 in the top-10! And that tournament had Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Svidler and Morozevich (4 out of 6 USSR) missing because of world championship situations.

In later years the number of non-USSR players grew slowly, but in 2011 the first non-USSR player on the list was #12, Zoltan Almasi.

2015 was the first year with only 4 USSR players in the top-10, but 11 in the top-20 (#11 Karjakin won).

It's only in the last few years that it's a bit against the odds that a USSR player won it.

There are of course top non-USSR players: Carlsen, Anand and Topalov were consistently in the top most of this period. But as the World Cup was mostly a qualification event for the Candidates and they qualified otherwise (or were World Champion), they played in very few World Cups.

**Apart from 2013, all World Cups were held in USSR countries**

Of which three times in Khanty-Mansiysk, Siberia, sometimes in november/december. I think Russian speakers have a psychological advantage in Siberia, they feel more at home because they can at least understand the people.

**Coincedence**

Taking the facts above, this is easily within the realm of coincedence. I wouldn't bet on a ex-USSR winner next time purely based on the results so far.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I think a lot of it is culture, and certainly they have the longest history of sustained success in chess from their long history of training. Lastly, there is hardship going back to WWII even, which is related to their culture.

I was a Russian linguist for 8 years during the Cold War, and thus, I have met many former Soviets in my lifetime, including chess players, who are my friends. It is amazing the hardships that they have suffered under communism, and especially during the "Great Patriotic War" (WWII). Everything from the encirclement of Stalingrad to the Siege of Leningrad during the war has really made them a very tough people. They also survived the purges of Stalin. From personal experience, I know that they will do whatever it takes to survive, including standing in line all day for a loaf of bread, even though that is no longer the way life is there...it still was when I was a linguist in the Air Force.

That toughness permeates their lives, and I think that includes chess. Do whatever it takes to get by, or in chess, to win. I cannot think of any tougher people.

Of course, you then cannot discount that they have the best pool of teachers to call upon to teach the next generations. Sure, China is catching up, but Russia and the rest of the former Soviet states, still have that pedigree.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The Soviet placed a large emphasis on chess during the cold war. It was meant to show the superiority of their far-left communist politics. They trained virtually every child in the country to play chess and selected the best to become professionals.

Relatively speaking, the soviet government probably spent more on chess than the US spends on things like medicare and social security. I don't have exact numbers in front of me but the USSR's left-wing politics made it a very poor country and their investment in chess was very large. Ultimately, this was what caused the collapse of the USSR. While they could match the US spending in certain areas they couldn't match everything at the same time. Then, when they started losing in areas where they weren't supposed to lose (moon landing, Bobby Fischer, 1980 hockey, afghanistan) the soviet people started to doubt the viability of the Soviet state and some of the smaller republics started breaking off which eventually led to the complete collapse of the USSR.

That being said, the original investment of the soviets is still paying dividends in chess. Even if the Russian government today doesn't spend the resources, the fact is many of the teachers today were brought up in that time. Many of the parents are still fairly strong and able to pass that on to their children.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tournament, history
---


# Question
Title: Struggling to find a good opening with black? (Fide Elo 1950)
Okay so, I'm rated around 1950 on the FIDE rating list, and I struggle finding a good opening with black so basically my game with white is more or less perfected (3 different openings where I learned tons of variations through practice and books) and with black I just keep improvising: whatever I do in serious games against 2100+ players gets me into a really passive position. So far I've tried out Robatsch (1. ... g6) or Pirc but both get me in really passive positions. 1. e4 bothers me most, because when it comes to d4 d5 is a decent response. Anyways I planned on playing the Scandinavian but it doesn't seem like grandmasters play it so it must have tons of flaws.French and Caro-Kann both seem passive so.. any suggestions? :/

Edit: With white I like playing the slightly modified London system (d4 without c4, g3 + lg2 etc) or english opening :) Also, I studied 1. ...g6 quite some time and most times against stronger players i get pretty passive, but c5 and then e6 sounds kind of good. I'm naturally a positional player, i like strangling my opponents by small attacking, changing my weak bishop/knight and earning a pawn then taking it to the end, that's at least how most of my victories are, yet I have studied tactics excessively to improve on that as well :D thanks for you answers though!!

