# Question
Title: (Opening) Traps whose only solution is to grab material
There are some opening lines where grabbing material is very dangerous – another question of mine serves as a good example.

However, are there some trick lines where the only reasonable choice is to grab extra material leading to a game playable for the player offering material? At first some gambits come to mind where one has to take a pawn first, but rather often gives it back quite soon.

I hope there exist a lot of examples, and maybe this question will see a lot of great answers then. To specify the question, I am searching for opening ideas where:

* In a position which is roughly equal, one side (player A) sacrifices a lot of material – more than a pawn, the more the better.
* The other side (player B) has to take that material in order not to get a worse position.
* After B grabs that material, A gets a playable position. (That does not mean sacrificing material had to be the best move available.)
* Ideally these lines occur rather often in actual games. Such a trick on move 24 in an opening no one plays is of course less interesting.

# Answer
When I answered your other question and mentioned that a semi-bluff sacrifice works better if the best counter is to take the material, I actually had a specific opening line in mind.

I have never played the line with black myself, but I recommended it to a friend, who won some very nice games against stronger opposition.

The line I'm talking about is a sacrificial variation of the Löwenthal-Sicilian. You sac a pawn on your ninth move and continue with a rook sacrifice. The line I give below is just a sample line. There's quite a little tactical labyrinth for white to navigate. There is no direct refutation, only a better endgame for white in some line that I cannot remember. There are a lot of ways for white to go wrong, even if he doesn't take the rook for example, it can be quite tricky to get the knight out again.

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 a6 6. Nd6+ Bxd6
7. Qxd6 Qf6 8. Qd1 Qg6 9. Nc3 d5 10. Nxd5 Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Nd4 12.Nc7 Ke7
13. Nxa8 Nxc2 14. Kd2 Nxe3 15. fxe3 Nf6 16. Qb3 Rd8 17. Ke1 Ng4

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What's the difference between a tempo and a tempi? At the start, how many tempo/tempi is White up? On average, how many tempo/tempi is one Pawn worth?
1. What's the difference between a tempo and a tempi?
2. At the start, how many tempo/tempi is White up? Half, one, or two?
3. At the start of the game (before White has even made his first move), how many tempi is one Pawn worth?\** (For players rated near ~2200 Elo.)

# Answer
> 4 votes
> 1.What's the difference between a tempo and a tempi?

As others said, *tempi* is a plural of *tempo*.

> 2.At the start, how many tempo/tempi is White up? Half, one, or two?

In order to explain this, we must define what *tempo* is.

Unfortunately, this definition is incomplete, or we can say imprecise, in my opinion.

*Tempo* is the **speed with which you carry out a plan**, in my opinion. There is an optimal number of moves required to carry out your plan and there is the number of moves you **actually played** to carry out your plan.

If you carried out your plan in less moves than optimal, then you gained *tempo* somewhere. If you carried out your plan with greater number of moves than optimal then you lost *tempo* somewhere. If optimal number of moves is equal to those you played to carry out your plan than you played normal game.

Just a small clarification:

```
[Title "White obtains extra tempo"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5!? Qxd5 3.Nc3!

```

In the opening, plan is to introduce **all** units into battle **as soon as possible.** The fastest way to do this is to introduce 1 unit per move. Therefore this is the unit of measure for *tempo* in the above example.

With his second move 2.exd5\` **White lost 1 tempo** because he played twice with the same piece in the opening, delaying his plan by one move. This means that Black will carry out his plan first if he keeps introducing 1 piece per move ( if he keeps *tempo* ).

The reason this line is played at the top is the fact that White can gain tempo by attacking the queen, thus forcing her retreat. This means that Black will be **forced** to delay his plan by one move too, which would restore "status quo" from the beginning.

To answer your question: White is tempo up in the initial position because he moves first, thus he can carry out his plan faster.

He will be faster than Black **exactly by one move** and this can be well illustrated in symmetrical positions. This is the main reason why GMs never play symmetrical openings as Black -\> they can only draw and that will be tough to achieve. Also, some openings where White exchanges early, but there is no symmetry present, have confirmed this fact. This is the reason why Black can not "copy" White but must make asymmetric position.

> 3.On average, how many tempo/tempi is one Pawn worth? (For players rated near ~2200 Elo.) (I would need a very accurate estimation for this one, so please try to find an estimation as precise as possible.)

This is entirely position dependent. In the old days ( ~1970's ) it was argued ( roughly though! ) that **1 tempo = 3rd of a pawn** so I will leave the math to you...

# Answer
> 5 votes
> What's the difference between a tempo and a tempi?

*Tempi* is the plural of *tempo*.

> At the start, how many tempo/tempi is White up? Half, one, or two?

At the start, White is not up any tempo. There is no such thing as a *half tempo*, because *tempo* refers to a single move from one side.

> On average, how many tempo/tempi is one Pawn worth?

This is hard to say. In open positions, often even 1 or 2 tempi might be enough compensation for a pawn and 3 to 4 tempi may make one's position better. In closed positions, tempi don't matter that much, so in those situations 3 to 4 or more tempi might compensate for the loss of a pawn.

I'll give an example-

Consider this opening -

```
     [Event "2 Tempi gained by White"]
     [FEN ""]

     1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Bd3 Qxd4 6. Nf3 Qd8

```

If you compare the position after Black's 4th move and Black's 6th move, Black hasn't changed its position; white has developed two extra pieces (2 tempi) and it's White's turn to move. However, White lost a pawn in the process.

I analyzed this position with Houdini 1.5 at depth 20 and here's the assessment -

After Black's 4th move -

```
= (0.28): 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Be2 e6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.0-0 Bd6 9.c4 Ngf6...

```

After Black's 6th move -

```
= (0.06): 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.0-0 Bxe4 9.Bxe4 Qc7 10.Rd1 Nbd7...

```

So, as per Houdini's evaluation White's two tempi was not sufficient compensation for the lost pawn (because the score reduced from 0.28 to 0.06.

Now, suppose I give White an extra tempi, so that the following position is reached with White to play -

```
 [FEN "rn1qkbnr/pp2pppp/2p5/5b2/4N3/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
 [Event "3 Tempi for White"]

```

Here, Houdini's evaluation at depth 20 is

```
 +/= (0.54): 7.Qe2 Bxe4 8.Bxe4 Nd7 9.Bf4 e6 10.Rfd1 Ngf6 11.Ne5 Qb6...

```

So, Houdini thinks White is better with the 3 gained tempi after the loss of the pawn.

Of course, this is just computer evaluation. From a human perspective, we can say that 3 of White's pieces are already developed and White is castled. Black has only one developed piece. None of it's kingside pieces have moved, so Black's king will be in the center for a while. White's rooks will quickly occupy the open files, so White will develop enough pressure. Thus, White is slightly better.

In open positions, my judgment (subjective, of course) is that a pawn is worth somewhere between 2-3 tempi, whereas in closed positions, it may be worth between 3-4 tempi (if the side with the tempi uses the tempi to open up the position or gain a similar advantage). Thus on an "average", a pawn is worth 3 tempi.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The general rule taught to beginners is that one pawn is worth 3 tempi although in practice it depends on many things like position and which pawn. Pawn sacrifices are usually made to open up the position and given the pieces of one side freer / quicker development. b pawns and g pawns seem to be particularly poorly valued and in some openings appear to be jettisoned on a whim ;-) while d and e pawns, the center pawns, are valued much more highly.

None of this takes any account of the positional sacrifice where there is no gain in tempi rather, as in some IQP positions, lines are opened up or points of attack switched.

---
Tags: pawns, statistics, evaluation, point-value
---


# Question
Title: Strategy in Isolated Queen Pawn Positions
What should Black's plan be in Isolated Queen Pawn Openings like this one arising from the Caro-Kann Panov attack?

```

    [fen ""]
    1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 e6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.cxd5 Nxd5

```

# Answer
> 21 votes
First of all, the isolated pawn is **a dynamic strength**, and **a static weakness**.

But what does this mean?

This means that he represents a pawn weakness, but compensates this weakness in some other way. In short, Black should **strive towards endgame**, while White **must obtain some sort of pressure/attack** in order to compensate for his weak `d-pawn`.

Why is this so, and can Black/White achieve his plan? This will be the topic of the text below.

## Characteristics of the Isolated pawn:

**If left alone and unhindered, it will expand and cramp the enemy, yet if blockaded it becomes a target and a bottleneck.**

The shortcomings of the isolated pawn are inability to defend it with another pawn and the fact that the square in front of him ( and sometimes the squares around him too ) is weak and can be used as a strong-point for the opponents pieces. This is most evident in the endgame. Aside from that, the benefits of the isolated pawn are seen in the middlegame in view of space advantage,open lines and aggressive strong-points in the center, especially the `e5` square.

> What should Black's plan be in Isolated Queen Pawn Openings like this one arising from the Caro-Kann Panov attack?

These plans are typical and well explored. Opening moves just make some plans possible and some not.

## Plans for both sides in the position with Isolated pawn:

Here is a short summary of the plans for both sides:

*Plans for the side with the isolated pawn :*

1. Attack on the kingside;
2. Favorable opening of the center;
3. Advancing the isolated pawn in order to cramp the opponent;
4. Development of initiative on the queenside;

*Plans for the side fighting against the isolated pawn :*

1. Simplification of the game with goal to transpose into favorable endgame;
2. Transposing into the position with hanging pawns;

In order to help you better grasp these plans here are the illustrative games:

*Plan for side with the isolated pawn: Attack on the kingside :*

Botvinik-Tolush, Moscow 1965 is a good example for this. The key idea is to push `f4!`, which gives White the attack. Smyslov-Ribli, London 1983 seventh game is another good example.

*Plan for side with the isolated pawn: Favorable opening of the center :*

Spassky-Avtonomov, Leningrad 1949 is a good example. Pay attention to White's `d5!` push, opening lines and activating his pieces.

*Plan for side with the isolated pawn: Advancing the isolated pawn in order to cramp the opponent :*

Novoteljnov-Bondarevski, Moscow 1951 is one good example. Pay attention to `12...d4!`.

*Plan for side with the isolated pawn: Development of initiative on the queenside :*

This happens rarely, but I was able to find illustrative game. Notice how Black exploits queenside weaknesses with `16...Qb5` to increase his initiative in the game `Bitman-Zlotnik, Moscow 1979`. I can not find online resource for this game.

Now after seeing plans for the side with isolated pawn we must examine plans for the side fighting the isolated pawn:

*Plan for side fighting the isolated pawn: Simplification of the game with goal to transpose into favorable endgame :*

Karpov-Spassky, Montreal 1979 is a very good example.

*Plan for side fighting the isolated pawn: Transposing into the position with hanging pawns :*

Zukertort-Steinitz, Vienna 1886 is a classical example. Notice how Steinitz exchanged pieces, thus reducing White's attacking potential. **As soon as White is not able to attack** he starts to stand worse due to the weakness of the isolated pawn.

Furman-Kholmov, Kiev 1954 and Taimanov-Karpov, Moscow 1973 are very good examples of a positional approach. However, you might be forced to destroy hanging pawns dynamically like in Petrosian-Smyslov, Moscow 1961. Pay attention to `18...Rxc3!` strike.

```
But how does all this apply for your line in Panov attack?

