# Question
Title: How did the engines improve since Deep Blue?
Computer chess engines have gotten better since Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997.

Did the algorithms get better, or were the improvements mostly due to the same algorithms running faster thanks to faster hardware, etc.?

If the former, are these algorithmic improvements public?

And if so, what were the improvements? Where can I read about them?

# Answer
> 10 votes
Maybe you can take a look at TalkChess, a forum dedicated to computer chess. I found a recent thread that might be interesting for you: Progress in 30 years by four intervals of 7-8 years

A couple of matches between (former) top engines are played on the *same hardware*. The test suggests that in the recent years (2002-2017), the gain is mainly made by software improvements. In the test, Stockfish (2017) scored an impressive 94/100 against RobboLito (2009), while RobboLito, on its turn, crushed Shredder (2002) with 92/100.

An important remark: as parallel computing is not implemented in the older engines, the test was performed on a single core. As a result, the hardware gain by parallel machines is not measured. On the other hand, you could argue that parallel computing is also a software gain: it is not easy to design and implement an efficient and well-scaling parallelization for the search algorithm.

The Stockfish engine is open source, so the algorithmic improvements are public. A lot of documentation can be found on https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com

# Answer
> 3 votes
I can't speak for the algorithm used for Deep Blue, but I'm going to try and explain the improvements in chess programming. Speed is the greatest improvement. Deep Blue used multi-processor dedicated computers, so a comparison isn't really possible.

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ is a great source, but it's hard to navigate.

There are 3 main functions that are tweaked to improve a chess engine are the evaluation, move generation, and search functions.

Evaluation is the hardest to program, as there are many exceptions to the rules. With hard drive space getting cheaper, the eval function allows for more exceptions to be evaluated.

Move generation, along with making and unmaking a move, consumes a lot of memory because it has to be preformed so many times. The most common generation functions are mailbox, bitboard, 0x88, 8x8, extended boards (10x10, 10x12), and a predetermined move array/table (\*I use an indexed move table). Current opinion is that bitboards are the faster, and using magic bitboards speed this by up to 30%. Dr. Robert Hyatt, professor and creator of cratfy chess engine, claims no significant speed increase.

The early search function was the primitive min-max functions. Basically were you try to maximize the score of the side to move and minimize the opponent's score. Alpha-Beta was the first improvement. They reduced the number of moves being searched by transposition table, cut-off values, aspiration windows, and history heuristics. These are depth-first searches. There is also the internal iterative deepening search which tries to search the "best" move(s) the deepest hoping that searching other moves will prove to be fruitless.

NOTE: My index table. GNUChess and Jester both use an index array to generate their moves. They initialize the engine by filling array with possible moves. The take the six pieces and compute the legal moves that are available from each square. So each piece had a \[64\]\[8\] array. I took this idea and compressed it to two indexes and a table. The table holds a value which tells if the 16 moves are possible, one index holds the offset of the move, and the other holds the mask.

offset\[\] = {-8, -1, 1, 8, -9, -7, 7, 9, -17, -15, -10, -6, 6, 10, 15, 17};

mask\[\] = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...};

Then the generation of a sliding move is as easy as looking up the validity of it's mask in it's allowable offsets against the move table.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> Did the algorithms get better?

Obviously, yes a little bit.

> or were the improvements mostly due to the same algorithms running faster thanks to faster hardware and software?

Minor nit: If the algorithms got better then that is the software getting better so there is no "or".

Moore's Law tells us that processor speed will double roughly every 18 months. That means it has doubled roughly 13 times in 20 years. That makes modern processors somewhere in the region of 8,000 times faster. So, far and away the biggest improvement in engine performance is due to faster hardware.

> If the former, are these algorithmic improvements public?
>
> And if so, what were the improvements? Where can I read about them?

Well, it wasn't the former, it was the latter. Nevertheless the improvements are mostly open source and freely visible by downloading the sources for engines like Stockfish. Perhaps also worth giving the general Stockfish download link since the specific source code link will likely expire when version 9 comes out.

# Answer
> 0 votes
It's all about algorithms.

> Taking on a human chess player took one of the most powerful computers in the world at the time. This brute force computing approach allowed Deep Blue to look around six to eight moves ahead. In a closely-fought contest, the machine eventually defeated Kasparov by 3 1/2 games to 2 1/2.
>
> Six years later, Kasparov was involved in another contest of man versus machine. This time he played against Deep Blue’s successor, Deep Junior. The result was a drawn series at three games all. The biggest difference was that Deep Junior ran on a machine with about one per cent of the computing power of Deep Blue. Chess-playing algorithms had improved to the point of achieving virtually the same result with a hundred times less computing power.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Disclaimer: not an expert.

The algorithms got better, and today's best engines running on 1995 (remember Deep Blue was 1999) hardware will handily beat Kasparov. As I understand it, there are two aspects of algorithms:

**Search**. If for example I take your queen with my queen, a human opponent will automatically look first at recapturing. For a computer however, it will evaluate every possible response to QxQ. Almost all of the time, this is wasted processing power. A good search algorithm cuts down all these "branches" since they're irrelevant anyway.

The standard search algorithm is alpha-beta pruning, and it was used in the earliest chess computers. I don't know if Deep Blue used alpha-beta pruning, but modern engines don't. As a result their searches are "unsafe" - they can miss, for example, that some move other than recapturing the queen would've won the game. However, it's rare that this happens, and in return they push their depths very high. ("Depth" is a technical term for how deep the engine searches, so e.g. an engine that searches to depth 30 is likely to beat one that only searches to depth 20, all other things being equal).

**Evaluation**. This is the other prong of engine code. Given a particular position, is it better for white, black, or equal? This can involve all sorts of functions, e.g.

* If one side has extra material/space, give it a bonus to eval.
* If white has an advanced knight supported by a pawn, give white a bonus to eval.
* If black's king is stalemated, give white a bonus to eval.
* If white has a rook on the 7th rank, give white a bonus to eval.
* If it's an endgame (and there are algorithms to decide whether the position is an endgame) and both sides have opposite color bishops, impose a penalty to eval (i.e. push it towards 0.00).

Today's engines evaluate positions much better than Deep Blue.

As for whether the algorithms are public, Stockfish is currently the world's strongest engine and it's open source. You can download the code yourself from Github.

---
Tags: engines, programming, computer-chess, chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: What is the simplest method to win Queen vs Knight endgame?
What method requires the least amount of memorisation (doesn't have to be shortest path to victory) for the queen vs knight ending?

I have looked at tablebases but the moves are somewhat bizarre and it would be nice to have some simple logic to follow (even if it takes a few more moves to checkmate).

This is assuming the opponent is expert and will not make simple mistakes.

# Answer
Always keep your K and Q on opposite colour squares, or have your K diagonally 1 gap away from the N, so that you will never be forked.

Beyond that, just as Glorfindel said, fork the N if it's allowed or drive opponent's K to the edge and checkmate.
> 9 votes

# Answer
> I have looked at tablebases but the moves are somewhat bizarre

That's the problem with tablebases; they're efficient but they can't 'play' human chess. This particular endgame is one-sided enough that it's almost never required to play the best move.

Just drive the opponent's king to the edge of the board, as you would do with king+queen vs. king; just be careful that you don't end up in a knight fork. If the knight gets too far away from its king, you can probably fork it yourself after a few checks. Once on the edge of the board, the reduced mobility of the knight and mating threats will eventually lead to defeat.

Here is an example (from Shredder Chess):

The 'human' move here is Qg6+ (or Qa6+) followed by Kd5; it doesn't matter that Qe2, Qe3 and Qe4 are one move faster.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: endgame, queen-and-knight-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible for a clock to show less than 30 seconds for a player in a game with a 30-second increment?
Is it possible for a clock to show less than 30 seconds for a player in a game with a 30-second increment **when it is his opponent's turn**?

**My answer:**

Even if one player has only 1 second on his clock and then makes his move, he would end up with 31 seconds on his clock and it is his opponent's turn. So, it seems to me that a clock under such time controls can never show less than 30 seconds for a player **when it is his opponent's turn**.

Am I wrong?

# Answer
> 3 votes
You are correct - it is impossible. It can only show less than 30 seconds while it's counting down on his/her turn.

Obviously, with delay instead of increment, this would be possible.