# Answer
> 5 votes
You say you've looked at most of the major defenses to 1. e4 except the two best, 1... e5 and 1... c5.

It sounds like what you're looking for is just about any Sicilian variation. Most of them require a lot of theory to not get killed on a regular basis but it sounds like you're fine with that. The Taimanov or Paulsen would be a good starting point because 2... e6 avoids White's 3. Bb5 tries that can be so annoying after 2... d6 or 2... Nc6.

If you have an aversion to the Sicilian for some reason, I wouldn't be so quick to reject the French or Caro-Kann. There is plenty of active play in each of them if you choose the right variations.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I've studied Pterodactyl (1...g6 & Bg7 & c5) and it seems to be rather active, especially when it transposes to accelerated Sicilian Dragon. Default Sicilian can be very active too. For example, when you allow white to play English attack or something as aggressive as that you will definitely have fun during the GAME.

For more information about Pterodactyl look for Charlie's Storey bok in the Everyman Chess.

Also there is possibility that you have some theoretical issues with 1...g6. Maybe you get passive position because you do wrong move order. Nobody can be sure about that without viewing your games.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There's not so much wrong with the Scandivanian, but I agree with the answers recommending the Sicilian for your level. If you're still interested in researching the Scandinavian then try Jovanka Houska's book - Starting Out: The Scadinavian which is very detailed. Sometimes in this opening you will get a bad pawn structure and White gets quite active but no immediate winning chances. It's for this reason that the Caro is sometimes called an improved Scandinavian.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Sicilian especially Najdorj and Taimanov/Kan have currently have a good reputation. You're not likely to get a passive position from these openings. They are very sound openings. Try the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez if you don't want to play Sicilian.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you play d5 vs 1.d4 and want a positional game that is also active the French seems like the natural choice. Alekhine's defense might be another choice if avoiding theory is the main concern.It is both active and fairly positional. Simple to learn and probably playable up to GM level.

There are 10 "normal" responses to 1.e4. 1...c5 and 1...e5 are what most people play and there is a wide variety of openings that fit what you want within both of those choices.

Next are the French and ck. I agree the ck is too passive but outside of the above two the French sounds like the best fit for you.

Then you have the Pirc and Robatsch which you already said you didn't like but neither is all that passive. When I get a Pirc from the white side the game is frequently some of the most aggressive games I play (by both sides). Maybe its the lines you're choosing.

Lastly, you have Nf6, Nc6, d5 and b6. All 4 are reasonable choices to avoid theory. Alekhine's is probably the most respectable of the group. 1...b6 is interesting because there is so little theory and it can be played against virtually anything but it is probably not completely sound. The other two (Nc6 and d5) are similar in a lot of ways . I would probably choose 1...Nc6 between the two.

The other choice would be be to choose more than one opening. Choose an active opening and a more positional one and then vary them depending on the opponent.

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: When can king and pawn win against another king and pawn?
Assume such a situation: Both players (Black and White) only have two pieces, that is a King and a Pawn. They have the liberty of placing them according to their wishes on the first row of their side of board (White on row 1, Black on row 8) and then the game starts. (Yes, pawn start from the same row as kings).

Which starting positions guarantee a win to one side? Which will be drawn?

My intention: I wonder if such a chess variant would make sense. Since players have the liberty of placing their king and pawn on any column they please, are there any positions that are clearly best? Or (as I'd hope for) would it reduce to rock-paper-scissors, that is regardless of which position a player starts with their chances to win/lose/draw the game depend on which position their opponent starts with? Or would all games be necessarily drawn, which would make such a variant pointless?

So I guess I need a method of determining if any given position is drawn or won, or rather - general rules that govern this problem, so that I could grasp all possible positions without having to enumerate them.

# Answer
As far as I can tell, in your proposed variant a player could always force a draw by placing the king in a reasonably centralized position, regardless of what the other side chooses. Even if he allows the opponent a seemingly superior king position, it still winds up as a draw with correct play.