```

***Typical plans in the position with isolated pawn are not opening dependent. Opening moves can only enable some plans and make others impossible to execute, but no matter what opening you play the typical plans remain the same.***

This is very important to know. In order to choose proper plan you must know the current opening theory.

I believe that little has changed and that you will have to implement the plan of transforming White isolated pawn into hanging pawns, and then attack them.

You should also **cement a piece on `d5`** and **avoid transformation of the current pawn structure**, unless it favors you ( hanging pawns as I have said, are the only good pawn structure for you, others favor White ). As said, 4 minor pieces on the board are good for White, 3 is unclear and everything else favors Black.

Just exchange smart and you will be on a good way to at least draw.

The paramount importance is the opening play. If you get good position from opening, then **it will be easier for you to play the position** as your plans are clear and straightforward. White on the other hand has to generate an attack which is not that easy, and usually will have to be satisfied with a small space advantage.

## ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES FROM OP's OPENING:

We shall analyze games #2 and #6 from Kamsky-Karpov, Elista 1996 which will hopefully help you grasp the above mentioned concepts:

First quickly play through the games 2 and 6. You will notice that everything was the same until move 12 where Black first played `Bd7` and `Rc8`, **sticking to passive defense,** while in the game 6 he played more active `Qb6` which allowed him to exchange few pieces.

Notice how in the second game Black was cramped due to the presence of 4 minor pieces on the board and because he had no counterplay. Also pay attention to `45.f4!` that launched a kingside attack. **This is the topic we covered above under *kingside attack*.** The attack was possible due to the `18.d5!` **which opens center favorably**, again **we mentioned that too under *favorable opening of the center*.**

Now look how Black stood much better when he played actively, and when he **exchanged a minor piece.** Notice how **he had more space to maneuver**, and notice how he **immediately took `d5` square, and other ones around the `d4` pawn, under his control.** This is important! "Cementing" a piece on `d5` hinders opponent's attacking potential. Pay really good attention to this. After `23.Bxf5` we can see that **White has lost his space advantage**, and now Black got fully equal game since only 2 minor pieces were left. Black equalized by **keeping the squares around isolated pawn "in check".** Also, **he had enough space** to properly regroup his pieces for defense and counter attack.

Another highly instructive game is J.Polgar-V.Smyslov, Aruba 1992. Just look how Black exchanged the queens with `9...Qb6!` and `10...Ba5!`and then look how White's isolated pawn became **instantly** weak when he was not able to attack anymore. Black had pressure in that game in the end but since there were 4 minor pieces White had enough defenders for his weak pawn.

## A CONCRETE PLAN SUGGESTION FOR THE OP's POSITION:

I used to play Caro-Kann, so in the position you mention my plan would be:

1. To finish my development.
2. **Exchange at least one minor piece.**
3. Solve the problem of developing my light-squared bishop, usually by playing `b6+Bb7` or by playing `Rd8+Bd7+Be8`. These are typical maneuvers for Black.

At that point opening ends and starts the middlegame. There you can try to implement one of the 2 above mentioned plans. It all depends from White's moves. Still, you will probably exchange knights on `c3` and maybe dark-squared bishops, which will result in the pawn structure with the hanging pawns.

About the move order in your post:

White takes on `d5` too early, so all kind of options are possible for you. Still, you have 3 good moves as Black after he plays: `Nc6`, `Bb4`, `Be7`. Personally, I prefer solidity above all, so I would choose `Be7` but the best move in my opinion is `Bb4`.

Again I must stress that it is of paramount importance to leave the opening with equal position. The same goes for White too.

## SUMMARY:

For detailed explanation of plans in the Isolated pawn position consult the following books:

*I.Sokolov-Winning chess middlegames*, *Baburin-Winning Pawn Structures* and especially *B.A.Zlotnik-Typical middlegame positions*. The last book is pure gold and is out of print, but still try to find it.

As for Caro-Kann, Panov attack you should get Karpov's book *A.Karpov & M.Podgaets-Caro-Kann defense Panov Attack, Batsford 2006*. It is entirely devoted to Panov attack, and I think it is outstanding.

Sorry for scarce information, but there is just too much to be said for this topic that it wouldn't fit here. So if you have follow up questions just leave a comment.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Positions with the isolated d-pawn (d4 for white or d5 for black) are indeed an important case to study.

For the side with the isolated d-pawn

1. You and your opponent should have 3 or 4 light pieces each.
2. Use the outposts created by this pawn (c5 and e5 for white) and attack.
3. Remember the dynamic force of this pawn (d4-d5 for white).

For the side defending against an isolated d-pawn

1. Exchange off light pieces.
2. Control and later invade the weak squares around the pawn (c4, d5 and e4 for white)
3. Exchange down to an endgame and try to win there.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Alexander Baburin has actually written a whole book on the IQP called "Winning Pawn Structures". Although his personal bias is evident from the title his book is relatively even handed with a large section dedicated to "Disadvantages of the isolated d-pawn" which basically gives many examples and principles of how to deal with the isolani.

Whether you want to make a study of the IQP or not this is a useful book which gives many examples of attacking play in IQP positions which can carry over into the rest of your play.

---
Tags: strategy, pawn-structure, caro-kann, isolated-pawn
---


# Question
Title: Is a King, Rook and Knight vs King and Knight end game generally a win for the player with the rook?
I ended up struggling quite a bit to finish off this position against a better player (I had the knight) and I'm pretty sure he did not play optimally. I've not found much info of this end game. Is a King, Rook and Knight vs King and Knight end game generally a win for the player with the rook?

# Answer
I think the way to approach the problem of winning this type of position is to look at what the textbooks have to say about KRvKN and try and apply that with the benefit of having an extra knight.

Nunn identifies two wins, one where the knight and king are widely separated and one where the king gets trapped near a corner. The drawing plan for the K+N is to keep the two pieces together near the center of the board.

Fine (still a useful reference more 70 years after being published!) identifies 3 winning strategies:

1) Mating threats

2) Pinning the knight against the king when the king has to abandon the knight

3) Stalemating the knight and capturing it.

With an additional knight these threats can be more generalized because if the knights are exchanged the win is easy and the stronger side can even sacrifice his knight to lure the opposing knight far enough away from the king to make it winnable.
> 2 votes

# Answer
King + Rook + Knight versus King + Knight. Win? Yes!

My spontaneous thought is to win in two stages.