---
Tags: chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Is FIDE still using the same logo for world championship final?
I remember that this logo was used last championship, why are they still using it? Shouldn't every final have its own logo? Am I missing something?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Are you sure? I don't remember seeing it, and googling I couldn't find a source from 2016 with that logo. Here's the one that I found:

---
Tags: history, world-championship
---


# Question
Title: How does the last move in the Michael Adams vs Anatoly Karpov game result in the end of the match?
In the Michael Adams vs Anatoly Karpov (1994, Dortmund GER, rd 1, Jul-15 ) match (moves listed \[here\]\[1\]), the last move is indeed a check to the black king, but why did the match end after that ? I don't see the last move as a check-mate.

\[1\]: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1014464\[Event "Dortmund"\]

```
[Site "Dortmund GER"]
[Date "1994.07.15"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Michael Adams"]
[Black "Anatoly Karpov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B17"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "117"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3 e6 7.Bd3 c5 8.O-O
Be7 9.Qe2 O-O 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.c4 Re8 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Bc2 Ncd7 14.Ng5 Nf8 15.
N3e4 Bd7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Qd3 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 Rac8 19.Rac1 Qe5 20.Qd2 Bc6 21.
b4 b6 22.Bf4 Qf6 23.Bg5 Qe5 24.Re1 Qb8 25.a4 Ng6 26.f3 Bb7 27.Bb1 h6 28.
Be3 e5 29.Qf2 e4 30.f4 Qd6 31.Qd2 Qf6 32.b5 Nh4 33.a5 bxa5 34.c5 a6 35.c6
Ba8 36.Bd4 Qd8 37.Rxe4 axb5 38.c7 Qd7 39.Rxe8+ Rxe8 40.Qd3 Ng6 41.Bf2 Bc6
42.Qxd7 Bxd7 43.Rd1 Nf8 44.f5 Rc8 45.Bg3 b4 46.Bd6 Nh7 47.Be4 Nf6 48.Bb7
Re8 49.Be5 Bxf5 50.Rd8 Kh7 51.Rxe8 Nxe8 52.Be4 Nxc7 53.Bxf5+ g6 54.Bxc7
gxf5 55.Bxa5 b3 56.Bc3 Kg6 57.Kf2 Kg5 58.Kf3 h5 59.h4+ 1-0

```

# Answer
Black has the dismal choice of being checkmated or watching his pawns drop off. If he takes the h pawn Bf6 is mate, if he drops the king back white will soon win the f pawn by wasting moves with his bishop if necessary, and then the others will follow. A few example lines below, Black's cause is really quite hopeless

```
[Event "Dortmund"]
[Site "Dortmund GER"]
[Date "1994.07.15"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Michael Adams"]
[Black "Anatoly Karpov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B17"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[StartPly "117"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3 e6 7.Bd3 c5 8.O-O
Be7 9.Qe2 O-O 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.c4 Re8 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Bc2 Ncd7 14.Ng5 Nf8 15.
N3e4 Bd7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Qd3 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 Rac8 19.Rac1 Qe5 20.Qd2 Bc6 21.
b4 b6 22.Bf4 Qf6 23.Bg5 Qe5 24.Re1 Qb8 25.a4 Ng6 26.f3 Bb7 27.Bb1 h6 28.
Be3 e5 29.Qf2 e4 30.f4 Qd6 31.Qd2 Qf6 32.b5 Nh4 33.a5 bxa5 34.c5 a6 35.c6
Ba8 36.Bd4 Qd8 37.Rxe4 axb5 38.c7 Qd7 39.Rxe8+ Rxe8 40.Qd3 Ng6 41.Bf2 Bc6
42.Qxd7 Bxd7 43.Rd1 Nf8 44.f5 Rc8 45.Bg3 b4 46.Bd6 Nh7 47.Be4 Nf6 48.Bb7
Re8 49.Be5 Bxf5 50.Rd8 Kh7 51.Rxe8 Nxe8 52.Be4 Nxc7 53.Bxf5+ g6 54.Bxc7
gxf5 55.Bxa5 b3 56.Bc3 Kg6 57.Kf2 Kg5 58.Kf3 h5 59.h4+ Kh6
    ( 59...Kxh4 60.Bf6# )
60.Kf4 Kg6 61.Bb2 f6
    ( 61...Kh6 62.Kxf5 Kh7 63.Kg5 )
    ( 61...Kh7 62.Kxf5 Kh6 63.Bc3 Kh7 64.Kg5 )
62.Bc3 Kh6 63.Kxf5 Kg7 64.Bxf6+ 1-0

```
> 8 votes

---
Tags: endgame
---


title: World chess championship final calendar

text:
# Question
Title: World chess championship final calendar
Is there a way to import World chess championship final match into google calendar?

Can I do that for other major chess events?

# Answer
You can get an `.ics` file for every major tournament on the broadcast page for that tournament on chess24.com. When you are on that page, click the **Information** tab, then download the file.

Now open Google Calendar, click the cogwheel icon, and then click **Settings**. On the settings page click **Import & Export**. There is a form where you can select the `.ics` file. Click **Import** to add it to your calendar. And that's all.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: tournament
---


# Question
Title: Wrongly accepted stalemate but game is a clear win?
What will happen when we wrongly accepted stalemate and thereafter 02-03 seconds we noticed it was not a stalemate but a clear win?

# Answer
> 6 votes
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 5.2.3 The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game, provided both players have made at least one move. This immediately ends the game.

However, the annotations to rule 5.1.1 state:

> Particularly in junior tournaments it can be discovered that one player accepts he was mated to discover later that he could prevent the mate. If a result is reported by both players that can be accepted. Where a player announces mate and immediately shakes hands only for it to be discovered seconds later that the move played was not mate he should not be given the win despite any handshake.

I would tend to think that a false stalemate should be handled like a false checkmate, and the game should be resumed if the error was discovered within seconds.

---
Tags: rules, stalemate
---


title: Concentration during games

text:
# Question
Title: Concentration during games
I've noticed that I lose sight of pieces' positions very fast during games, also, for some reason, I fail at having an "objective" view, some kind of an eagle eye, i.e I find myself concentrated on where the action is, the 3 or 4 squares related to the last move, this is obviously a default in me and would really wish to get helpful advice from you lots.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think I am the best person to answer this question as I have come across a similar kind of situation.

I would suggest you to first focus on whether you are losing your pieces by any opponent's strategy. Don't directly play with a high level opponent . For increasing your alertness, you can play chess on computer at a lower level and then gradually increase it once you start winning. 'Chess titans', for example, on Windows 7 is an excellent game to improve firstly your alertness, then the logical skills , and finally patience. Try to analyze what is happening on the board instead of narrowing your vision to 3-4 squares. This will greatly benefit you, my friend.

Now, we turn to logical skills. The most important thing here is to predict your opponent's move and develop your strategy to make him/her fall into your trap. Try to think simple rather than complicating situations. I would also suggest you to be calculative while playing. Here I mean to say that you should be able to think what is going to happen on the board after 2-3 moves. Thereafter, increase the count. I know that it is not possible in all situations, but try to exploit the situations where it works.

Finally, patience. Patience , in any work, is the key to success. You can also calculate and plan your next moves while your opponent is planning his/her next move. Also you can try to be ahead of your opponent in calculations. For example , if your opponent has calculated what is going to happen in the next three moves, and if you have calculated upto 4 moves, then you have an edge over your opponent.

These simple techniques have helped me in overcoming my problems and I hope these will be beneficial for you too.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The problems you're describing are common with inexperienced players, and that is only natural; the number of possible moves in the average chess position is rather large, and keeping track of everything that's going on in a position is basically impossible without guidelines and experience.

These problems (i.e. losing sight of the position of pieces/losing focus of everything except for a small region of the board) will gradually go away as you gain more experience. However there are things that you can do to actively speed up the process of improving your "eagle eye view" of a position, and the method I suggest is that you use the following checklist:

Each time you're on the move, look for

1. all the different checks available for you in the position;
2. all the different captures available for you in the position;
3. all the different checks that your opponent could make if it were their move;
4. all the different captures that your opponent could make if it were their move.

The reason for looking at these moves is that checks and captures are very forcing, and it will help you both see your own possibilities of scoring some easy points and it will also help you to find out what your opponent is threatening to do.

In the beginning this checklist will require some serious effort to complete for each move, but as you play more it will become easier to see the things mentioned in the checklist automatically without having to make a conscious effort.