Let's say Black chooses the king on the D file and the pawn on the C file. If the pawns start on the same file, Black could allow a position like this and still get a draw:

```
[FEN "3k4/8/8/2pK4/2P5/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kxc5 Kc7

```

With the pawns one file apart, it's a similar pattern:

```
[FEN "3k4/8/8/2p5/2KP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kxc5 Kc7

```

With the pawns two files apart, Black can take the diagonal opposition:

```
[FEN "3k4/8/8/2p5/3KP3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kxc5 Ke7 Kd5 Kd7

```

Three or more files apart? No problem. White must abandon his pawn to eliminate Black's pawn.

```
[FEN "3k4/8/8/2p1K3/5P2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.f5 c4 2.Kd4 Ke7

```

And, of course, Black can and probably will get his king to a better position than that. This is just to demonstrate that even if he doesn't, he can still draw.

As far as when a king and pawn can win against a king and pawn, there's one position that comes to my mind, outside of the obvious pawn race scenarios. This position is a loss for whoever has the move - they must abandon their pawn and will be out of position to block the opponent's pawn:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/1Kp5/2Pk4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 9 votes

# Answer
It would come down to raw calculation a lot of the time.

Which pawn would queen first? Can the opponent prevent the pawn from queening? ? If so, what happens after that? Also consider square of the pawn, opposition and zugzwang. There are also positions where one side queens first but still loses (for example queening with check). Who queens first is the most important factor but, like I said, there are a lot of variables. You might also look at Reti's position which in an ingenious proof that you just have to calculate a lot of this stuff out.

Those elements will tell you who wins but it would be difficult to boil it down to a simple formula.

Bottom line: Start with who queens first and go from there unless one side can force a zugzwang or push the opponent back with opposition.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Other than special cases like with a rook pawn and the defending side getting to a8 or c8, or where the pawn can just queen, there is a simple rule that applies to most positions.

The rule is that you need to have your king in front of the pawn, and be able to get the opposition. So if you can win the pawn, and still meet this criteria, then it is a win.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I think this is winning for white -- if pawn can still move 2 squares on move 1.

```
[FEN "6pk/8/8/8/8/8/8/PK6 w - - 0 1"]

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
You could reference either Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, Volume 1, Pawn Ending by Aleksandar Matanovic (Editor),

or,

Endgame Tablebase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame\_tablebase.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: theory, chess-variants, kings, pawn-endgame
---


title: Why is this a missed win?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is this a missed win?
I found myself in this position as Black. I played Kb6, but the engine on chess.com suggested that the move Kb7 is a missed win, and the continuation below would have been winning for me. It gave no lines beyond what is below, and I can't see how this is a win for Black. Is this a fault with the engine, or is there some line that I've completely missed?

```
[Title "Unexplained"]
[FEN "2b2r2/2p5/p1kb2qp/1p1p4/3P4/7P/PP1BQPP1/RNR3K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kb7 2.Qe3 Rg8

```

In response to comments questioning if I have the position wrong or missed a root, I confirm I was a full rook down and felt this was a completely lost position. I have now included a screenshot demonstrating the strange opinion of the engine at chess.com

I guess it's a bug with the engine then?

# Answer
> 8 votes
This is **not** a missed win for black, both `Kb6` and `Kb7` are equally **losing for black** as you are simply a full rook down without any real compensation. `Qe3` move simply stops black's only way to breakthrough as it stops `Bxh3.` That is not white's only move either, `Kh1` and `Rc3` (though walks in the way of the knight) are sufficiently good for white too.

So either:

* The cloud engine didn't get to run sufficiently long and gave a wrong evaluation, or
* you simply mis-read or mis-interpreted the evaluation of the engine, or
* you're showing us the wrong position here.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, it is a bug. I just plugged that updated position into Stockfish 10 running on a quad-core 2.9 GHz laptop, and it is still over +5.

---
Tags: analysis, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Should the Laws of Chess have an overseeing board independent from FIDE?
Why are the laws of chess still being overseen by the same political-governing body called FIDE and not by an independent autonomous body like in other major sporting codes such as football where IFAB (International Football Association Board - which is an independent body that determines the Laws of the Game of association football outside FIFA)?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'm going to answer with a question. In any case this was an opinion-based question so it's not like I can give a factual answer, and this is too long to post as a comment.

You make it sound as if IFAB took control of the Laws of the Game from FIFA, at least if we go by analogy with the idea of some organization taking control of the Laws of Chess from FIDE. But it turns out that IFAB is actually older than FIFA (1886 vs 1904). Maybe the case of football is just historical accident. I don't know about other sports.

My question to you is: why? What problem do you think would be solved by having the Laws of Chess be controlled by some other organization? Maybe you have a solution in search of a problem. Maybe chess by being a "smaller" sport doesn't need another layer of bureaucracy?

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


title: Mistakes in my game

text:
# Question
Title: Mistakes in my game
I would like to receive some feedback on my mistakes of the below Lichess game, if possible from someone above 2000. I an unsure about the reason of the mistakes I did in the game. When I finished the game I thought I had won quite convincingly, but apparently, I made some mistakes early in the game. I was playing with the black pieces.