1. Catch and win the enemy knight or exchange knights.
2. Checkmate the enemy king

The first stage should be achieved by hunting down the enemy knight. The second stage is a K+R vs K checkmate.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The Win for the player with the Rook would be very hard to achieve. There is no real way to explain it without an in depth book reading im sorry to say.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: endgame, rook-and-minor-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Need some helps with the tactics in the middle game
I sometimes find it very difficult to determine the accurate moves in middle game. When a tough opponent is in front of me I dont let to attack at first. I strengthen my defense. But if I ever try to attack, the opponent destroys my defense and I fail! Sometimes I feel this is the right move and also understand the consequence of the move! But still there remain quirks on my move and the opponent take the advantage! I even find it difficult to calculate moves as there are so many possibilities for an opponent! So i want to know how to determine the accurate moves as the grandmasters do and also how many moves should I calculate before any move?

```

[White "NN"]
[Black "user4226"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
     [FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. a3 d6 6. b4 Bb6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. h3 O-O 9. Bb2 a5 10. O-O Be6 11. Nbd2 Nh5 12. Nxe5 dxe5 13. Qxh5 f6 14. Rad1 axb4 15. axb4 Ra2 16. Rb1 Bd4 17. Bxd4 Qxd4 18. Rfc1 Rb2 19. Rxb2 Qxb2 20. Qd1 Qxb4 21. Rb1 Qe7 22. Rb7 Qd7 23. Nb3 Bxb3 24. Rxb3 f5 25. exf5 Qxf5 26. f3 Rd8

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Chess is a skill that requires hard work and dedicated toning, just like learning to play a musical instrument. Unless you are very exceptional, you won't become a master at it within a few weeks, months or years (the good news is that you don't have to be a master to have fun with chess). Some players were lucky enough to be very talented, had the opportunity to start young and maintained an almost obsessive interest in it - they are the ones most likely to become IM's or GM's after 10 to 15 year of dedication. Most of us just play for fun and must maintain a realistic perspective.

I suggest you read Willy Hendriks' book "Move First, Think Later". The book addresses the very essence of your question, which is: How do I improve my chess?

As a warning, the book *is* controversial, especially since it spends a lot of effort in undermining certain common conceptions about chess improvement. Hendriks is not scared of taking on the establishment of chess training.

From memory, here is a list of things he suggests you focus on:

* Tactical puzzles. Nothing improves your chess quicker than doing a lot (as in thousands) of puzzles, as it "programs" your brain to spot good moves and continuations.
* Play a lot. Over the board, on the internet, as much as you have an appetite for.
* Notate and study your games. Try to understand where you went wrong (I, for example, found I have a weakness in spotting tactics on my king behind the pawn line).
* Focus on the things that motivate *you*. For example, here on chess.SE you will often see the advice "don't study opening theory at beginner level". Well, if you *like* studying opening theory, then studying opening theory is *perfectly fine*.

Here is a list of things he suggests you don't waste your time on:

* Worrying about general rules and common adages (for example "the bishop pair", "respond to an attack on the flank with an attack in the center", leave your thinking time for the "critical moment")
* Approaching chess from some ideological/academic angle (like Silman's "imbalances"). Hendriks argues that chess ability is not a rational skill, and a rational-based approach will not help in improving it greatly (this point probably needs some elaboration - he's not saying chess is *irrational*, but that taking some kind of *reasoned* approach won't help you much - you are going to be better off with an intuition toned through practice than over-the-board reasoning).
* Worrying about developing some kind of structured thought process (for example: 1. Consider threats. 2. Consider attack points. 3. Consider tactical motifs. 4. Consider alternatives etc etc). Hendriks argues from findings in neuroscience that your brain functions heavily in parallel - don't try to serialize your thinking by adopting a thought process that sub-divides goals - instead, let your brain do its work naturally. Just find the good move!
* Trying to calculate every position 10 moves deep. GM's don't generally calculate that deep (unless the tactical situation calls for it, of course).
* Following some abstract "plan". Rather, focus on finding good squares for you pieces and making good moves that forces your opponent to counter actively.
* Spending 10,000 hours doing it even if you hate it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Based on the way your question is written, I think your problem is that you think only about "attacking" and "defending", not about the targets what you should attack or defend. If you try hard to do something that your position is not good for, you end up making your position worse even if you calculate perfectly.

I don't know your playing strength, but I think I improved from ~1400 to ~1600 in a month just by reading IM Jeremy Silman's "The Amateur's Mind". It taught me one thing: you need to have an idea what you want to achieve in the position before you start calculating. So plans in chess are not series of moves moves but rather something like "I wan't to attack that weak pawn so he has to defend it and then I can use my more active pieces to attack that other weak square there."

I'm not claiming Silman's thinking technique is excellent. Now (as a ~2000 player) I use it for analyzing games and training with unlimited time, but in games I use it mostly to determine weaknesses and strengths of both sides in the position. I've found the actual technique to be too unpractical ("ideological" as @firtydank says in his answer) for real games. For example, he says somewhere that if you have 60 minutes on the clock, it's OK to spend 45 minutes trying to come up with a plan, because once you have a plan, you instantly know what to do in the next moves. My experience tells that around 90 % of the time, my opponent's move is completely unpredicted by me, and around 50 % of the time, it ruins my previous plan, and I have to come up with a new one.

However, here's the main point of my answer: If my original plan was somewhat sensible, my opponent needs to take it into account, and thus he can't do whatever he likes, and I have good chances of winning the game, even if I have to find a new plan each move. If my original plan is totally useless, my opponent doesn't need to care about it and will be able to do whatever he wants, most likely winning the game. Often it looks like I've made a tactical error, allowing him to attack, but I think tactical and strategical errors go somewhat hand in hand: it is easy to miscalculate if you are under pressure, and it's easy to miss opponent's attacking chances if you don't know that he has a good position for attacking because your pieces are not putting any pressure on his position.

# Answer
> 0 votes
First of all Willy Hendriks' book "Move First, Think Later" is clearly not for you nor firtydank. It is for the more experienced player who is already very familiar with the rules, vaguely aware that there are exceptions and wanting to know more.

Second, it is clear that you *don't* have much of a clue about general principles. When I saw your move 11 .. Nh5 my initial reaction of WTF? wasn't because I immediately saw you were dropping a pawn (that came later) it was because it is completely uncalled for and does nothing to address the needs of the position. It is just a wild planless attacking move.

What are the needs of the position? Well, you should stop and take stock. First of all, you have the bishop pair which *is* a long term advantage (ignore firtydank and Willy Hendriks ;-). The long term question for you is how to take advantage of the bishop pair. But the short term comes before the long term.

Before that you have a pawn weakness on the queenside with your isolated rook's pawn and perhaps more pressing white can actually make a clear passed pawn on the queenside with bxa and then his a pawn is going to win him the endgame and may very well cause you serious problems in the middlegame. Chop it off first with axb.

Then note that you haven't completed your development. Your rooks aren't connected. Decide whether you want to play Qe7 or Qd7. But wait! If you play Qd7 you'll block your bishop and he will likely play Ng5 threatening to take your bishop and deprive you of your bishop pair advantage. So, maybe h6 first to prevent that. h6 also has the advantage of making air for your king. Not urgent now but later in the game your opponent won't have the chance of a cheap back rank mate if you give your king some air.

So, next h6. Meanwhile White also gets to move. Did he play d4? He would like to! If he did you will have to deal with that next. If he didn't, where do you put your queen? Well, you have lots of pieces pointing at the kingside. Maybe you want your queen on d7 backing up the bishop for a possible sacrifice on a3? Maybe you want to consider g5 then g4? Or how about Nh7 - g5 and start an attack that way? If he plays NxN you have QxN and Bxh3 is a serious threat.

Now, not all of these are necessarily sound. Maybe even none of them are, but these are the kind of thoughts you should be having in the position after white's 11th move. See that the position calls for axb followed by h6 on your next move then see what white does and only *then* think about how you are going to launch a kingside attack.

Note that one of the basic principles which firtydank is perhaps suggesting you ignore is that you have to have some kind of excuse to launch an attack. If white has done nothing wrong and you don't have some kind of advantage in the area where you want to attack then an attack is going to fail against a half decent opponent. So, if you don't have that kind of advantage yet then continue the build up.

You also need to be aware of things that would be positionally bad for you. If you play c5 then you are turning your black squared bishop into a bad bishop because it is blocked by a lot of your own pawns. It will be in danger of becoming just a "tall pawn". Beware of playing c5 or letting your opponent trick or manoeuvre you into playing it.

---
Tags: tactics, middlegame, calculation
---


title: How long is a miniature?

text:
# Question
Title: How long is a miniature?
A miniature is a short game of chess. Depending on the forums you ask in or the blogs you look at, the length of the miniature is always a problem.

Is there a standard number of moves under which the game is considered to be a miniature? Is there a reason that number is special?

Not even Wikipedia has a concrete definition regarding this aspect of the game.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I have an old book in my house, 500 King's Gambit Miniatures, and in the first pages the games, at the least, didn't pass 30 moves. I think it is a very good definition.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The answer, as hinted in the other comments, is that there isn't a solid definition. Unlike @Mikhail Tal's answer, though, the number I had always head was 20 moves (40ply) or thereabouts.

Those who are familiar with 30 as a boundary might think of this as too short, but as an example the "Opera Game" was only 17 moves and the "Immortal Game" for all its action was only 22. I would posit that the reason that books like *500 King's Gambit Miniatures* use 30 as a boundary is simply because there probably aren't enough games under 20 that are off worthwhile quality and that a potential reader hasn't already like seen.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you are talking about the embarrassment of losing in so few moves that it counts as a miniature then the answer is 20.

If you are trying to scrape together as many short games as you can then the answer is 30, but the one that really counts, that really hurts is the 20 move one.

---
Tags: master-games, famous-games, game-length
---


title: Can't engineer queenside play for Black

text:
# Question
Title: Can't engineer queenside play for Black
## INTRODUCTION:

Recently, I have played online blitz game against very strong GM ( who is also a chess writer ). I didn't even know it until asking him if he has any ELO / title.

We played 7 games and I lost all of them. Although I know my opening choice for White is "idiotic" I just couldn't resist and "went Sparta on him" -\> sadly, he dispatched me with ease. Still, with Black, I offered real resistance. Even he said that he had to "work for those wins."

I knew **exactly** when I made the mistake in all the 7 games, but for the life of me, **I was not able to find an idea on how to generate long-term counterplay.**

Even analysis with *StockFish 5* confirmed my evaluations but the engine couldn't find any move that will give me counter-play when I was Black.

It also confirmed that the GM played **the only winning moves** which confirms that his above comment wasn't an "empty" compliment but the truth.

I am interested in improving the `3...Qd8` line of the *Scandinavian defense* so I will limit my question to the positions that arose from those games.

## RELEVANT INFORMATION:

To further help you, I will quote the opening positions from those games, and will give additional info / instructions in order to make your task easier.