---
Tags: psychology
---


# Question
Title: What next after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 for the White tactical player?
How should a tactical player as White play after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6?

The openings I am looking at are:

* Ruy Lopez
* Italian game
* Scotch game
* Three Knights

I am currently playing Scotch since it opens the centre early and I think it gives me more activity. Are there any other variations I should consider if I want activity and tactics?

# Answer
I would recommend the `Scotch Gambit`. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4! The game becomes very tactical. For example, if Black attempts to protect the pawn by playing 4. ... Bc5, 5. c3! is a very useful recourse. If Black takes this pawn, 6. Bf7+! is a tactic, after 6. ... Kxf7 7. Qd4+! Wins the piece back.

Example game (White player = Nakamura) https://lichess.org/Zny0pBLO#27
> 3 votes

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


# Question
Title: Why don't we play different openings in chess?
Chess comes in many forms, both with respect to the clock and the board format.

But why don't we have chess tournaments where we play different openings? That is, a certain list of openings is picked (it could be publically announced prior to the tournament, or perhaps a surprise reveal), and then both players play games with those openings (each opening is played twice, once as black, once as white).

This seems like quite a fun thing to do and an obvious extension to the many forms of chess we already have?

What's the drawback?

# Answer
There are thematic tournaments. For example, I recall a GM tournament where they had to play an open Sicilian.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Back in the 1980s, in correspondence chess, thematic tournaments on a certain opening or defence were frequent, I don't know the current status, however. In classical chess they are a rare occurrence indeed, however in 1994 there was the Lev Polugaevsky thematic tournament on the Open Sicilian. Top players of the period played.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Over the summer when there was no league chess I organized weekly themed blitz tournaments in our club. They are a lot of fun, encourage players to play openings they wouldn't normally play, get them playing people they wouldn't normally play and get more players coming in to the club. So, win-win-win on many levels.

They could not be rated because the FIDE laws of chess are not obeyed. In particular article 2.3 is not obeyed in themed tournaments. In the modern, rating-obsessed world I suppose this is a reason why they are not more popular.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This is exactly how many computer chess tournaments are setup. For instance, I believe both TCEC, and Chess.com's CCC are run exactly as you described.

The main reason this isn't done with human competitions is because (a) the mindgames that go into openings add a new level of meta-strategy to the game, and (b) humans don't have the time to play 2 x n games against every opponent (where n = number of openings to play vs each opponent).
> 2 votes

# Answer
Actually while learning more about chess you will understand that on high level the problem with chess is opposite, that's why Fisher invented random-chess, chess960; because games started to become the memory competition, who can better remember variations from home analysis; so at least not knowing what opponent will play makes greater use for human chess than announcing opening in advance; also important reason why thematic tournaments are not very popular is that not every opening is suitable for everyone's style and GM is not going to spend 100 hours to study opening only for 1 tournament unless you put like 1 million prize money :) or so. As the result thematic tournaments for rare, crazy variations don't attract serious players, only hobby group; but for popular variation you don't need thematic tournament - it's popular anyway :)
> 1 votes

# Answer
While there have been (and still are) thematic tournaments there are mainly three reasons why these have not been adopted in mainstream chess:

1. How do you pick the openings? How many moves do you put on the board already?
While these questions may sound silly now, for professional tournaments they have actual relevance. Answering them (specially with regard to the other two points) is quiet hard.
2. It is not illegal to outsmart your opponent in the opening.
This includes learning an opening that your opponent doesn't know (if you are playing on a hobby level), learning more more moves than your opponent (relevant for all players) and learning a sequence of moves where you know that your opponent makes mistakes (also relevant for all players). If you set up the game after an opening (or fix the opening moves to play), you take away this advantage from some players. Another allowed strategy is to learn one opening very well (often seen in hobby players). Then you know all the moves of your opening and no other openings. Especially for these players it would also take the fun away to play an opening that they don't know.
3. People have different strengths in chess.
For example some players are good at learning openings, others are good at the endgame. And there are openings that draw out the opening phase for a long time or that go towards the endgame quickly. Seeing two players battle to keep the game in their style is something really interesting to look at (and if you know what to look for even more so on GM level). Other players might prefer an open position or a position or a position with a lot of tactical motives, while others would rather play closed or maybe strategically. Again forcing these players to play openings that are against their preferences may be educational but takes a lot of the fun away.

That is not to say that you can't find people who might enjoy these kinds of things but usually it will be only a fraction of all people playing chess. It certainly sounds good for some kind of internet variant with probably short thinking time, but as a general addition to chess it takes away too much freedom (and interesting developments).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, tournament
---


# Question
Title: How do I politely ask a spectator to stop watching my game?
I was playing a chess game with a highly rated person in a tournament, and his dad was watching over the game. Obviously, it didn't affect the game, but I would have felt better if he was not watching over the game. Should I just deal with him being there? How do I politely ask a spectator to not watch the game I am playing?

# Answer
Inform the arbiter that it's affecting you, that's more or less all you can do.

Other players in the playing hall and spectators if they're allowed in are allowed to watch your game. But not to interfere with you or distract you.

So if the spectator goes over the line, the arbiter can tell him to take more distance, or leave the playing area. But by itself the fact that he is watching isn't enough, I'd say.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: spectating
---


# Question
Title: Why did Carlsen play 7. dxc5 in Game 7 of the 2018 World Championship?
As a class A player, I have some understanding of opening principles. Relevant to the move played in the game, I know that it's advantageous to control the center, to have central pawns controlling the center, and to maintain tension for as long as possible. It's for these reasons that I was confused by 7. dxc5 in game 7 of the world championship.

I would understand this move if Carlsen followed it with 8. cxd5, giving black an isolated queen pawn and trying to play against this for an advantage. But Carlsen did not follow up with this idea, and I was unable to understand the strategy of his next moves.

What's the idea behind 7. dxc5 in this game? Why give up a central pawn and break tension? Here's a link to the game where it can be replayed: Chessbase.

# Answer
The same move order also occurred in game 2 (at least up to `9...Qa5`). It's a good question that you're asking, though I'm afraid there's no intuitive answer in the way that you're looking for. Instead, these are very concrete lines well polished by computer analysis, which means the best way to understand a decision such as `7.dxc5` is to simply play through the lines a bit, and consider a couple of alternatives in order to draw close analogy between these QGD lines and pinpoint the main differences with and without `dxc5.`

That said, part of the answer also simply lies in the strategies that the players have adopted in this match (which ultimately stems from their exact preparations), e.g., Caruana seems to favour these rather more solid lines with `4...Be7` as opposed to the somewhat sharper variations such as the Vienna (`4...dxc4`), Tarrasch (`4...c5`) or Ragozin (`4...Bb4`) to name a few, most of which by the way Caruana has himself played previously. But then `4...Be7` essentially allows Carlsen to stay in the mainline theory of QGD with `Bf4` and `e3...`, and from Caruana's point of view, it's the `6...c5` variation that he seems to have chosen to prepare for and play in this match against this line (so you should remember the line as `Be7`... `c5`, as the key defining moves of this variation), which he has followed similarly in both games with this `Nc6` and `Qa5-Rd8` or `Qa5-Qd8` ideas.