```
[Title "ulimilu1997-bird67, lichess.com, 10/11/19"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 e5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bg5 e4 8. Nd4 h6 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. e3 Bb4 12. Qd2 O-O 13. a3 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Qf3 15. Rg1 Rb8 16. Be2 Qf6 17. Kf1 Bh3+ 18. Ke1 Rb2 19. a4 Rfb8 20. Rc1 Rb1 21. Kd1 Qxf2 22. Qe1 Qxe3 23. Bh5 Rxc1#

```

Mistake in 7th move:

I played 7... e4. Later, I realized that d4 was probably better but I get the feeling that after 7... d4 8. Ne4 Be7, Black has lost some initiative.

Mistake in move 8:

I played 8.. h6 as White’s Bishop is forced to be exchanged on f6 or to retreat to a passive position. I calculated 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nxc6 bxc6 with a more or less favorable position in which the powerful center, which will be stronger after c5, is an advantage for Black. However, Stockfish evaluation drops around 1.

Blunder on move 11

I played Bb4 threatening to win a pawn. However, it is considered a blunder. I do not understand this. I do see that 12.Qd4 forces the Queen trades, but to me, the position is not much worse for Black for it.

Blunder in move 13

Given that the g3 pawn of my opponent is on a dark square, I thought of trading the bishop. I now realize that maybe this bishop had some prospects on the g1-a7 diagonal, but again I am not sure why this qualifies as a grave mistake.

Note: If possible, could you please also tell what move number you would stop at in order to calculate variations? I am unsure if I am doing this at all, but all my calculations take only 6 moves at best by each side. I know that in the middlegame, I should probably do some analysis of variants but in games I am not sure how deep these analysis should be.

# Answer
Here are my thoughts on that game. Sorry, after a long day, I tried to format it correctly in a board.

```
 [title "Annotated game analysis"]
 [fen ""]

 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 (2... d5 {Why not take the center right away?}) 3. g3? {White does not even contest the center, and allows black to own the center for free.} d5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 (5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qa4 {Was better, trying to prevent the huge center by black.}) 5... e5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bg5 e4? (7... d4! 8. Bxf6 (8. Ne4 Nxe4!! {A common idea, and the main point, however, I have only ever seen white get to play it.} 9. Bxd8 Bb4+ 10. c3 dxc3 11. a3 c2+ 12. axb4 cxd1=Q+ 13. Rxd1 Nxd8-+) 8... gxf6 {and the N has no good square since Ne4 f5 is nice. Black will have the two Bs, the open g-file for the Rh8, and pressure down the c-file.}) 8. Nd4 h6? {Even if the tactics supported h6, losing the tempo is not worth it.} (8... Be7) 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nxc6?? {Horrible. This just strengthens the black center, and gives him strong b-file play soon. Also, because of Bf6 the move before, black also has the B pair.} bxc6-+ 11. e3? {Weakens the light squares, and gives black the time to win almost immediately.} (11. Bg2 {Developing, while not weakening the light squares, and it indirectly stops d4 since e4 hangs.}) 11... Bb4? (11... Rb8 {This just wins b2 while putting the Rb8 on a strong square. b2 is indefensible.} 12. Rb1 (12. Qc1 Ba3! {Although the easier-to-see Bb4 is also crushing.} 13. Nd1 Rxb2) 12... Rxb2! 13. Rxb2 Qxc3+ 14. Qd2 Qxb2-+) 12. Qd2 O-O 13. a3 Bxc3? {You have pressure, and two Bs in an open position, so giving them up so easily just to double his pawns is impatient.} (13... Bd6 {Idea Be5 and Rb8. Also white cannot develop his k-side. If Bg2, then Ba6 is annoying, or if Be2, Bh3. The weakening of 11.e3 is felt.}) 14. bxc3? (14. Qxc3 {If white is going to defend this miserable position, one of the key reasons is the strong black Q, so it makes sense to trade it off...or at least attempt to. If nothing else, after Qf3, it would be much better than the game.}) 14... Qf3 15. Rg1 Rb8 16. Be2 Qf6 17. Kf1? {One-move analysis.} Bh3+ 18. Ke1 Rb2?! {A good positional move, for sure, but it allows counterplay with g4 threatening Rg3.} (18... Qe5 {Stopping g4 due to Qh2, and centralizing the Q even move.}) 19. a4 Rfb8 20. Rc1 Rb1! {In many positions, you sometimes need to trade off your active piece, in order to be able to get at a weakness since it also removes a key defender.} 21. Kd1? Qxf2 22. Qe1 Qxe3 23. Bh5 Rxc1# 0-1

```
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Longest forced win with just a Knight or Bishop
A single knight or bishop usually isn't enough to force checkmate. However, I know there are certain positions where the defending side has his king in front of a rook pawn where a win can be forced.

So I have two questions related to this:

* What is the longest forced win where the winning side has only a knight or bishop?
* Are there any nontrivial (i.e., not mate in 1) forced wins that don't involve the losing side having his king trapped in front of a rook pawn?

# Answer
According to this website, the longest checkmate for K+B vs. K+P is a simple mate in one, e.g.

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/8/p7/k1K1B3 w - - 0 1"]