```
[Title "How can Black generate counterplay?"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Nh4! Bg6 7.g3! e6 8.Bg2 Be7 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.O-O Nf6 11.Ne2! ( 11.a3 a5! $8 ) 11...Nbd7 12.a4 O-O?! ( 12...a5! $8 ) 13.a5! $16

```

The point of `Ne2!` and `a5!` is in grabbing as much space as possible in the center ( with subsequent `c4` ) and queenside. He also tried with `a3` instead of `a4` in other games, but the idea was the same: `Ne2` -\> `c4` -\> gain space on the queenside.

His `Bg2` killed my `...c5` push, so I was without any counterplay. I still think Black would be fine if he had played `12...a5!`, but I don't see how to generate freeing break or any other sort of counterplay.

As a good chess writer he knew for `Nh4` \+ `Nxg6` \+ `g3!` plan from the Slav defense, but so did I. It didn't surprise me. His `Ne2!` maneuver didn't surprise me either but the idea to gain space on queenside threw me off.

## QUESTION:

How can Black generate queenside counterplay that gives him equality?

*Please avoid computer-only analysis. This is the position where they can do little as it involves planning, for which engines are not capable of.*

# Answer
> I was not able to find an idea on how to generate long-term counterplay.
>
> How can Black generate queenside counterplay that gives him equality?

It might be cruel for you but...answer is simple: in this position black can not achieve equality or counterplay at all. Your opening choice made you wait for him to kill you or if he's not able to (can't find as you said 'best moves'), then it might end in a draw. Scandinavian is not a good choice in case of counterplay.

Let's have a look at the position without using any engines:

White adventages:

* Space
* Pair of bishops
* Pawn structure

Black has no pluses in this position at all. If you are standing worse you want to simplify the position by exchanging some pieces. However, looking at the black's pawn structure, it might be a bad idea to go for an endgame with doubled pawns which make the majority less effective and more vulnerable.

As you mentioned before, `12. ... - a5` might have been better than `12. ...-O-O`. I would rather play `a5` myself. Once he got to a5 square he might want to play `a6` and create weakness n `c6` making his `Bg2` even stronger. And you can't really play `a6` yourself leaving a nice hole on `b6` and making `b7` pawn vulnerable for rest of the game.

Another thing is, I don't understand why you'd like to play on a queenside when you are 3-4 in terms of pawns there. Any `b-pawn` or `c-pawn` move there makes his white-squared bishop a monster.

To sum up, I'm against that Scandinavian. Reason is simple: If there's a skill gap between you and your opponent, you end up in a (bit) worse, positional position, sooner or later you will get crushed. You have much better chances to play, as you called, `sparta`. There's better chance in complicated tactical positions against GM than playing against his positional (and overall chess) understanding and huge experience. Scandinavian is praying for a draw for me.
> 3 votes

# Answer
3...Qd8 is a very passive move and you should be playing more active moves in the opening for counterplay. It may have been played by strong players but usually it's for a draw. Example Lutz-Adams http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/ltpgnviewer32/ltpgnboard.asp?GameID=584891
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, scandinavian-defense
---


# Question
Title: What is the best chess magazine in the world? And what makes a great chess magazine today?
When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's it was the Russian magazine Shakhmatny Bulletin according to Bobby Fischer. In our chess club we generally believed that the reason the club's best player was the best player was because he had a subscription. He was a lecturer (or what Americans call a professor) in Russian at Durham University and translated into English most of the chess books in your library by Russian authors (Kasparov's My Great Predecessors, for example).

For Kasparov it was Chess Informant from the former Yugoslavia.

What characterized these two publications was that they were mainly just game scores of the strongest players around the world, mostly east European. Although Shakhmatny Bulletin was in Russian since the games were unannotated you really only needed to know the Russian annotation for the pieces. Informant was completely language free.

Nowadays there is little call for such games collections because we all have chess databases with online updates from The Week In Chess and ChessBase. What we want in a chess magazine is top class analysis of the best games and the latest inside news. The nearest I can come up with today is the Dutch magazine published in English, New in Chess, but all I have to compare it with are more parochial English magazines like BCM and Chess. I've never even seen a copy of the American magazine Chess Life, for instance.

When I lived in Germany I used to occasionally read a German magazine called Kaissiber which I thought was very good but rather difficult since it was in German.

Is NiC currently the best chess magazine out there? Or should I be reading something else?

# Answer
Chess Informant and Chess Life are targeting very different strata; it is not possible to compare them.

When I was growing up in 60s and 70s - in Soviet Union - we the amateurs were reading "Shakhmaty v SSSR" and "64". I didn't bother reading the Bulletin until I reached a Kandidate Master level. The Informant was of use for professional only.

Books were much more important than magazines. Every serious tournament (such as USSR championship, Chigorin, the Interzonal, etc) was followed up with the corpus of heavily analyzed games. There was also an unspoken rule (attributed to and driven by Botvinnik) that each Grandmaster must publish at least one book.

Sorry for ranting.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, recommendations
---


title: Suitable defence for 1.d4

text:
# Question
Title: Suitable defence for 1.d4
I am a 1900 (approximately) and still get depressed every time my white opponent opens with 1.d4. I just don't seem to find my way with this opening. Currently i play nimzo and QID but both are quite heavy on theory and nimzo just gets very sad if white goes for Bd2. I prefer solid positions, for instance I really enjoy play caro-kann or french against 1.e4.. So what defence against 1.d4 you think I'd enjoy? Thanks.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Try the Dutch Stonewall. If you are a French player, you can play the move order 1. d4 e6. After 2. e4 you have a French, after 2. c4 f5 you are in a dutch, avoiding the staunton gambit (not a problem in its own, but if you prefer solid play ...)

After that, with a stonewall setup you have a solid middlegame, albeit a little passive

PS: I am 1900 too.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Play the Chigorin! I went from 1900 to 2000 FIDE playing it. A good book is play 1...Nc6 by Christoph Wisnewski. Good luck.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Nimzo and QID are two of the most highly respected and powerful responses to 1.d4 the Nimzo has always been seen as the tough nut to 1.d4 and it was said that people played 1.e4 so they wouldn't have to face the Nimzo! The theory in both are quite heavy yes but it's not unmanageable and you would be in good company as well playing these two openings as they have all been championed by multiple world champions from the past and present.The move Bd2 in the Nimzo (assuming in response to 3...Bb4 ?)is just considered bad for white as the Bishop is misplaced on d2 and black gains good control over e4 after castles and b6. Please just don't abandon openings as rich as these as they provide a great learning tool and exposes you to a multitude of positionally as well as tactically rich positions.

Slav is considered super solid but be aware that white can achieve a relatively easy draw via exchanging on d5 after 2...c6,

Another point behind the Nimzo is that it provides chances for a win and produces double-edged positions with chances for both sides.

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


# Question
Title: Training to avoid elementary mistakes long into tournament games?
I just got back from a chess tournament after around 5 years without playing tournament chess. I did mediocre in this tournament, and I attribute it to struggling to maintain concentration after 3+ hours into a game.

I'd play a relatively decent game throughout (imperfections on both sides here or there), but lose e.g. to some simple tactic late in the game. Something that I would ordinarily see easily, e.g. a knight fork, but was not simply looking for it late in the game.

There seems to be no point in learning openings, endgames, etc. when you end up down a bishop and end up resigning.

*Question*: What training exercises (drills) can we do to prevent making elementary mistakes long into tournament games?

# Answer
Fatigue leads to errors of judgment. Fatigue in long games manifests as 'seeing things that aren't there' and 'not seeing things that are there." As stated before, current health status, conditions of the room, even how much sleep was gotten the night before, are factors. Actually, errors in judgment is an integral part of the game, or as one grandmaster said, "whomever makes the last mistake loses."
> 4 votes

# Answer
Nobody touched on this point before, so here we go:

I had the same problem, when I started playing tournament chess. Although I was physically extremely fit, I would start blundering after 4 h.

I got rid of this by drinking a coke after 3-4 h. Drinking something cold and getting some caffeine probably didn't hurt, but the main reason for my blunders was lack of sugar.

Nowadays I try to keep my sugar level constant by eating some chocolate, fruits or nuts in regular intervals.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> struggling to maintain concentration after 3+ hours into a game.

This is not something that you can fix with chess exercises. This is a physical problem.

I had something similar a few years ago although I'm embarrassed to admit that it kicked in after about 30 minutes! During our winter club competitions you typically get between 40 and 50 players crammed elbow to elbow in one large room with the windows shut. I was unfit at the time and if my opponent inconsiderately had a long think 10 or 12 moves into the game I found myself nodding off from the warmth and lack of oxygen in the room.

Round about the same time I read a (junk science) newspaper article saying that dieing to go for a pee improved concentration. I came up with the combination solution of starting the game with a paper cup of cold water, sipping regularly and going for a refill when it was empty. This meant that every 10 or 15 moves I was getting up to go to the kitchen where I could open the window and take a few deep breaths of cold air as I refilled my cup. Later in the game I was making regular trips to the toilet ;-) where again there was an open window and fresh air.

Now I'm fit again and don't have the same problem.

Another approach is to look at cold remedies. The one I take when I have a heavy cold or touch of flue has the following active ingredients: paracetamol 300mg, caffeine 25mn, phenylephrine hydrochloride 5mg. Make of that what you will.

I would, however, point you towards the FIDE anti-doping policy . In particular if you are close to the Australian women's team note this section:

> The most relevant banned substances for chess are:
>
> • Amphetamines – e.g. Adderall, Ritalin
>
> • Ephedrine and Methylephedrine – Prohibited by WADA when its concentration in urine is greater than 10 micrograms per milliliter
>
> • Pseudoephedrine is prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than 150 micrograms per milliliter
>
> Substances not present on the Prohibited List but represented in the Monitoring Program:
>
> • Caffeine – Included in WADA 2013 Monitoring Program and relevant for in-competition testing only. Any test reading of less than 400 milligrams poses no problem.
>
> • Codeine – A common ingredient in, for example, preparations used to treat coughs and stomach upsets. Any dosage is highly unlikely to be significant when taken in normal therapeutic quantities.

Just how this relates to common cold medication I don't know although a British skier had his Olympic bronze medal taken away from him after taking such a cold remedy.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Just study loads of tactical exercises and it will become second nature to you. I can recommend websites such as chesstempo and chess tactics server for such practice. To be able to maintain concentration effectively for long periods of time you would need to update your physical condition :). Although it is not so critical in chess as in tennis shall we say, an example is Viktor Korchnoi, the guy is 80+ and yet still plays at a very high level! This demonstrates that despite his obviously poor physical condition his massive skill, experience and understanding Of chess trump this. I would say exercise and improvement of chess playing skill and understanding (achieved by constant practice (tournaments every two months) and personal study time (or even better with a coach) )can improve your concentration immensely. I can also say that walking around during the game helps greatly in keeping you sharp (but be careful of getting distracted!) Also do not neglect study of endgames and positional chess as these are the keys to improved play, doing this would be fatal. Also try to have fun and, motivation and determination is the key! :)
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think you should do more tactical training using tactic trainers to sharpen your tactical eye. Also, before making your move, check all threats, captures and tactics you or your opponent can do. This will reduce this type of mistakes. Hope this helps!
> 1 votes

# Answer
To avoid elementary mistakes simply study tactics before a tournament. chess.emrald.net is a good place to do drills.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: training
---


# Question
Title: FIDE tournament rules: Is a player allowed to scribble notes on the scoresheet while the game is in progress?
Do FIDE rules allow a player to make notes on the scoresheet like

> Here, I wanted to play c4, but thought it would be better to play d4 first.
>
> He played Nc6. I think he should have played Nbd7.

# Answer
**No**. Notes could help you during the game, and therefore they aren't allowed. The Laws of Chess say:

> 12.3.a During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard \[...\]
>
> 12.4 The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, and matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
> 14 votes

# Answer
@ragu.pattabi wrote: { Agreed pre written notes are not allowed. But it still doesn't seem to forbid alternative moves ('other relevant data') – ragu.pattabi Mar 30 '14 at 15:12 }

The rule definitely forbids writing your style of annotations on anything including your scoresheet, until after the game is completed. Definitely.

Reasons Why - include the following: Nobody wants the hassle of having to scrutinize your "annotations" to see if that is what they are. Any magician could devise codes to look like annotations but mean something else. And a hundred other reasons.
> -1 votes

# Answer
First off, I don't actually know whether it is allowed or not, but I have a number of reasons to believe that it *may be* allowed, or at least be somewhat allowed.

1. Although the rule technically states that "During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes...", it is not entirely clear from that section of rules by what is meant by "a note". The obvious interpretation is that it points to "crib notes". Does it include annotations you make as you play? This is not clear to me.
2. I have personally played in an ECF rated chess tournament where there was a prize awarded to the player with the best annotated score sheet. It is strange to me that the tournament organizers would endorse a practice that is forbidden by FIDE.
3. I fail to understand the logic of such a rule. Making personal annotations of your thoughts and ideas during a match does not, as far as I can see, assist you in any way during the actual match, as it still amounts to your personal ability to play the game. To me it seems analogous to making personal notes while writing a maths exam - why would this practice be forbidden?

I think there is enough doubt about the interpretation of this rule to require of us to get some clarification. I will most certainly ask an arbiter at my next tournament.

**Update**: The Wesley So incident in the 2015 US champs probably settled this once and for all - it is not allowed. But in my defence - even Kasparov thinks this is a stupid rule \[ http://www.chess-news.ru/en/node/18625 \].
> -4 votes

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: Problematic lines for black in accelerated dragon
What are Difficult lines for black in accelerated dragon?the most problematic line for black in the accelerated dragon

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you play the accelerated through the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 then the most problematic would be the maroczy bind after 5.c4.

But then through that move order you may not even get it as opponents may instead of 3.d4 play 3.Bb5 (Rossolimo) which is very popular.

If you play it through the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 then by far the most testing line is 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 and both sides have to be very well prepared but black more than white for sure.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense
---


title: App to read pgn surface

text:
# Question
Title: App to read pgn surface
Is there anyway to read pgn's on the surface 2 (windows 8), besides using any online tool for that matter.

# Answer
> 1 votes
For Windows desktop there is ChessX and for a modern / metro app there is PgnViewer

---
Tags: engines, pgn
---


title: Glitch or mate?

text:
# Question
Title: Glitch or mate?
Whilst playing a casual game against computer on an iPhone app I was faced with this situation.

With white to move, the computer tells me I have a saving move but I clearly do not.

Am I right in thinking this is a glitch or is there an obscure play that I could have used to save my King?

# Answer
Assuming the last move was ...Re1 it sure looks like mate to me.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Can you compile Stockfish on Windows without Unix/GNU?
Can you compile Stockfish on Windows (without Unix/GNU), perhaps via Visual Studio?

The official "how to compile Stockfish on Windows" suggests using MinGW (see links below) and I am looking for a Windows-specific project build of Stockfish if it exists.

Links:

# Answer
The stockfish source code can be easily compiled with gcc, Visual Studio, XCode etc. In Visual Studio, create an empty project, use the mouse to drag all files in Stockfish into the project then press the compile button. Very simple.

The only reason that Visual Studio is not listed in the documentation is that the website maintainer (Daylen Yang) is a Mac and Linux user. He doesn't have Windows installed so he didn't care about it.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, computer-chess
---


# Question
Title: What's the most offensive opening for Black?
I'm black a lot and I really like being offensive, but turning it around on white can be really hard, so what's a good opening?

*Please don't say fools mate or scholar's mate etc.*

# Answer
This is an incredibly general question, because obviously white is allowed to make some moves as well … there is no one fits all aggressive defence. But to give an equally general answer: If you like to play aggressively playing gambits makes a lot of sense. So everything with "gambit" in its name is a valid choice.

I'll give a few examples and will assume that you didn't specify whites opening because all your opponents play 1.e4. ;-)

This would be the Latvian Gambit against the Italian Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian\_Gambit

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5

```

This is the Schliemann-Jaenisch-Gambit against the Ruy Lopez:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5

```

Generally the idea of these gambits is to speed up the development of your pieces at the cost of a pawn and to gain greater central control by diverting your opponents central pawns. If you play well, central control and active pieces will lead to an attack. If you play badly, you're just down a pawn ...
> 3 votes

# Answer
My kind of man! I love playing aggressive as black and I have found that the Sicilian works well. Its many variations can lead to passive or aggressive games. Until recently I favoured the dragon variation which fianchettoes you bishop in front of your king-side castled king. Now I have found a new line that I enjoy more. e4 c5, Nf3 e6, and if white plays d4 go d5. I love this counter attack because it can go badly for white either way he takes. It is called Marshall counter attack. e5 follows the develop Nc6. This will not happen all the time but it sets you up for a strong central positions with lots of modes of attack.