Now here's my attempt to offer you a bit of intuition for the specific `7.dxc5` variation, but do take it with a grain of salt as these (like most other Queens pawn openings) are inherently very concrete lines after all: (annotations added to all variations and sub-variations)

```
 [title "London WCC2018 7.dxc5 in QGD games 2&7"]
 [fen "rnbq1rk1/pp2bppp/4pn2/2pp4/2PP1B2/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQ - 0 7"]

 7. dxc5 {What it achieves in short: i. leaves the bishop slightly misplaced on c5, often it has to return to e7 again e.g. to reroute to f6, or to side-step a3-b4 ideas. ii. prevents black from taking on d4 which would further enable black's development as white is essentially forced to recapture with a piece. On the same token, it keeps the knight on f3 where it is well placed controlling e5 and ready to re-route via d2 if needed. iii. Semi-opens the d-file with ideas to quickly play Qc2 Rd1 with immediate pressure along d-file, where d5 pawn still stands.} Bxc5 (7. Be2 {Let's make a quiet move and see what happens if we let black take on d4} cxd4 8. Nxd4 (8. exd4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 b6 {One line among others after exd4. But it already exemplifies why exd4 is bad for white: to play for any edge white has to maintain their IQP but black gets then an easy development with early b6 Bb7, target on d4 and a somewhat misplaced bishop on c4 which can be exploited to gain tempo. If white decided to resolve the IQP immediately it would lead to a completely liquidation of most pieces ending in a completely equal game.}) Nc6 {Thanks to the knight on d4 the Nc6 move comes somewhat with a bit of tempo as it forces white to react:} 9. Nxc6 bxc6 {and black has a solid grip over the centre, and partly solved their bad c8 bishop problem as now there are ideas to trade via a6, that is, Qa5 Ba6 ...} (9. Nf3 Qa5 {or dxc4, and black even has a slight initiative, Nf3 back is clear tempo given up by white.})) 8. Qc2 {As opposed to the more fashionable lines, namely cxd5. Qc2 side-steps the d-file to avoid queen trades and free the file for a quick rook move. Prophylactically stops Bf5 in certain lines because white will be ready to face it with Bd3, e.g. after Qa5 Re8 e5 Nd4 Bf5. It also controls e4 stopping any possible early Ne4 by black, and avoids immediate material trade that is common to cxd5. Finally, it also x-rays the bishop on c5 which is unprotected, forcing black to react to the potential discovery attack.} (8. cxd5 {still rather famous line, previously played by many including Carlsen, MVL, Grischuk, Caruana.} Nxd5 9. Nxd5 exd5 10. Bd3 Bb4+ 11. Nd2 {10. a3 also possible. And black is fine structurally because even the IQP is not permanent as d4 is playable in many lines that follow. But black has a somewhat slow play, because bishop is misplaced on b4, often it reroutes to f6-b2 diagonal via e7, and black still has to play Nc6 and develop c8 bishop. So it's decent for white but more committal which is maybe why Carlsen is not opting for it.}) Nc6 9. a3 {Still a highly theoretical line, still evolving as Carlsen and Caruana have been showing in the match so far, but it's one that suits both their styles of having a closed positional QGD game, with various continuation choices left for both sides.}

```

Hopefully, the above analysis (by no means exhaustive) offers you a glimpse of the kinds of ideas that underlie the `dxc5` line. But bear in mind that, in general, to answer such questions for yourself, try to uncover not only the concrete aspects of what the move achieves, but also the sorts of ideas it prevents or side-steps.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, queens-gambit-declined
---


# Question
Title: What are the main plans for black and white in the main-line Slav after 5...Bf5 6.e3?
I'm thinking about adding the Slav defense to my opening repertoire. I'm looking at the following line, which I believe is the main line:

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3

```

Online, there's a lot of variations and specific moves and counter-moves, but I haven't found much in the way of general plans for black and white here.

**Question**: What are the main plans for black and white in the main-line Slav after 5...Bf5 6.e3?

Play usually continues:

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O

```

After which black may castle or play 8...Nbd7, and white may play any of 9. Qb3, or 9. Qe2, or 9. Nh4. But again, these are just moves, not plans.

# Answer
> 4 votes
**Fight for the center**

The variation with 9.Nh4 has its own flawor. For the other main lines, the logical plans flow from the strategic evaluation of each side's plusses and minuses:

* White enjoys the better center. Black's dxc4 was a slight concession in the fight for the center, Pd4 is firmly established.
* On the other hand, Black has freed both his bishops, while White's queen bishop is still locked inside his pawn chain.
* White has a very slight development advantage, having already castled.
* White's Q-side is slightly weakened by the a2-a4 advance. The stronghold on b4 for one of Black's pieces makes his lack of space more manageable.

As a consequence, White aims to increase his space adantage, free his Bc1 and set his center in motion with **e3-e4**. If possible, he would also like to provoque weaknesses in Black position (the usual suspects are Pb7 fixed by a4-a5 or targeted by Qb3, and the kingside pawns White tries to induce into advancing by threatening a K-side attack, or wants to double with an exchange on g6).

Conversely, Black tries to slow down White advance on e4 (8...0-0 9.Qe2 Bg6!?, e.g., aims to avoid 10.e4 Bxc3 11.exf5), complete his development, and nullify White's central advantage by exchanging the Pd4 with ...c6-c5 or ...e6-e5 (Nbd7, Qe7/Qa5, Rc8/d8/e8 are typical preparatory moves to engineer those breaks). Alternatively, he can put pressure on White's e4-d4 center when it's formed in order to provoque an early e4-e5 (which gives White attacking chances on the K-side but also the d5-square for Black).

The battle for and against e4 is the main topic of the next 5-10 moves.

You can check several battles from the Topalov-Kramnik Elista WC match (WC stands for 'World Championship', not for 'Toiletgate'), or old games by Max Euwe and Gideon Stahlberg.

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


# Question
Title: Whose games should I collect for Benoni?
I have been adopting the Benoni opening against 1 d4 recently with some moderate success. I would like to know whose games should I look at to have a good understanding. I see that Tal, and to a lesser extent Fischer, have practiced this opening in the past.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would start with Vugar Gashimov and Veselin Topalov.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I agree with Evargalo; Topalov made some novel contributions. Even Kramnik popped out a Benoni in recent times. Three time US Champion Nick De Firmian played it a lot as well.

You might consider this book by Marian Petrov: "Grandmaster Repertoire 12: The Modern Benoni".

---
Tags: opening, famous-players, modern-benoni
---


title: Response to King's fianchetto opening

text:
# Question
Title: Response to King's fianchetto opening
Currently I am facing some difficulties playing as black when my opponent plays `1.g3`. In the midgame actually my position gets cramped. Is there some strong response to `1.g3`? I actually want some good defense lines to counter `1.g3`.

# Answer
> 6 votes
By far, the most aggressive and direct response to 1.g3 is prepare for king-side pawn storm with h7-h5-h4.

That doesn't mean you play 1...h5! I'm afraid there're too many setups for ...h5. You have to see what White do. A possibility is:

> ...Bf5, ...Qd7, ...0-0-0, ...h5, ...h4, ...hxg3, ...Bh3

Sorry, there's no way to cover all the possibilities. The idea is not castle king-side yourself as you know before even making your first move you have the g3 target to attack. Castle queenside, keep your rook on the h (or g) file and go!

> ... gets cramped

The castle-queenside line shouldn't give you a cramped position, but a dynamic double-edge position.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Many responses will be good against g3 - if you have problems against it - actually its indicator that you have problems with general chess principles, so just study chess, get some good book on middle-game strategy and don't think of g3 for now. g3 is very slow and has no real opening threat for black - it takes on middle-game understanding though.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Play purposefully... What does it mean? From a high-level point of view, white is giving up control of the center by playing on the flank - the best way to counter that is for you to play in the center. Pawn advances in the center and piece activity will get you there. For example, if white castles king side and starts pushing h-pawn, that will make g3 pawn weak: you can try to control the a7 - f1 dark diagonal to launch an attack.

# Answer
> 1 votes
If you like some attacking dynamic response, you could try to form a reverse Sicilian like system with 1...c5 and transpose to a Reverse Saemisch attack, if he doesn't do an early e4.

```
 [title "Reverse Saemisch"]
 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
 1. g3 c5 2. Bg2 d5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. O-O e5 5. d3 f6

```

Though Black is a tempo short as opposed to the usual Saemisch attack, the position is still equal and White has to play extremely sharp.

You can try castling long (if White doesn't generate enough queenside counter play) and kingside pawn storm.

---
Tags: opening, fianchetto
---


title: Website that decode chess moves?

text:
# Question
Title: Website that decode chess moves?
I am a complete beginner and have started learning chess one month ago. I play online on lichess.com. I lose a lot of games which is understandable too.

Many people advised me that I should analyze my own games. I have came across number of online websites(also lichess inbuilt analyzer) that tells me what is the best move.

But I want to know why that specific move is the best move, what are advantages of playing "X" move in comparison with "Y" move etc.

In short is there a website/engine that decodes the chess moves from me?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I was thinking if you were the author of https://decodechess.com, and posted here for self-promotion. "decode" isn't a common terminology here. What you're asking match exactly to the name of the site.

Ok. Please take a look at the site. I personally don't use it as I found the analysis too simple/too naive. Maybe you'd think otherwise.

# Answer
> 1 votes
> Many people advised me that I should analyze my own games.

Good advise, but unfortunately impossible to do for a beginner.

> In short is there a website/engine that decodes the chess moves from me?

There is one (see the answer by SmallChess), however I am rather pessimistic about decoding done by computers.