```

The K+N vs. K+P case is slightly more interesting, the following position is mate in seven:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/p7/8/N7/k1K5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nb4 a3 2. Nc2+ Ka2 3. Nd4 Ka1 4. Kc2 Ka2 5. Ne2 Ka1 6. Nc1 a2 7. Nb3#

```

You can play these endgames with online tablebases, e.g. this one from Shredder.
> 9 votes

# Answer
The longest, **trivial** (trivial in terms of this question that is) known forced wins where White has just a knight or a bishop are 48 moves and 38 moves, respectively. These records can be seen in Grigory Popov’s Russain "Chess Book Of Records" on superproblem.ru.

```
[Title "Patrick O’Shea, The Problemist 1989, 1st Prize, Mate In 48"]
[FEN "8/p2N4/p7/p7/p7/K5pp/1p3npk/6bn w - - 0 1"]

1. Ne5 b1=N+ 2. Ka2 Nd2 3. Ka1 Nb3+ 4. Kb1 Nd2+ 5. Ka2 a3 6. Ka1 Nb3+ 7. Kb1 a2+ 8. Kxa2 Nd2 9. Ka1 Nb3+ 10. Kb1 Nd2+ 11. Ka2 a4 12. Ka1 Nb3+ 13. Kb1 Nd2+ 14. Ka2 a3 15. Ka1 Nb3+ 16. Kb1 a2+ 17. Kxa2 Nd2 18. Ka1 Nb3+ 19. Kb1 Nd2+ 20. Ka2 a5 21. Ka1 Nb3+ 22. Kb1 Nd2+ 23. Ka2 a4 24. Ka1 Nb3+ 25. Kb1 Nd2+ 26. Ka2 a3 27. Ka1 Nb3+ 28. Kb1 a2+ 29. Kxa2 Nd2 30. Ka1 Nb3+ 31. Kb1 Nd2+ 32. Ka2 a6 33. Ka1 Nb3+ 34. Kb1 Nd2+ 35. Ka2 a5 36. Ka1 Nb3+ 37. Kb1 Nd2+ 38. Ka2 a4 39. Ka1 Nb3+ 40. Kb1 Nd2+ 41. Ka2 a3 42. Ka1 Nb3+ 43. Kb1 a2+ 44. Kxa2 Nd2 45. Ka1 Nb3+ 46. Kb1 Nd2+ 47. Ka2 Nb1 48. Nf3#

```

---