```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/4p3/2pp4/3PP3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq d6 0 4"]

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
Against e4, I like c5 (Sicilian Defense). Against d4, I like f5, (Dutch Defense), as suggested by another answerer.

These openings aren't totally offensive, because White has the offense. But they are **counter**-offensive.

Basically, they are as offensive as one can get while having the second move. It is a fight from the "get go" for the initiative.
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you want a recklessly aggressive defense, try the Saint George's defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.\_George\_Defense). On a more serious note, the Sicilian Dragon or the Najdorf are solid aggressive defenses. Another aggressive defense that is overlooked is the Scandinavian. However, those are only good against e4 openings. Against d4 openings, the Dutch Leningrad is a very open, aggressive opening.

These are just opinions. My personal preferences differ from these though.
> 1 votes

# Answer
One resource you can try is looking up famous attacking chess masters, and checking out their favorite openings, for instance on the Most Played Openings section of their chessgames.com page. For instance, both Tal and Kasparov liked to play the Sicilian against 1. e4 and it shows up as their most-played opening as black.

http://www.chessgames.com/player/mikhail\_tal.html http://www.chessgames.com/player/garry\_kasparov.html

You can see that a more all-round player like Spassky often played the Ruy Lopez, and that Karpov, who preferred closed positions and positional struggles, often played the Caro-Kann.

In general, though, even the attacking masters have to first equalize as black, then attack. If you get reckless you might fluster some opponents, especially in blitz, but you will also often be severely punished! Seeing how the attacking masters make that transition and go on the offensive is crucial if you want your attacks to really mean something and not just be superficially menacing-looking.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Sicilian Najdorf or dragon, if you like sharp theoretical lines. Otherwise, Such stonewall for counter offensive attacks.

Also, don't forget the French, as it can easily transition into A Dutch-like position with f5 or even h5 early on.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, attack
---


# Question
Title: Is there a way to automatically download KnightVision games from a chess blog?
Taking as an example, this blog: http://wellingtonchess2012.blogspot.com/.

I can download the games manually by going to each game, clicking on "KVChess V2.31" in the bottom left corner, which then directs me to a link like this, after which I can copy-paste the PGN. However, it's very tedious to need do this game by game.

Is there some automatic way to accomplish the same goal of extracting the games?

# Answer
> 2 votes
you can do it in next way: open browser console (I tested it under google Chrome) and past next line:

```
document.getElementsByName("flashvars")

```

Then press Enter and you'll see something like this:

```
[<param name="flashvars" value="orientation=H&tabmode=false&light=f4f4fF&dark=0072b9&bordertext=494949&headerforeground=ffffff&mtforeground=000000&mtvariations=FF0000&mtmainline=000000&mtbackground=ffffff&pgndata=[Event "Club championship 2014"] [Site "Wellington Chess Club"] [Date "2014.12.11"] [Round "?"] [White "Michael Sole"] [Black "Aran Mol"] [Result "0-1"]  1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 5. d4 Bg4 6. Bb5 O-O-O 7. Bxc6 bxc6 8. O-O Qh5 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Qxf3 11. gxf3 Nf6 12. Be3 a6 13. Ne4 e6 14. c4 h6 15. Rac1 Nd7 16. c5 f5 17. Nc3 g5 18. Rfe1 Bg7 19. Rcd1 e5 20. Ne2 f4 21. Bc1 exd4 22. Nxd4 Bxd4 23. Rxd4 Nxc5 24. Rc4 Nd3 25. Re6 Rhe8 26. Rexc6 Re1%2B 27. Kg2 Rd7 28. Rc2 Nb4 29. Bd2 Nxc2 30. Bxe1 Nxe1%2B 31. Kf1 Kb7 32. Rxh6 Nxf3 33. Rh5 Nd2%2B 34. Ke2 Ne4 35. Kf3 Re7 36. h4 Nd2%2B 37. Kg4 gxh4 38. Rxh4 f3 39. Kg3 c5 40. Rh6 Re1 41. Kf4 Re2 42. Rd6 Rxf2 43. Kf5 Re2 44. Rd3 f2 0-1">, <param name="flashvars" value="orientation=H&tabmode=false&light=f4f4fF&dark=0072b9&bordertext=494949&headerforeground=ffffff&mtforeground=000000&mtvariations=FF0000&mtmainline=000000&mtbackground=ffffff&pgndata=[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2014.12.12"] [Round "?"] [White "Croad, Nic"] [Black "Nijman, Brian"] [Result "0-1"]  1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 c5 5. O-O Nf6 6. c4 cxd4 7. Qxd4 Bc5 8. Qf4 h6 9. Nc3 Nc6 10. b3 Ne7 11. Bb2 Ng6 12. Qd2 O-O 13. Rad1 Qe7 14. Qc1 Rac8 15. Na4 d5 (15... Bc6 { is safer} ) 16. Nxc5 bxc5 17. Rfe1 Rfd8 18. Ne5 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 Ne8 20. e3 dxc4 21. Bxb7 Qxb7 22. Qxc4 Rd5 23. Rxd5 exd5 24. Qg4 Rc6 25. Rd1 Re6 26. Bc3 Nf6 27. Qf5 (27. Bxf6 Rxf6 28. Qh5 Rd6 29. e4 g5 30. h4 d4 31. hxg5 Qxe4 32. gxh6 Rg6 33. h7%2B Kh8 34. Qxc5 Rxg3%2B 35. fxg3 Qe3%2B 36. Kg2 Qe2%2B 37. Kh3 Qxd1 38. Qf8%2B Kxh7 39. Qxf7%2B Kh8 $10) 27... d4 $2 {[right idea, wrong move order. It was better to play g7-g6 first]}  (27... g6 $1 28. Qd3 Ne4 29. Bb2 (29. Ba1 Kf8 $5 30. h4 Ra6 31. Qc2 g5 $5 32. f3 Qc7 33. fxe4 Qxg3%2B 34. Qg2 Qxe3%2B 35. Qf2 Qxf2%2B 36. Kxf2 dxe4 { unclear} ) 29... d4 30. exd4 c4 $1 31. Qc2 (31. Qxc4 $6 Nd2 32. Rxd2 Re1%2B 33. Qf1 Rxf1%2B 34. Kxf1 Qh1%2B 35. Ke2 Qe4%2B $10)  31... cxb3 32. axb3 (32. Qxb3 $4 Rb6) 32... Qd5 33. Bc1 a5 34. Qd3 (34. Bxh6 g5 35. Qc8%2B Kh7 36. Bf8 Qxb3) 34... Nd6 { and it is hard for White to make progress} ) 28. exd4 g6 29. Qf4 (29. Qc2 $16)  (29. Qd3 Rd6 30. Qe3 Kh7 31. d5 Rxd5 32. Rxd5 Nxd5 33. Qxc5 Nxc3 34. Qxc3) 29... Ne4 $6 (29... Qd5 { [White is only somewhat better]} ) 30. Bb2 $4 (30. Qf3 $1 Rf6 $4 31. dxc5 $3 Rxf3 32. Rd8%2B Kh7 33. Rh8#) 30... Ng5 31. dxc5 (31. d5 Nh3%2B 32. Kf1 Nxf4 33. dxe6 Nxe6)  31... Nh3%2B 32. Kf1 Qh1# 0-1">, <param name="flashvars" value="orientation=H&tabmode=false&light=f4f4fF&dark=0072b9&bordertext=494949&headerforeground=ffffff&mtforeground=000000&mtvariations=FF0000&mtmainline=000000&mtbackground=ffffff&pgndata=[Event "WCC"] [Site "WCC"] [Date "2014.11.29"] [Round "10"] [White "Nick Barr"] [Black "Michael Sole"] [Result "0-1"]  { I was playing Nick Barr and he played the Queen’s gambit. I was expecting this since this is what happened last game. The game finished at 11:45 and closely matched our last game. } 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 { Queen’s gambit declined main-line} 4. cxd5 exd5 { Exchange line} 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Qc2 h6 {First non-book move.    } 9. Bh4 b6 {This move helps prepare for c5 and Bb7. } 10. Nf3 c5 {This move challenges White’s centre. } 11. dxc5 Nxc5 {This is a nice outpost for the Knight. } 12. Be2 $6 {I feel that this move is not needed as the Bishop pair is not doing much here and that a developing move would be better. This move also gives up some pressure on the e4 square.      } (12. Rd1) 12... Bb7 { Putting more pressure on e4} 13. Nd4 { This is a nice place for his Knight and stays here for some time} 13... Rc8 { Grabbing the c file} 14. Qd1 $6 { Again I feel that this move is not needed as the Knight was protected by the b-pawn. This move could have been spent on castling }  (14. O-O) 14... Nfe4 {Getting a nice place for my knight and threatening NxNc3 and then after the recapture, Ne4 wins the c-pawn. The bishop is also under attack.  } 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 {I like this position for Black } 16. Rc1 {Stopping the loss of the c-pawn } 16... Nxc3 17. Rxc3 Ne4 {This gains the c-file for Black } 18. Rb3 {I thought about this move for around 10 minutes here deciding between Qg5 and Rc5} 18... Rc5 {I picked this move to wait for White to castle before moving the Queen as it is in a nice place to attack the Queenside   }  19. O-O Rfc8 {Further marking the c-file } 20. f3 $5 { This is the type of move I was waiting for as this weakens his king side and gives me a target to attack.} 20... Nd6 21. Ra3 { Attacking the a-pawn} 21... a6 {Setting a trap. }  22. Qd3 { This move gives me the very useful c4 square for my Knight}  (22. Bxa6 Bxa6 23. Rxa6 Qxe3%2B 24. Kh1 Rc1) 22... Nc4 23. Rb3 Re8 { Putting pressure on e3} 24. Nf5 $2 Qe6 $6 {This is not the best move to win the pawn Qf6 is better. }  (24... Qf6) 25. Kf2 $2 {This move does little to protect the pawn } 25... Bc8 { Attacking the Knight} 26. Nd4 $2 { This move loses the pawn.} 26... Qf6 27. Qd1 $2 { Losing more protection} 27... Qh4%2B 28. Kg1 {Losing the exchange} 28... Nxe3 29. Qe1 $4 { This loses the Knight} 29... Qxd4 30. Qf2 Nf5 $2 { While this move is winning Rc2 is better} 31. Rxb6 $4 { Re2 is fatal now} 31... Qxf2%2B $2 { Not taking the bishop}  (31... Rxe2) 32. Kxf2 $2 { giving the Bishop back} 32... Rc2 33. Re1 Nd4 34. Rb8 Rexe2%2B 35. Rxe2 Rxe2%2B 36. Kg3 { } 36... Re8 {Winning for Black } 37. b4 Nb5 38. a4 Nc3 39. b5 Bd7 40. Rb7 Bxb5 41. axb5 axb5 {Getting rid of the pawns} 42. Rb6 Rc8 43. Kf2 Re8 44. g4 Kf8 45. h4 Re2%2B 46. Kg3 Ke7 47. g5 hxg5 48. hxg5 Kd7 49. Kg4 Kc7 50. Ra6 Kd7 51. Kf5 g6%2B 52. Kf6 {I played the risky move of Re6%2B giving white promotion chances} 52... Re6%2B 53. Rxe6 fxe6 54. Kxg6 Ke7 $2 {I played this thinking that white would play Ka6 so my king could keep up} 55. Kh7 $1 { This move makes promotion a sure thing} 55... b4 56. g6 b3 57. g7 b2 58. g8=Q {He promotes first but I promote with check } 58... b1=Q%2B {Now I can swap Queens and queen my other pawns } 59. Qg6 { If the king moves then I can still swap}  (59. Kh6 Qh1%2B 60. Kg7 Qg1%2B) 59... Qxg6%2B 60. Kxg6 d4 61. f4 d3 62. f5 exf5 63. Kxf5 d2 { Black resigned here.} 0-1">