As mentioned in my comments, for simple tactics, the site mentioned does a pretty decent job explaining the ideas behind the moves.

In less tactical/more equal positions, however in my experience, it will overload you with fairly irrelevant short term plans missing the long term idea behind it.

If you think you find this or similar sites useful, go for it. Personally I'd recommend to watch/read commented/annotated games (books, or youtube or chess24 or...) and if possible have a stronger player analyze games with you (perhaps join a chess club). IMO, can't beat human analysis of chess.

---
Tags: engines, analysis, learning, online-chess
---


title: Playing solely against chess engine?

text:
# Question
Title: Playing solely against chess engine?
I don't have many friends to play chess with that are at my skill level so many times I am forced to play against the computer. It seems like the computer plays much differently than a human, or at least, so I hear.

Is it necessary to play against humans to increase your ability or can playing against the computer yield the same result?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Playing against an engine is definitely still good practice for your chess. You can typically scale the strength of the engine to make it harder or easier depending on your level. In my experience it tends to be bit boring since most engines tend to favour particular openings and a fairly aggressive style of play. To combat this you can tell the engine to play a certain line, but this also takes some of the excitement out since you know in advance what the engine will play.

Aside from engines there are always plenty of online options to find a game. For example chess.com is a free site where you can play against basically any strength player. It also offers live matches as well as correspondence games. You can filter by ELO rating to find games against opponents who would suit your skills.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Since you don't mention your elo rating, I would limit for entry level options:

For Chess engines, I suggest the Chessmaster for PC, has many personalities and can play with different styles/openings, so that adds variety (still can be very strong: \>2600 elo in the strongest personalities).

On Android I have played lately this one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.aifactory.chessfree, but there are many others.

Still no matter which engine I try, I feel for a given elo rating, a typical engine plays better tactically than a human of similar rating, but worst positionally/strategically than a human of similar rating.

Chess.com is good, also for email chess I like redhotpawn.com.

Finally, I would also suggest playing Chess solo!

UPDATE: A couple of other Android apps (based on PC engines): Shredder & Chess Genius, they have tunnable difficulty and play more positional chess.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Playing winning positions vs chess engine is a very useful training. Try it out.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I consider playing a sparring game with a chess software as beneficial for a player to enhance his/her playing and analytical skill. I placed 2nd in a chess tournament by merely playing weak Chessmaster version of alphanumeric Nokia phone 3x a day for 5 months. Prior to that sparring sessions, I reviewed tactical postions to improve my game. Thus, I recommend having a chess app for sparring games before competing in an online or formal chess tournament. You can start practicing from lower level up to higher level depending on your preferred playing strength.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Computers play very tactically and aggressively, with no tactical errors at whatever setting they are assigned. I prefer playing them at the lower settings, say 4 ply (two moves), when if you can make a 3-move combination you have a chance to beat them. So playing against them can increase your tactical skill, which is supposedly 99% of chess. But they don't play that well positionally as stronger humans do, so it won't improve your results against higher rated humans.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You can set Fritz to a sparring mode where it "deliberately" makes mistakes, to allow you the opportunity to spot human-like moves that are bad, and punish them. These can be as obvious as hanging a piece at the lower ELO settings, or as subtle as leaving the king uncastled a little too long in the opening or marooning a piece that you can trap if you notice it and can figure out how to cage it.

In Fritz's case, you can *even* have it flash an indicator when there's a mistake on the board, so you know when to look. I discourage this, because it doesn't happen in real games, but the mistakes do.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Play against a chess engine at material odds. Just take off the computer's Queen and a Rook or two and see if you can still win. I like to play something like 5'2" vs 1'2". That is, I give myself 5 minutes with a two second increment, the machine has 1 minute with a two second increment. It will still be very strong with modern software. This way, you have to be disciplined with your play because of the time, but still can recover from some tactical mistakes as you have a big material advantage. Once you can score 75% against the beast, make the odds a little tougher.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Why is the Ruy Lopez a sensible opening for white?
As an amateur, I prefer the Scotch game as opposed to Ruy Lopez, since I feel that White loses tempo and Black seems to gain tempo with queenside counterplay in the main line.

```
 [title "Ruy Lopez"]
 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 {Bishop retreat at the expense of black gaining one queenside counterplay} b5 5. Bb3 {Another bishop retreat at the expense of black gaining a good queenside counterplay}

```

At the end of White's fifth move, it looks like Black is couple of tempo ahead and already has queenside counterplay going. Despite this, why is this one of (if not the most) celebrated openings? Can someone offer an explanation at the level of an amateur?

# Answer
> 26 votes
Sure black's `a6-b5` come with tempo, but let's say at a very basic level, if you just compare pieces, structure and development progress, you can see that white is:

* **Ready to castle** whereas black hasn't yet developed either kingside pieces, so at least 2 tempi away from castling. This translates into white having a safer king 1-2 tempi earlier, which means white has the upper-hand in launching some sort of attack or push.
* **White has developed two minor pieces that stand quite well:** Knight on `f3` attacks `e5` and has the potential to coordinate on `f7` with the bishop on `b3` already eyeing black's kingside. In contrast, black has only developed a knight, one that stands defensively on `c6` covering `e5.`
* Besides the `e4` pawn, **white has nearly kept all pawn advancement options still on the table** (therefore, can opt for various pawn structures still), whereas black has made 2 additional commitments that cannot be undone, which can on the one hand, prove to have been self-inducing weaknesses, and on the other hand, be hooks (targets) for white's pawn advancements on the queenside, e.g. an `a4` push, to which black has to react immediately.

These ways of reasoning can be adopted to conceptually assess nearly any opening you see, at least at a basic level.

The point on pawn commitments cannot be emphasized enough, they're the most committal moves in the game (trades come close but at least in principle a piece can be brought back to life with a promotion, but pawns cannot! :P ). Even at the highest level, for instance take a look at any of Caruana's openings in the match so far, where roughly speaking, he intentionally favours lines where he can delay unnecessary pawn moves and keep most of his options open. Examples:

**Game 2:**

```
 [title "Game 2, move 13, only 3 central pawns moved, compare to white!"]
 [fen "r1br2k1/pp3ppp/2n1p3/q1bp4/2P2B2/P1P1PN2/2Q1BPPP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 13"]

```

**Game 4:**

```
 [title "Game 4, move 13, only 2 central pawns moved, compare to white!"]
 [fen "r1bqr1k1/ppp2ppp/3b4/4p3/1P6/2BP1BP1/P3PP1P/1R1Q1RK1 b - - 0 13"]

```

**game 6:**

```
 [title "Game 6, move 13, only 2 central pawns moved, compare to white!"]
 [fen "r1b1kb1r/pppn1ppp/3pn3/3N4/3P4/N1P2P2/PP4PP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 13"]

```

**game 8:**

```
 [title "Game 8, move 16, only 3 pawns moved, compare to black!"]
 [fen "1rbq1rk1/1p2b1pp/pN1p4/P2Pnp2/4p3/8/1PPBBPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 4 17"]

```

Anyhow I think the idea is clear now! It's important to add that in all these examples, the simple fact of having moved *less* pawns doesn't directly or necessarily translate into *having a better position,* chess is never that simple or linear. Partly, specially in this examples, it is a case of style and preference (and thus the adopted openings), but on the other hand it shows you the importance of *diversity* in pawn structures that can still be opted for as they translate into having more *choices*, abundantly clear even at the highest level.

I hope these ideas have shown you why the Ruy Lopez is such a liked opening, which I have only tackled from the white side in this post, and clearly, black's side has its own merits in the Ruy Lopez compared to alternative options that are available for black against `1. e4`, but that's a discussion for another time.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Note that while black gains space on the queenside, the advanced pawns offer white some opportunities later on to undermine black's pawns with a timely a4-push. Moreover, the queenside expansion doesn't develop a piece, nor does it help black to contest the center of the board. Further, white's bishop is quite a happy camper on b3, being less exposed than it would be on c4 while at the same time being basically just as influential as it would be on c4. So while white has spent 3 tempi to get the bishop to b3, black has spent 2 tempi on a queenside pawn expansion that doesn't develop a piece.

In essence, white gets to develop a piece to a very good square, while black gets to expand on the queenside, which doesn't really aid in development very much and has a potential of weakening black's position in the future. So the expansion is not without drawbacks for black.