```
[Title "ChristopherJeremy Morse, The Problemist 1978, Mate In 38"]
[FEN "8/2p2p2/5p2/1B3p2/5p2/p2n4/kp1K1p2/b4r2 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bc4+ Kb1 2. Bxd3+ Ka2 3. Bc4+ Kb1 4. Bxf1 Ka2 5. Bc4+ Kb1 6. Kd1 f3 7. Kd2 f4 8. Kd1 f5 9. Kd2 f6 10. Kd1 c6 11. Kd2 c5 12. Kd1 f1=Q+ 13. Bxf1 Ka2 14. Bc4+ Kb1 15. Kd2 f2 16. Kd1 f3 17. Kd2 f4 18. Kd1 f5 19. Kd2 f1=Q 20. Bxf1 Ka2 21. Bc4+ Kb1 22. Kd1 f2 23. Kd2 f3 24. Kd1 f4 25. Kd2 f1=Q 26. Bxf1 Ka2 27. Bc4+ Kb1 28. Kd1 f2 29. Kd2 f3 30. Kd1 f1=Q+ 31. Bxf1 Ka2 32. Bc4+ Kb1 33. Kd2 f2 34. Kd1 f1=Q+ 35. Bxf1 Ka2 36. Bc4+ Kb1 37. Kd2 a2 38. Bd3#

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, knights, bishops
---


title: What kind of checkmate pattern is this?

text:
# Question
Title: What kind of checkmate pattern is this?
I played this game and was wondering, is this a checkmate pattern with a name?

# Answer
> 1 votes
No, it does not have a name. For a list of the names of most common patterns, Wikipedia has a good article here.

---
Tags: tactics, checkmate, patterns
---


title: Chess variant where king is captured

text:
# Question
Title: Chess variant where king is captured
While trying to teach my 4 year oldson the rules of chess, I found it difficult to explain the rules of check, checkmate and stalemate. Having already explained the moves of each piece and how capturing works, I found it much easier to say simply that one wins by capturing the other king.

Was this variant ever considered and would strategy be significantly different from normal chess? What are the essential differences between normal chess and this (arguably simpler to explain) variant?

What I can think of are the following:

* there's more chance of losing due to a "silly mistake", by "stepping into check" or failing to move out of it.
* a particular kind of stalemate is now impossible. If one is not currently checked but can only move into a check, then one loses, whereas in normal chess this is a stalemate.

These don't seem like crucial problems. Am I overlooking something else? How to "motivate" the normal rules when teaching chess to a child?

# Answer
> 9 votes
Other than making stalemate impossible as you already mentioned, it doesn't seem to me like this would make a meaningful difference (or any difference) to the strategy of the game. If you allow your King to be captured, that's presumably the worst move you could possibly make, so with best play the King wouldn't be captured until after it has been checkmated conventionally anyway.

Especially when teaching the rules to a four-year-old, I'd say this house rule is totally benign, as long as it's eventually explained that it's nonstandard, once he's got a better grasp on the game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It is a simplification of the rules which mostly does not seem to affect the opening and middle game. It does affect the end-game and in that case it seems to change the outcomes for the better, giving more wins to the player with material advantage. One other side-effect is that it eliminates the rationale for underpromotions (to rook or bishop) that only make sense when they avoid stalemate. In this sense only can it be said to make the game less rich, but this probably affects chess puzzles more than the game itself. Perhaps we'd just get more of a focus on puzzles aiming for a stalemate when that would be a win.

Other ways of regaining the lost flavor of underpromotions are possible, but require further changes. A sufficient condition for making underpromotion viable again, is to give both rook and bishop a move that the queen does not have. The mildest possibility might be to restrict the queen to a range of 5 or 6 (instead of the usual 7 on an 8x8 board) or giving both rooks and bishops an additional jump to the second square in their usual path (in addition to their one-square jump).

# Answer
> 1 votes
How about a solution that doesn't involve deviating from rules of chess?

You could simply say that putting your king in check or moving it into check is an illegal move, and that 2nd illegal move loses the game (or 1st or 3rd illegal depending on how liberal or strict you want to be). This is actually used in tournaments.

As for motivation for the checkmate rule, you could say you win only by making the opposing king surrender, but not by killing him.

(sidenote: satranj the precursor chess, had variant were the win was by capturing opponent's king. In all variations of early satranj, capturing all other pieces or stalemate were ways to win)

---
Tags: chess-variants, kings, captures
---