```

You can easy copy this. If you need you can make some performance on this text as well. If you need more help just let me know.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Everything after parameter pgndata is pgn data (obviously))). Simplest what you can do just copy information which you retrieved into text editor and organize. For example the line which I provide in the answer after organizing will look like: `[<param name="flashvars" value="orientation=H&tabmode=false&light=f4f4fF&dark=0072b9&bordertext=494949&headerforeground=ffffff&mtforeground=000000&mtvariations=FF0000&mtmainline=000000&mtbackground=ffffff&pgndata=
[Event "Club championship 2014”]
[Site "Wellington Chess Club”]
[Date "2014.12.11"] [Round "?”]
[White "Michael Sole”]
[Black "Aran Mol”]
[Result "0-1”]
1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 5. d4 Bg4 6. Bb5 O-O-O 7. Bxc6 bxc6 8. O-O Qh5 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Qxf3 11. gxf3 Nf6 12. Be3 a6 13. Ne4 e6 14. c4 h6 15. Rac1 Nd7 16. c5 f5 17. Nc3 g5 18. Rfe1 Bg7 19. Rcd1 e5 20. Ne2 f4 21. Bc1 exd4 22. Nxd4 Bxd4 23. Rxd4 Nxc5 24. Rc4 Nd3 25. Re6 Rhe8 26. Rexc6 Re1%2B 27. Kg2 Rd7 28. Rc2 Nb4 29. Bd2 Nxc2 30. Bxe1 Nxe1%2B 31. Kf1 Kb7 32. Rxh6 Nxf3 33. Rh5 Nd2%2B 34. Ke2 Ne4 35. Kf3 Re7 36. h4 Nd2%2B 37. Kg4 gxh4 38. Rxh4 f3 39. Kg3 c5 40. Rh6 Re1 41. Kf4 Re2 42. Rd6 Rxf2 43. Kf5 Re2 44. Rd3 f2 0-1">,
<param name="flashvars" value="orientation=H&tabmode=false&light=f4f4fF&dark=0072b9&bordertext=494949&headerforeground=ffffff&mtforeground=000000&mtvariations=FF0000&mtmainline=000000&mtbackground=ffffff&pgndata=
[Event "?”]
[Site "?”]
[Date "2014.12.12”]
[Round "?”]
[White "Croad, Nic”]
[Black "Nijman, Brian”]
[Result "0-1”]
1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 c5 5. O-O Nf6 6. c4 cxd4 7. Qxd4 Bc5 8. Qf4 h6 9. Nc3 Nc6 10. b3 Ne7 11. Bb2 Ng6 12. Qd2 O-O 13. Rad1 Qe7 14. Qc1 Rac8 15. Na4 d5 (15... Bc6 { is safer} ) 16. Nxc5 bxc5 17. Rfe1 Rfd8 18. Ne5 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 Ne8 20. e3 dxc4 21. Bxb7 Qxb7 22. Qxc4 Rd5 23. Rxd5 exd5 24. Qg4 Rc6 25. Rd1 Re6 26. Bc3 Nf6 27. Qf5 (27. Bxf6 Rxf6 28. Qh5 Rd6 29. e4 g5 30. h4 d4 31. hxg5 Qxe4 32. gxh6 Rg6 33. h7%2B Kh8 34. Qxc5 Rxg3%2B 35. fxg3 Qe3%2B 36. Kg2 Qe2%2B 37. Kh3 Qxd1 38. Qf8%2B Kxh7 39. Qxf7%2B Kh8 $10) 27... d4 $2 {[right idea, wrong move order. It was better to play g7-g6 first]} (27... g6 $1 28. Qd3 Ne4 29. Bb2 (29. Ba1 Kf8 $5 30. h4 Ra6 31. Qc2 g5 $5 32. f3 Qc7 33. fxe4 Qxg3%2B 34. Qg2 Qxe3%2B 35. Qf2 Qxf2%2B 36. Kxf2 dxe4 { unclear} ) 29... d4 30. exd4 c4 $1 31. Qc2 (31. Qxc4 $6 Nd2 32. Rxd2 Re1%2B 33. Qf1 Rxf1%2B 34. Kxf1 Qh1%2B 35. Ke2 Qe4%2B $10) 31... cxb3 32. axb3 (32. Qxb3 $4 Rb6) 32... Qd5 33. Bc1 a5 34. Qd3 (34. Bxh6 g5 35. Qc8%2B Kh7 36. Bf8 Qxb3) 34... Nd6 { and it is hard for White to make progress} ) 28. exd4 g6 29. Qf4 (29. Qc2 $16) (29. Qd3 Rd6 30. Qe3 Kh7 31. d5 Rxd5 32. Rxd5 Nxd5 33. Qxc5 Nxc3 34. Qxc3) 29... Ne4 $6 (29... Qd5 { [White is only somewhat better]} ) 30. Bb2 $4 (30. Qf3 $1 Rf6 $4 31. dxc5 $3 Rxf3 32. Rd8%2B Kh7 33. Rh8#) 30... Ng5 31. dxc5 (31. d5 Nh3%2B 32. Kf1 Nxf4 33. dxe6 Nxe6) 31... Nh3%2B 32. Kf1 Qh1# 0-1">,
<param name="flashvars" value="orientation=H&tabmode=false&light=f4f4fF&dark=0072b9&bordertext=494949&headerforeground=ffffff&mtforeground=000000&mtvariations=FF0000&mtmainline=000000&mtbackground=ffffff&pgndata=
[Event "WCC”]
[Site "WCC”]
[Date "2014.11.29”]
[Round "10”]
[White "Nick Barr”]
[Black "Michael Sole”]
[Result "0-1”]
{ I was playing Nick Barr and he played the Queen’s gambit. I was expecting this since this is what happened last game. The game finished at 11:45 and closely matched our last game. } 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 { Queen’s gambit declined main-line} 4. cxd5 exd5 { Exchange line} 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Qc2 h6 {First non-book move. } 9. Bh4 b6 {This move helps prepare for c5 and Bb7. } 10. Nf3 c5 {This move challenges White’s centre. } 11. dxc5 Nxc5 {This is a nice outpost for the Knight. } 12. Be2 $6 {I feel that this move is not needed as the Bishop pair is not doing much here and that a developing move would be better. This move also gives up some pressure on the e4 square. } (12. Rd1) 12... Bb7 { Putting more pressure on e4} 13. Nd4 { This is a nice place for his Knight and stays here for some time} 13... Rc8 { Grabbing the c file} 14. Qd1 $6 { Again I feel that this move is not needed as the Knight was protected by the b-pawn. This move could have been spent on castling } (14. O-O) 14... Nfe4 {Getting a nice place for my knight and threatening NxNc3 and then after the recapture, Ne4 wins the c-pawn. The bishop is also under attack. } 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 {I like this position for Black } 16. Rc1 {Stopping the loss of the c-pawn } 16... Nxc3 17. Rxc3 Ne4 {This gains the c-file for Black } 18. Rb3 {I thought about this move for around 10 minutes here deciding between Qg5 and Rc5} 18... Rc5 {I picked this move to wait for White to castle before moving the Queen as it is in a nice place to attack the Queenside } 19. O-O Rfc8 {Further marking the c-file } 20. f3 $5 { This is the type of move I was waiting for as this weakens his king side and gives me a target to attack.} 20... Nd6 21. Ra3 { Attacking the a-pawn} 21... a6 {Setting a trap. } 22. Qd3 { This move gives me the very useful c4 square for my Knight} (22. Bxa6 Bxa6 23. Rxa6 Qxe3%2B 24. Kh1 Rc1) 22... Nc4 23. Rb3 Re8 { Putting pressure on e3} 24. Nf5 $2 Qe6 $6 {This is not the best move to win the pawn Qf6 is better. } (24... Qf6) 25. Kf2 $2 {This move does little to protect the pawn } 25... Bc8 { Attacking the Knight} 26. Nd4 $2 { This move loses the pawn.} 26... Qf6 27. Qd1 $2 { Losing more protection} 27... Qh4%2B 28. Kg1 {Losing the exchange} 28... Nxe3 29. Qe1 $4 { This loses the Knight} 29... Qxd4 30. Qf2 Nf5 $2 { While this move is winning Rc2 is better} 31. Rxb6 $4 { Re2 is fatal now} 31... Qxf2%2B $2 { Not taking the bishop} (31... Rxe2) 32. Kxf2 $2 { giving the Bishop back} 32... Rc2 33. Re1 Nd4 34. Rb8 Rexe2%2B 35. Rxe2 Rxe2%2B 36. Kg3 { } 36... Re8 {Winning for Black } 37. b4 Nb5 38. a4 Nc3 39. b5 Bd7 40. Rb7 Bxb5 41. axb5 axb5 {Getting rid of the pawns} 42. Rb6 Rc8 43. Kf2 Re8 44. g4 Kf8 45. h4 Re2%2B 46. Kg3 Ke7 47. g5 hxg5 48. hxg5 Kd7 49. Kg4 Kc7 50. Ra6 Kd7 51. Kf5 g6%2B 52. Kf6 {I played the risky move of Re6%2B giving white promotion chances} 52... Re6%2B 53. Rxe6 fxe6 54. Kxg6 Ke7 $2 {I played this thinking that white would play Ka6 so my king could keep up} 55. Kh7 $1 { This move makes promotion a sure thing} 55... b4 56. g6 b3 57. g7 b2 58. g8=Q {He promotes first but I promote with check } 58... b1=Q%2B {Now I can swap Queens and queen my other pawns } 59. Qg6 { If the king moves then I can still swap} (59. Kh6 Qh1%2B 60. Kg7 Qg1%2B) 59... Qxg6%2B 60. Kxg6 d4 61. f4 d3 62. f5 exf5 63. Kxf5 d2 { Black resigned here.} 0-1">`

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: How would you figure out someone's Elo rating from a single game of chess?
I'm basically fishing for suggestions here... there is an AI contest to figure out a person's rating from a single game. The contest's description mentions Ken Regan's approach that makes use of engine evaluations of players' moves (and the contest's accompanying game data is pre-equipped with engine evaluations for such use). What other kinds of factors do you believe would be useful for such a task?

I could imagine things like:

1. Ability to follow recent opening theory (for strong players)
2. Total number of blunders (for weak players)
3. At what point in the game did resignation occur? (for strong players, it often evaluates to numbers closer to a draw than for weak players)
4. Average depth of tactical traps avoided

Other ideas?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I also try to take part in that competition, although I'm not sure I will be able to spare the time and computational effort to actually make a submission.