# Answer
> 0 votes
> What has Black gained by a6 and b5?

* He is no more developed than he was before those moves.
* Primarily he has removed BxN options from White.

> What has White gained from a6 and b5?

* The advanced pawns are often targets for White.
* White's Bishop is now on a nice diagonal and doesn't have to worry about d7-d5 moves hitting it as in some lines of the Two-Knights or Bishops Opening (2.Bc4 and 3.Bc4 lines)

**So in general** your assertion that Black is gaining tempos and counter-play are completely misguided.

---
Tags: opening, theory, ruy-lopez
---


# Question
Title: Blitz tournaments (time control around 5 minutes)
I want to know if any of you could help me finding results from strong Blitz tournaments where the time control is around 5 minutes per player. It's for research. I do not have Chessbase or any chess game data base. Thanks.

# Answer
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Blitz\_Chess\_Championship
>
> By 1950, the time controls had changed to the familiar five minutes per player, hence the "five-minute game" moniker; the term "blitz chess" would not be coined until the 1960s.

Please search the games on Chessgames. You don't need Chessbase.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: blitz
---


# Question
Title: Is there an easy way to detect a draw in a King + Pawn vs King endgame?
I know the basics of opposition, but I am struggling to evaluate positions for drawishness in **King + Pawn VS King** endgame. A lot of times it is useful to know whether you should make an exchange. For example, in this position:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "k7/8/8/8/1PR4r/2K5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Black can simply exchange the rook and then move to b8 knowing that he has a draw. But in order to do so, he should know that position after exchange is drawish.

The problem is, that looking at positions like this

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "8/4k3/8/8/8/2P5/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

this

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "k7/8/8/8/1PR4r/2K5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

or this

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/2P5/8/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

I can not quickly determine whether it is drawish or not. I end up thinking for 5 minutes and in the end I can be wrong (so to me it looks like I am simply guessing).

So is there an easy way to determine win/draw in King + Pawn vs King endgame (I am not asking how to secure a draw/win. I hope that I will be able to find it, knowing the evaluation in advance).

# Answer
> 23 votes
There is a very easy way to detect whether King and Pawn endgames are drawn or not.

This method I use is a very easy to understand one from Karsten Mueller and Frank Lamprecht's excellent book **Secrets of Pawn Endings**

It concerns **key squares and opposition**

The rule states that if pawn has not reached or crossed the central line (5th rank for White and 4th rank for Black) then there are 3 key squares 2 squares in front of it.

For example this starting position, the key squares are b5, c5 and d5. If white's king can occupy any of these key squares then the game will be a win for white no matter what.

```
  [Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/2P5/8/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "27"]

1. Kf2 {The Key squares in this position are b5, c5 and d5. If white's king
can occupy any of these key squares then the game will be a win for white no
matter what.} Kd7 2. Ke3 Kc6 3. Kd3 (3. Kd4 Kd6 $11 {Opposition}) 3... Kd5 {
Unfortunately black has occupied the key squares mentioned, there is no way
for white's king to enter the key squares, therefore, the game is a draw.
Analysis will be continued to prove this} 4. c4+ Kc5 5. Kc3 Kc6 6. Kd4 Kd6 7.
c5+ Kc6 8. Kc4 Kc7 9. Kd5 Kd7 10. c6+ Kc7 11. Kc5 Kc8 12. Kb6 Kb8 13. c7+ Kc8
14. Kc6 $11 (14. Kb5 Kxc7) 1/2-1/2

```

It turns out white could not occupy the key squares in time, therefore the game is a draw.

The second rule is that if a pawn is on the 5th rank (or 4th for black) or beyond, there are 3 key squares in front of it.

In this position the key squares for white's king are f6, g6 and h6

White is able to occupy one of these squares with his king and the win is secured. The variation shown shows if white had chosen a different route, black would then be able to secure the opposition and the key squares and the game would be a draw.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round ""]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/6P1/6K1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "9"]

1. Kh5 (1. Kf5 Kf7 2. g6+ Kg7 3. Kg5 Kg8 4. Kf6 Kf8 5. g7+ Kg8 $11) 1... Kf7 2.
Kh6 Kf8 3. g6 Kg8 4. g7 Kf7 5. Kh7 1-0

```

**One last key squares example, with a position you gave.**

This is a win because White can occupy the key squares of the pawn b5, c5 and d5 (3 squares since the pawn is on the 3rd rank) without any problems

However the variations I gave are to show if white had chosen the wrong route to get to the squares, `1.Kd3` would be a heartbreaking failure as black can secure distant opposition with `1...Kd7` and can therefore control the key squares.

The second variation `2.Kc4` would also be met by brutal opposition `2...Kc6` and control of the key squares for Black.

The text moves show white occupying the key squares, sidestepping any tricks black has (and there are plenty as shown) and securing the win.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result ""]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4k3/8/8/8/2P5/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

1. Kb3 (1. Kd3 Kd7 2. Kc4 Kc6) 1... Kd7 2. Kb4 (2. Kc4 Kc6) 2... Kd6 3. Kb5 1-0

```

One final position, I hope you know this one!

OK, Black has the opposition, isn't he safely drawing the game then? Well, there are exceptions to every rule, and this happens to be one. Opposition in King and Pawn endgames always works, except when the pawn is on the 5th rank and your king is also in front of it. This is an important pattern to know!

This position is a good one to emphasize the fact that King and Pawn endgames are very concrete and are based on calculation, judgement can be used with opposition and key squares but in the end stone cold analysis is the ultimate weapon; although it is best equipped with the knowledge of opposition and key squares! ***:)***

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date ""]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/8/6K1/6P1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]

1. Kf6 Kf8 2. g6 Kg8 3. g7 Kh7 4. Kf7 1-0

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
For the sake of a quick evaluation, the fastest and safest method in my opinion is **the rule of the two plusses**.

First, let's get rid of the cases where it doesn't apply. White has the pawn.

* If the bK is not in the square of the pawn, White wins.
* If the bK can take the pawn, it is a draw.
* Pawns on the edge of the board (the a- and h- files) have their own rules (less often a win, race to the key squares f7-g7-f8-g8).

Ok, now we have a pawn not on the edge and both kings "close enough" to prevent immediate promotion or capture. Then White tries to bring his king as much as possible in front of the pawn and Black's king comes to oppose that.

When both kings are on the nearby files (for an e-pawn, that means files d-e-f) you can evaluate the position with the "**two plusses rule**".

* If the wK is one square in front of the pawn, count one plus. If it is two squares in front of the pawn, two plusses, etc.
* If White has the opposition, count one plus.
* If wK is on the 6th rank, count one plus.

Sum up.

**White wins if and only if he has at least two plusses.**

**Examples:**

Here white has only one plus: king in front of the pawn. Black draws.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date ""]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/6k1/8/6K1/6P1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "11"]

1. Kf5 Kf7 2. g5 Kg7 3. g6 Kg8! 4. Kf6 Kf8 5. g7 Kg8 6. Kg6 1/2

```

Here White has two plusses: his king is two ranks in front of the pawn. White wins.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date ""]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/6k1/8/6K1/8/5P2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "11"]

1. f4 Kf7 2.Kf5! Kg7 3.Ke6 1 0

```

Here, with Black on move, White has two plusses: king in front of the pawn and the opposition. He wins.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date ""]
[Round "?"]
[White "Black to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/6k1/8/6K1/6P1/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]

1... Kf7 2. Kh6 Kg8 3. Kg6 Kh8 4. g5 Kg8 5. Kh6 Kh8 6. g6 Kg8 7. g7 Kf7 8. Kh7 1-0

```

Here, one rank higher on the board, White, on move, has two plusses: king one square in front of the pawn and king on the 6th rank. He wins.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date ""]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/8/6K1/6P1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]

1. Kf6 Kf8 2. g6 Kg8 3. g7 Kh7 4. Kf7 1-0

```

**Your positions:**

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "8/4k3/8/8/8/2P5/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

After 1.Kb3 Kd6 2.Kb4! Kc6 3.Kc4! White has **two plusses** (one square in front + opposition) **White wins**.

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "k7/8/8/8/1PR4r/2K5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

After 1...Rxc4! (the simplest, but the rook ending is a dead draw too) 2.Kxc4 Kb8! 3.Kc5 Kc7! or 3.Kb5 Kb7! White has only **one plus** (king in front of the pawn) : **Draw**

```
[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/2P5/8/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

After 1.Kf2 Kd7 2.Ke3 Kc6 3.Kd4 Kd6! White has only **one plus** (king in front of the pawn) : **Draw**

Thanks to this method, the variations are much shorter: you only need to calculate until the kings are near the pawn, and then you count the plusses.

---
Tags: theory, endgame, evaluation, pawn-endgame
---


title: Endgame analysis : white to play and..?

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame analysis : white to play and..?
```
R3nk21B1K4/4r3/4P3/3Pb3/8/3P4/8/1B1K4 w - - 0 1

```

White to play and ?, D.Antonini 09/2017

I wouldn't qualify this position as a study, at least according to modern canons for study composition, as there are a few duals (interversion ones) and a few other defaults. I prefer to present it as a practical endgame position worth having a look at.

Therefore I won't even give a specific statement : white to play, and it's up to you to figure out if they can win or only draw. I must warn you it's rather difficult to analyse this position accurately. There is one concealed idea (and programs won't be able to help much figuring it out). But I'm sure you'll feel pretty happy once you manage to figure it all out - if you do (but with brillant chess composers like Noam Elkies around, I'm sure some of you will manage to).

# Answer
> 2 votes
First thoughts:

We are obviously looking for a win for White. Making a draw is no challenge, you just have to exchange either the rook or your bishop even if you lose all three pawns in the process. 1.d4, 2.Bg6, 3.Bxe8 is a straitforward draw.

If we do nothing dramatic, Black can blockade with ...Kg7 and ...Bd6, when he cannot be worse. So let's go for direct play trying to exploit the pin on the 8th rank:

1.d4 Bd6 (or 1...Bd4 when 2.Bg6 might be the best try but the hand wants to play 2.d6 Rxe6 3.d7 Bf6 (or Bb6) and Black seems to draw thanks to ...Kg7 or ...Rd6+ - looks like a good line in which one can look for pretty ideas...)

2.Bg6 Kg7 (Black can also wait with his bishop, but White will try to bring in his king and maybe create a zugzwang of some sort)

3.Bxe8 (3.Rxe8 Rxe8 4.Bxe8 Kf8 is a dead draw) and with the rooks on the board White may well be able to break the blockade.

Well, there is probably a win hiding somewhere in those lines, but it is not an easy one.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I just remembered I totally forgot to come here post the solution. My apologies but better late than never :).

The main interest of this position is the apparent mutual zugzwang soon appearing after 1.d4 Bd6 2.Bg6, when playing natural moves and bringing the white king to f5 (in the position white : Kf5, Ra8, Bg6 pawns d4,d5,e6/ black : Kf8,Re7,Bg3,Ne8).

In that position If black is to play (which is the case ine the soçlution below after 13.Ra8), black loses very quickly (1...Bh2 loses the possilibility to play bh4+, so 2.Bxe8 Rxe8 3.Ra7 (threatening 4.Rf7+ followed by 5.Rd7 and the d pawn will be able to move to d6)3...Rb8 4.Kf6 (and bh4+ not possible anymore with the B on h2).

On the other hand, with white to play (which would be the case in the solution below if white would chose to play the natural 6.Kf5), it's much harder to figure out how to win. The triangulation manoeuver requires to bring the white king to g4 and the white bishop to h5 (which aren't very naturlal ideas), before trinagulation with the rook (although the move order doesn t matter, you can olay 1.Rc8 Fh2 first, then bring the king to g4 and then the bishop to h5, or play Kg4 first or Bh5 first), but the traingulation manouever itself stays unique and the only way to win (just interversion duals).

I'll just put the solution as is, I'll try to go into more details if some things aren't clear :

**1.d4 Bd6 (i)
2.Bg6 Bb4
3.Ke2 Bd6
4.Kf3 Bc7
5.Kg4 Bh2! (ii)
6.Bh5 Bc7! (iii)
7.Rc8 Bh2! (iv)
8.Rd8 Bc7
9.Ra8 Bh2! (v)
10.Rc8 Bd6
11.Bg6 Bh2
12.Kf5 Bg3
13.Ra8 Bh2
14.Bxe8 Rxe8
15.Ra7 Rb8
16.Kf6 Rb1
17.Ra8+ Bb8
18.d6 +-
**

(i)1....Bxd4 2.d6! Rxe6 3.d7! Bb6 4.Bf5! Re7 5.Bg4! +-
(ii)5...Bd6 6.Rc8 Bh2 7.Kf5 Bg3 8.Ra8 +-
(iii)6...Bd6 7.Kf5 Bg3 8.Bg6 +-
(iv)7...Bd6 8.Bg6 Bh2 9.Kf5 Bg3 10.Ra8 +-
(v)9...Bd6 10.Kf5 Bg3 11.Bg6 +-

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, problems
---


# Question
Title: How is this checkmate ... or does chess.com have a bug?
Playing as black against the chess.com computer, the following position was reached and chess.com declared checkmate in its favor. However, I don't see that the black king is in check. So is this a bug?

```
[FEN "2r2r2/p6k/2b1p1R1/2pp2Qp/P2P4/1PN5/1K6/8 b - - 0 1"]

```

There was no time limit in effect and this is the final position. There was a message that said "Checkmate" and I couldn't make any more moves. (White's last move was Qg5; it had been on h4.)

# Answer
> 10 votes
Obviously, this is not a checkmate. Something else must have happened. Here is what I could imagine:

* Maybe you have lost on time, and not by checkmate
* Maybe this is the position before White's last move (Qh6# or Qxh5#), which was played a mili-second before the computer claimed victory - so that the mating position wouldn't have been visible on your screen for long enough for you to notice.
* Maybe (but unlikely) there is some bug in the software. Possibly the software 'played' Qh4xh5# but somehow sent Qh4-g5 to the virtual board for unknown reason.

---
Tags: checkmate, online-chess, chess.com
---


# Question
Title: What if threefold repetition occurs in WCC 2018?
It is not allowed to draw till move 30. Are the players forced to find another moves in case of threefold repetition?

# Answer
Draw by mutual agreement is not allowed before move 30. But a draw by threefold repetition can be claimed at any point if it occurs.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: draw, world-championship, threefold-repetition
---


# Question
Title: What are the worst blunders ever committed in a world championship match (final)?
As title above, what are a few of the worst blunders ever committed in a World Chess Championship Match?

# Answer
By far, the biggest blunder in all world championship is absolutely 32.Bb4?? played by Chigorin in the 1892 match. He threw away the win and the match, landed himself to mate in 2.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Chess\_Championship\_1892
>
> A piece up, Chigorin should have won after 32. Rxb7 (32...Rxd5? 33. Nf4 forks the black rooks).\[1\] Instead the game and match ended suddenly when Chigorin blundered with 32. Bb4?? Rxh2+ White resigns, as Black will mate on the next move.\[1\]\[3\]
> 12 votes

# Answer
Game six in the second Carlsen-Anand match comes to mind.

After 26.Kd2 black can simply take on e5 and after 26...Nxe5 27.Rxg8 he has the intermediate check 27...Nxc4+. Black just remains at least one pawn up.

So, 26.Kd2 is one of the worst blunders in the history of the world championship. But of course 26...a4 forgoing this relatively simple tactical strike is also one of the worst blunders.