Unfortunately I think the Kaggle data set of engine evaluations isn't suitable to get the best possible result. I think it is crucial to not only have the evaluation of the best move, but also of the inferior choices. The reason is that you need to calculate some kind of measure of the complexity of the position to weight the accuracy shown by the players.

In short: It is hard to be accurate in a complex position and easy to be accurate in a simple position.

Another problem is that at a runtime of one second per move, stockfish probably isn't much stronger than the average player in the dataset (which would be around 2200 Elo) …

So to create a decent dataset one would have to invest a lot of cpu-hours. 50000 games x 40 moves x 1second (or more) \>= 555 hours.

To create an opening tree that allows you to see when the players deviate from already played games and how strong the players of the played games were, is another idea to give an initial guess of the players strength.

So my rough outline is to create an opening tree to get an initial guess of the strength, ignore the moves played in the opening, weight the accuracy of the moves after the opening phase with the complexity of the position and do some kind of linear regression analysis. Maybe look out not to overvalue time trouble blunders.

I think the key is to get a good "complexity number". The other possibilities you mention … "number of blunders" just reduces "accuracy of play" to something similar with less information. "Depth of tactical traps avoided" is tricky and may computationally be even more expensive.

---
Tags: elo
---


# Question
Title: What would happen if multiple GMs played on both sides of a chess match?
Imagine a situation where a team of top Grandmasters would face another team of top Grandmasters over a single chess board and play a series of games. Would the games always end in a draw? Would having a team instead of an individual player eliminate errors or would (other) errors inevitably arise?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think that the draw rate does not have to be higher than games between individual Grandmasters. In a team versus team game, a small mistake will be severely punished. Most probably, grabbing the initiative will become more or less decisive. The opening battle will be very interesting and shape the rest of the game in a decisive manner. The type of positions that will arise in the games will depend to the team composition (the playing style of the players in each team). A team with players that prefer sharp and complex middlegames will probably have good chances to win the match. Adding a time control to the mix will make sure that a draw will not be a simple task for either team.

The probability of making a mistake will become lower. At the same time, the probability of noticing a mistake made by the opponent team will become higher. The ability to keep an initiative will increase. The ability to win endgames with a small advantage will increase. At the same time, having a time control will have an important effect. Also the exact rules will have an important effect, concerning the use of helping materials (books and engines). If using books and engines will be forbidden, the risk of making mistakes or becoming surprised in the opening will increase. It would be very exciting to see such a game with the normal time controls (90 min / 40 moves, 30 min / the rest of the game with a 30 second increment / move). The teams would have to show an excellent ability to communicate efficiently and make solid decisions at short time intervals. Probably they would not be allowed to have a demo board and would have to discuss the position in their heads. This should also increase the risk of making mistakes. All in all, longer time controls =\> less mistakes and higher quality of play.

# Answer
> 1 votes
These kind of games are called "consultation matches" and, although rare today, used to be much more common. The teams usually consisted of just two players each for the obvious reasons. Getting agreement between more and more players becomes more and more difficult.

Between 1958 and 1964 the BBC had a weekly chess programme on the radio which featured several of these matches. The tapes of the programmes have long been overwritten with other programmes but some of the programmes were written up in a book by Terence Tiller called "Chess Treasury of the Air".

Here are some of the results -

Alexander & Golombek 0 - 1 Clarke & Penrose

Bisguier & Penrose 0 - 1 Golombek & Gligoric

Fischer & Barden 0.5 - 0.5 Penrose & Clarke (adjudicated by Euwe as they ran out of time - 8 hours!)

Gligoric & Penrose 0 - 1 Tal & Golombek

So, not many draws there, although the main aim was probably entertainment for the listening audience.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It mostly depends on time limit. If you give them opportunity to take a lot of time for thinking, it would be a draw. If you give both sides standard time control (2 hours for each side), the result would be unpredictable, because discussions between GMs may take a lot of time.

---
Tags: learning, analysis, software
---


# Question
Title: Experiences with the Steiner Variation 1.e4 e6 2.c4!? in French?
How sound is `1.e4 e6 2.c4!?`, the Steiner Variation in the French Defense, and would you actually recommend it? Does it work well in normal games, or is it more a surprise weapon for blitz?

# Answer
> 8 votes
It's undoubtedly sound in the sense that it does not by force lead to any sort of catastrophic disadvantage for White, but it offers very little if any objective possibility of obtaining a theoretical edge.

If you're specifically trying to reach an IQP position, it's probably preferable to play the Exchange Variation and only then follow up with `c4`, since Black has other reasonable options against `c4` on move two besides an immediate `d5` thrust. `2... c5`, for example, can reach positions similar to those found in the Sicilian (i.e., various Maroczy Bind structures that crop up against the Kan, Taimanov, or Accelerated Dragon variations) and English Opening Hedgehog systems. That said, an immediate `d5` seems to be the most popular response, and it's probably what one would typically expect from a French player (and what I would likely play myself).

It's certainly a viable way to play if you enjoy IQP positions and you want to avoid the well-trodden paths of main-line theory. It shouldn't lead to any advantage against correct play, however.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Against 1. e4 e6 2. c4, I'd play 2...e5.

Yes, this moves the e pawn a second time, but White has weakened his black squares and created a "hole" on d4 with the pawn move to c4. It can't be moved back to c3, where it would have formed part of a pawn chain.

If White now plays d4 to repair his pawn position, capture the pawn from e5, then chase the queen with Nc6 when it recaptures.

# Answer
> -3 votes
Я сам играю правильно 2.d5 ed 3.ed a)cd5 +0.22 b)d4 +0.06

cxd5

4 Qd5 5 Nc3 Qa5 6.d4 Nf6 7.Nf3 Be6 4 Nf6 5 Bb5+! Bd7 6.Qe2 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Nc3

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


# Question
Title: Are modern chess programs tactically perfect?
In a given situation, can we assume that a chess engine is tactically perfect - meaning that it can find all possible tactics which are there in that position. Is it possible for the best of modern chess engines to miss a tactic in a given position? Has this ever been observed in any recent game?

EDIT: @Henry Keiter: For the purpose of this question, I would define tactic as a combination or sequence of moves which wins material(if playing the winning side), or a combination or sequence of moves which defends a difficult position successfully (meaning preventing a loss of material which seems imminent). I know that the general definition is broader but for the purpose of this question the meaning can be taken as defined above.

EDIT 2: The reason I am asking this question is I am actually curious if a chess engine really does find all the possible tactics in a given position, or if it just manages to find many more tactics than a human being would find.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The quality and depth of an engine's calculation depends on the

1. Performance of the machine the engine is running on
2. Quality of its algorithms in terms of calculation and performance
3. Time span allowed for calculating the position

It is generally considered that tactics (i.e. combinations that lead to winning material or delivering checkmate) are the engines' speciality. There is a double difficulty of calculating variations. First, to find the best sequence of moves for both sides. Second, to evaluate the final positions after the combination is completed. Todays state of the art engines are excellent at both. I would say that

> Todays best engines will not miss a single tactic.

Most probably, there are "tactical benchmark data sets" of positions that engines constantly are tested against. I don't recall any cases where engines missed tactics. But by going through the game databases, especially from engine versus engine tournaments, there should be examples of one engine calculating better than its opponent engine.

# Answer
> 2 votes
In objective terms, the game of chess is nothing but tactics. So the question of tactically perfect play is just the question of optimal play. *Given sufficient time for any given position*, then yes, any competently-built engine would indeed be tactically perfect, because it could search the entire game tree from the position and play optimally.

But here's the thing: in general, the problem of determining optimal play is computationally unfeasible, so we don't even have a way to determine in general whether a tactic has been missed or not. **For all we know, `1.a3` from the start position is the only winning move in a mate-in-80 tactics puzzle.** If that is the case, then any time an engine chooses to play another move it is missing a tactic. We have no way to prove that isn't the case.

# Answer
> 0 votes
No.

In the game 0s and Xs the best move is obvious and unique (if you rotate the board you'll find that the positions all have rotational symmetry, so for example if the first move is a corner (centre FTW BTW!) you may say "there are 4 moves", but really there is only one as is you rotate the board... )

This lets you define the idea of a perfect move, of which chess has no obvious candidate. Which is why it is not known if chess is a fair game (that is no advantage is given to the player who moves first), despite being perfect (no non-deterministic elements, and full knowledge of positions).

What are the first moves chosen (White), by brute force chess engines? my answer here mentions this WRT openings

Is there a chess engine that does NOT use brute-force search? bit more about how they work and think - pertaining to tactics.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> Is it possible for the **best** of modern chess engines to miss a tactic in a given position?

This question boils down to

> Is it possible for the best of modern chess engines to have a bug in their calculation or evaluation module?

Technically, yes. Sometimes, there are bugs which are extremely hard to detect unless they first occur and are caught. But it seems rather **unlikely** that such bugs will exist in the **best** engines which I am sure go through extremely thorough testing; that's one of the reasons why they are the best! :)

# Answer
> 0 votes
One of the most famous computer mistakes was in game 2 of the 1997 rematch between Deep Blue and Kasparov. Deep Blue won that game, but it made a mistake which should have allowed Kasparov to force a draw.

> This is possible because Deep Blue moved 44.Kf1 instead of an alternate move of its king. Regarding the end of game 2 and 44.Kf1 in particular, chess journalist Mig Greengard in the Game Over film states, "It turns out, that the position in, here at the end is actually a draw, and that, one of Deep Blue's final moves was a terrible error, because Deep Blue has two choices here. It can move its king here or move its king over here. It picked the wrong place to step." Another in that film, four-time US champion Yasser Seirawan, then concludes that, "The computer had left its king a little un-defended. And Garry could have threatened a perpetual check, not a win but a perpetual check."

Whether or not you consider Deep Blue from 1997 "modern" is your call.

Here's some kibitzing about that game.

---
Tags: engines, tactics, statistics, calculation
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find databases of tactical problems, categorized and ranked by difficulty?
I'm toying with the idea of building a tactical training tool. For my idea to work, I need positions that are categorized by motif and difficulty.

A lot of tools seem to have this, and I doubt they're all building up thousands of positions by hand. So there must be databases out there, available for use (free or commercial are both okay), and probably already tagged. Any idea where to start looking?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This kind of thing isn't done by hand, but by computer programs. It is not too difficult to run some program on a game database and extract all positions suitable for a tactical exercise. Sorting them by difficulty will be done over time, when statistics accumulate how often they are solved correctly.

Of course there are tactical exercise positions out there, but I don't know any that are already sorted by motif or difficulty. This is a site with 10,000 tactical positions (surely mined by a computer):

http://www.wtharvey.com

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is one, http://dejascacchi.altervista.org/exercises.htm Thus are from real games.

Also the online chess site, chesstempo.com, has problems with an elo rating (calculated as an accumulated result of the success rate of solving by other players of the same site, and it has rankings too). Also has endings problems. All problems seem to be computer generated (for analysis of games).

Also the now death spaniard magazine, "Ocho x Ocho" (from 80s - 90s) had in each number problems classified by 5 levels (Google "ocho x ocho revista de ajedrez").

The books from Franc Loheac Ammoun, available in several languages, for example http://www.amazon.fr/Testez-vous-aux-%C3%A9checs-Frank-Loh%C3%A9ac-Ammoun/dp/2501014006 or http://www.amazon.com/Compruebe-Nivel-Ajedrez-Desarrolle-Razonamiento/dp/8480192410/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421005140&sr=8-2&keywords=Frank-Loh%C3%A9ac-Ammoun%2F Put you to solve tactical problems and then calculates your rating.

There are other I forgot, will update it here as I remember...

---
Tags: tactics, training, database, programming
---


title: About stalemates and how to cause one

text:
# Question
Title: About stalemates and how to cause one
Are their possible positions where the 'white' side is losing but the person is in a situation where they can force a stalemate? Are there chess positions one can 'look out for' to enable one to force a stalemate if 'needed'?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, and it is not even a particularly rare occurrence.

Whenever you notice (in a bad position) that there are hardly any legal moves left to you, you can try to find a way to sacrifice your last mobile pieces. A frequent motive is the "untouchable rook", where the last mobile piece, a rook, keeps checking the enemy king. And if it is taken, the result is a stalemate.

Here is a recent example, played between two engines:

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bg4 6. e4 Bxf3
7. gxf3 e6 8. Rg1 Qc7 9. e5 Nd5 10. Bxc4 Nb6 11. Bb3 a5
12. Be3 Na6 13. Qe2 O-O-O 14. O-O-O g6 15. Kb1 Kb8 16. Ne4 Be7
17. Bh6 Rd7 18. Nd6 Bxd6 19. exd6 Rxd6 20. Bf4 Nc8 21. Qe5
Rhd8 22. Qg7 h5 23. Rc1 Nb4 24. Bg3 b6 25. Rcd1 Kb7 26. Be5
R8d7 27. f4 Qd8 28. f5 exf5 29. Bxd6 Nxd6 30. f3 f4 31. Qe5
Nf5 32. Qxf4 Nxd4 33. Bc4 Ka7 34. h4 c5 35. Rge1 Rb7 36. Rc1
f6 37. Rc3 g5 38. hxg5 fxg5 39. Qe5 Rd7 40. Qe4 h4 41. Qg4 Re7
42. Re4 Qe8 43. Rce3 Rxe4 44. Rxe4 Qxa4 45. Re7+ Kb8 46. Bb3
Nxb3 47. Qf4+ gxf4 48. Rb7+ Kc8 49. Rc7+ Kd8 50. Rd7+ Ke8
51. Re7+ Kf8 52. Rf7+ Kg8 1/2-1/2

```

And here a more human example: Black ditches his last four pieces ...

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5
Bxc3 8.bxc3 Qe7 9.Re1 Nd8 10.d4 h6 11.Bc1 a6 12.Bd3 Bg4 13.h3
Bd7 14.a4 a5 15.Nh4 Nc6 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Qd7 18.g4 exd4
19.cxd4 Nxd4 20.Bb2 c5 21.Bxd4 cxd4 22.Bb5 Qc7 23.Qxd4 d5
24.Re2 Rad8 25.Rae1 Rd6 26.Re7 Qxc2 27.Rxb7 Ne4 28.Re2 Qc1+
29.Kg2 Qc8 30.Re7 Qd8 31.Qa7 Nf6 32.Rc7 d4 33.Ree7 d3 34.Rxf7
Rxf7 35.Rxf7 d2 36.Rxg7+ Kh8 37.Be2 d1=Q 38.Bxd1 Rxd1 39.Rg6
Qd5+ 40.Kg3 Rd3+ 41.Kh4 Rxh3+ 42.Kxh3 Qh1+ 43.Kg3 Nh5+ 44.gxh5
Qf3+ 45.Kh2 Qg2+ 46.Kxg2 1/2-1/2

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well, if the player can force stalemate, then he isn't lost. So the strict answer is no :-)

There are many elementary endgames where a successful defence is possible only because of stalemate, like king + pawn vs pawn:

```
[FEN "8/3k4/8/2KP4/8/8/8/8 b KQkq - 0 1"]

1...Kc7! 2.d6+ Kd7 3.Kd5 Kd8 4.Kc6 Kc8 5.d7+ Kd8 Kd6 =

```

or king + queen vs king + pawn with the pawn on the c file:

```
[FEN "7K/8/6Q1/8/8/8/2p5/1k6 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Kg7 Kb2 2.Qb6+ Ka1 3.Qc5 Kb1 4.Qb4+ Ka1 5.Qc3 Kb1 6.Qb3+ Ka1!

```

and if white takes the pawn now, it's stalemate, so he can't progress.

---
Tags: stalemate, forced-move
---


# Question
Title: Question about knight vs. 3 pawns endgame
In the following puzzle, 5. Kb6 is considered better than 5. Kc7. Doesn't Kc7 force Black to sacrifice his knight (sooner)?

```
[FEN "8/3n4/8/1P3k2/1P6/4K2P/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nb6 2. Kd4 Ke6 3. Kc5 Nd7+ 4. Kc6 Ne5+ 5. Kb6 Nd3 6. Ka5 Kd7 7. h4 Nf4 8.
Ka6 Nd5 9. h5 Nxb4+ 10. Ka5 Nd5 11. h6 Nf6 12. Ka6 Kc7 13. Ka7

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
After 5. Kc7 it is a draw, e.g

```
[FEN "8/3n4/8/1P3k2/1P6/4K2P/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nb6 2. Kd4 Ke6 3. Kc5 Nd7+ 4. Kc6 Ne5+ 5. Kc7 Nd3 6. b6 Nb4

```

---
Tags: endgame, puzzles, knight-endgame, passed-pawn
---


# Question
Title: What are the hardest pawnless endgames that go over the 50-move rule?
I know two pawnless endgames that go over the 50-move rule.

King and 2 Bishops vs. King and Knight = 70 moves average.

King, Rook and Bishop vs. King and 2 Knights = 200 move average.

What others are there?

# Answer
According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnless\_chess\_endgame, section "Endgames requiring more than 100 moves to win", the longest is

R+N vs N+N = 243 moves with 78% of winning chances.

R+B vs N+N = 223 moves with 96% of winning chances.

R+N vs B+N = 190 moves with 72% winning chances.

and the list goes on...

Another way is looking at the database of mutual zugzwangs at http://chess.jaet.org/cgi-bin/mzugs?sort=wmaxdtm sorted by maxdtm (depth to conversion or mate).

John Nunn's book "Secrets of pawnless endgames" (I love that book) in the 2nd editions expands coverage to some of the endings mentioned (although very briefly).
> 3 votes

# Answer
If you mean "hardest" == "longest": There are 7-man table bases available and it is said that the longest pawnless ending takes 549 moves. It is KQB vs. KRBN.

Resources: http://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM\_eng

And in case you are too lazy to go through the moves by yourself :-): http://tb7.chessok.com/probe/745/61

I think that is what is known today. I would not be surprised if even longer pawnless endings exists with 8 pieces on the board.
> 9 votes

---
Tags: endgame, 50-move-rule
---


# Question
Title: Best strategy for analyzing chess games played by a kid
I am looking for ideas on how to have my 9 year old son analyze his chess games. Is there a software that he could use? He may not want to analyze the already played games on a chess board by himself.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Beyond the fact that it's easier to go backwards and forwards through a game and try out variations on a computer than on a physical board (it remembers where the pieces were), software probably isn't very relevant because it's usually rather hard to interpret what the software is saying. Often it will highlight tactical blunders, which is fine: you look at the moves it gives you and you see that you could have won a knight or your opponent could have taken your rook.

However, computers are very poor at giving strategic guidance, which is what most beginners really need. Avoiding gross tactical blunders is mostly just a matter of practice (and, OK, it's plenty enough to win most games against other nine-year-olds). But, to get any farther, it's not enough just to play aimlessly but without blunders.

If you're an OK player yourself, you can probably offer much more to your son than any computer could. If you don't feel that you're a good enough player to teach anything much to your son, I'd say that your best options are to either both learn together (your greater intellectual maturity will help you structure things and choose what to do next; his greater ability to soak up everything like a sponge will help to push you both) or to enroll him in a chess club where somebody more experienced can take on that teaching role. If he's really keen, you could even hire a coach for him.

---

Thanks to JiK for a helpful comment that was edited into this answer.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You could ask him to write down his thought process for every move. If you checked books like the "zurich international chess tournament 1953" by david bronstein, you'll realize that analysis doesn't always have to be bunchy long vague variations. Simple sentences might just make sense too.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Yes, there are many softwares which do the analysis (also termed annotation) of chess games using chess engines. Some free software for Windows are:

Scid Vs PC

Arena

Commercial software:

Chessbase

There are numerous other softwares both free and commercial for specific platforms like Mac, Android, iPhone etc.,

Typically after your son plays the game, the game needs to be entered into the chess software as a new game. If he plays the game online, then you could use the PGN file for this purpose. The software (using the chess engine), can point out the evaluation of each move (whether its good or bad), by means of a simple scoring scheme (positive scores indicate good for white, negative indicate good for black). The GUI also point out or flags bad moves for consideration. Typically, analyzing games with the software is for finding tactical mistakes, blunder checks, ideas in specific positions and opening preparation. For a clear understanding of why a particular move was chosen as best in a position, would involve understanding positional concepts. This can be gained by acquiring knowledge through self-study or through a coach.

If software isn't working out well, you could submit the games played to a strong player or coach for his/her inputs. This facility is available online on many internet chess sites.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Chess opening and chess master to look up to
I'm lazy doing long calculations for each chess move though I like the open-line games which of course would require longer calculations than the closed ones which target simplification.

Can you direct me to chess openings that won't require me to do long calculations but would give me an open game? Can you also note some grand masters which are not that of a genius but like to play the open line games?

# Answer
This is kind of a weird question because, as you rightly note, open games usually are more tactical and sharper than closed games. But it is possible to play 1.e4, and by extension the open games, in a quieter and more positional manner than is usually done.

The most famous proponent of this way of playing is Anatoly Karpov, who played 1.e4 throughout his life and is nevertheless regarded as a very positional player.

But the player I would recommend you study is a different one: I have always found that, of all world class players nowadays, **Mickey Adams** is the most instructive to follow. Like Karpov he is a 1.e4 player and something of a positional genius. Unlike Karpov he doesn't rely on a team of seconds to get him to the forefront of theory, so I have always found him to play more "ordinary" positions. If you look at his games you can usually easily imagine getting this kind of position in your own games (unlike some super sharp 30-move theory battle other players indulge in).

Generally regarding openings this would mean playing the Ruy Lopez against 1…e5, the Tarrasch against 1…e6 and either the Rossolimo or some short castles + a4 + f4 against the sicilian. Against 1.e4 you would play e5. And against 1.d4 I think Adams usually plays the Nimzo, though that might be outside the scope of this question aka open positions.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: What was Verdoni's first name?

text:
# Question
Title: What was Verdoni's first name?
Did you know that Verdoni was known to be a chess champion in the 19th century, but what was his first name?

# Answer
To expand BKFM's comment, this article says:

> Verdoni, dessen Vorname und Geburtsjahr unbekannt sind, soll italienischer Herkunft gewesen sein. Sein schachliches Wirken vollzog sich in Paris und später in London.

This translates loosely as " Verdoni, whose first name and date of birth are unknown, was of Italian stock. His chess career was in Paris and later London."
> 2 votes

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