```
[Event "Carlsen - Anand World Championship"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.15"]
[EventDate "2014.11.07"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B41"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]

[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4
7.Qd3 Nc6 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.e5 Nd7 11.Bf4 Bxc3+
12.bxc3 Kc7 13.h4 b6 14.h5 h6 15.O-O-O Bb7 16.Rd3 c5 17.Rg3 Rag8
18.Bd3 Nf8 19.Be3 g6 20.hxg6 Nxg6 21.Rh5 Bc6 22.Bc2 Kb7
23.Rg4 a5 24.Bd1 Rd8 25.Bc2 Rdg8 26.Kd2 a4 27.Ke2 a3 28.f3 Rd8
29.Ke1 Rd7 30.Bc1 Ra8 31.Ke2 Ba4 32.Be4+ Bc6 33.Bxg6 fxg6
34.Rxg6 Ba4 35.Rxe6 Rd1 36.Bxa3 Ra1 37.Ke3 Bc2 38.Re7+ 1-0

```
> 7 votes

# Answer
As it happens Chessbase ran a story earlier this week featuring "eight egregious elite errors" from past World Championship matches. They are Chigorin-Steinitz (noted by **SmallChess**), Bronstein-Botvinnik, Spassky-Fischer (blunders from two games, Fischer's famous Bxh2? and one from Spassky), Korchnoi-Karpov (Korchnoi allowed mate in 3 in a RRPPP/RNN endgame), Kasparov-Karpov, Kramnik-Leko, and the mutual Carlsen-Anand blunder in the answer from **BlindKungFuMaster**.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, blunder
---


# Question
Title: Can you improve a supercomputer evaluation on your own move?
While watching the Chess World Championship, a few news outlets provide updates on how supercomputers are evaluating the board position. The example I'm looking at is using the Sesse Supercomputer, which evaluates the strength of one side over the other measured in pawns. For example, though I don't remember the exact numbers, at one point in game 8, Caruana had an advantage of roughly +2, however after the ill-advised move h3, the computer reevaluated their position to be roughly equal.

That made me wonder: Can you improve your evaluated position on your own turn, or do you only stand to weaken it?

It seems to me that if you had a move available which strengthened your position, that would be included in the evaluation. My assumption (of which I'm not certain), is that the computer expects you to take the best possible move, so doing so would simply maintain the advantage you already have. Taking any move aside from the strongest would weaken it.

Is this the case?

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, all the moves would have been included in the evaluation, but that evaluation isn't perfect. Supercomputer is still a normal computer, just faster.

In your example, the chess god will see that +2 position as "mate in 50", hence it should be evaluated as +infinity, a big improvement.

Whether mortals like those world champions can improve that evaluation is a different matter.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The point of an evaluation is to rate one sides chances of winning and to select the best chance of winning for that side. All the engine can do is calculate up to a certain point and then rate the position. So yes you can definitely improve your evaluation because the engine may have missed something past its search depth.

If an engine had infinite depth there would be no point of an evaluation.

# Answer
> 0 votes
No way your assumptions are right. If the move is winning, the score may ruse even further. However, if the move is not winning playing it the score might drop to zero.

Stockfish can make mistakes and often do even on a good hardware.

Evaluation can change to either direction every time you make a move. Sorry chess is a hard game.

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Why is there a draw in professional chess?
I'm not a serious chess player, but I heard that about 80% of professional chess games end as a draw.

In other similar abstract strategy games, such as Shogi and Janggi, when it is impossible to checkmate, they evaluate pieces value and determine the winner (in a professional game).

Why does chess not adopt this way?

# Answer
First of all let's put the numbers correct.

The 80% draw ratio is for correspondence chess, not something that the average person would associate with "chess".

In regular top level chess, the draw ratio is around 50%.

---

In either case, most games are **not** played out until a position *where it is impossible to checkmate*, but rather most draws are *agreed draws*, i.e. draws in a position that could in principle be won by either player through checkmate.

---

If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to get rid of draws completely by evaluating dead positions (that cannot be won by either player, not even if cooperating) according to the piece value.

I see several difficulties/issues with this approach:

1. You'd have to decide what to do with perpetual check, stalemate and the 50 moves rule.
2. What do you do with positions that are equal/drawish with equal material but that are not dead draws (i.e. either player can still checkmate)? Forcing players to continue until dead draws could lead to very long (and boring) games, similar to what we see with some games under Sofia rules.
3. Positions where it is impossible to checkmate are pretty rare. Basically only King vs King or King and one minor piece vs King (and a few exceptional/constructed cases). In the large majority of positions checkmate is possible if players cooperate. So the proposed change would not alter much.
4. If players in a dead draw position would have equal material it would still be a draw.
> 15 votes

# Answer
Because it would change the way the game is played. No way I would sac for a perpetual or even sac in general unless I have a clear cut win because bailing out to a draw from a position of superiority is not good enough.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Chess pieces don't have a proper value, that depends on the position. A passed-pawn could be a weakness or a queen-promotion opportunity. A pawn next to promotion is stronger than a rook. Knights are not inferior to rook when it attacks with the queen etc etc etc
> 3 votes

---
Tags: draw
---


# Question
Title: Is there a balanced chess system where players of unknown skill can have an equal chance of winning?
Is there a chess system where you can make players of differing skill levels compete against each other with an equal chance to win without using different chess variations?

This system should give good players and bad players a level playing field where both of them can win.

# Answer
Yes.

The way I've done this in the past is to play a series of games with clocks starting with 10 minutes each on the clocks and then the rule for subsequent games that the winner of the previous game gets one minute less and the loser one minute more. This quickly stabilizes at a level where both players have good chances of winning.
> 39 votes

# Answer
A common way to have a large number of weak players have a chance at beating a single strong player is simultaneous chess:

<sub>image taken from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter89.html </sub>

The strong player plays multiple simultaneous chess games against each of the weak players, walking from board to board. That means the attention and time of the strong player is divided among all the games while the weak players can focus their full concentration on just their own game.

The handicap of the strong player can be adjusted by adding or removing opponents.
> 12 votes

# Answer
> ...players of unknown skill can have an equal chance of winning...

This sounds like you want to take the player's skill out of the game which goes against the spirit and rules of chess, I would say. You could introduce elements that equalize skill differences but you may end up with a completely different kind of game, which you wanted to avoid.

For example you could introduce some kind of handicap or bonus (less time for the higher skilled, less chess pieces to begin with for the higher skilled, more chess pieces for the lower skilled (analogously to Go), other side tasks for the higher skilled) but that would require that you know the skill differences in advance or detect them while playing.

Please note, that winning chess for a lower skilled player because the higher skilled opponent had some kind of handicap is not the same as winning under otherwise equal conditions. In chess as most people play it, the definition of winning (in a statistical sense) means that you are higher skilled. Your definition of winning seems to be different (independent of skill). It would be a different kind of winning.

Indeed one could switch sides at random times as RemcoGerlich pointed out, and it would formally solve your problem, but in that case winning would be very much meaningless.

That's why I conclude that no, there is no such way. Either the stronger skilled players will win more often in chess, or the definition of winning becomes meaningless and some other kind of metric depending on the skill (like the handicap) emerges or it's simply not chess any more.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The ultimate handicap is teaching.

Typically we assume that the person with the winning position on the board is a winner, and the person with the losing position on the board is the loser. But this does not always have to be true. The more advanced player can always choose a different win condition. Why not? It's only a game. If the more advanced player chooses a win condition that isn't in direct opposition to the less advanced player winning, then you can actually reach a win-win situation.

You might be able to develop a clever handicap system where players have to "play their best" to beat the opponent with a specified handicap. Go actually has this, though one quickly progresses to the point where a 2 stone handicap is too much. If you do this, you quickly create a game of "you vs. nature" The game becomes a zero-sum game and it really changes how it feels.

However, if your goal is to create situations to help teach the newer player, it doesn't matter how skilled you are. You are no longer playing on the board. You are playing in the mind. And, honestly, we can all use a little practice in our quest to become a grandmaster at that.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: How does black ensure a draw in this R+3P vs. r+2p endgame with all pawns on the same side?
From a recent world-championship game Fabiano Caruana vs Magnus Carlsen (2018), the players agreed to a draw here:

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "8/1r3kp1/7p/7P/4R1P1/6K1/5P2/8 b - - 2 54"]

```

However, I played this position as black against the computer, and it quickly crushed me. Obviously I'm doing it wrong.

**Question**: How does black ensure a draw in this rook and pawn endgame?

My play was rather planless (basically I don't know where to put the king and rook---I think the pawns should not be moved), so after a few "I don't really know what to do, but this move isn't immediately losing" moves, I end up having to make critical moves, then end up making a mistake.

I played several times vs. the computer now; here's one example:

```
8/1r3kp1/7p/7P/4R1P1/6K1/5P2/8 b - - 2 54

54... Ra7 55. Kf4 Kf6 56. Rc4 Ra5 57. Rc6+ Kf7 58. f3 Rg5 59. Rc7+ Kf6 60. Rc6+ Kf7 61. Ke4 Ra5 62. Rd6 Ke7 63. Rc6 Kf7 64. Rd6 Ke7 65. Rd5 Ra4+ 66. Kf5 Kf7 67. Rd7+ Kg8 68. Ke6 Rf4 69. Rd3 Rf6+ 70. Ke5Kf8 71. Ra3 Kf7 72. Ra7+ Kf8 73. Ke4 Rb6 74. Kf4 Rc6 75. Ke5 Rf6 76. Ra3 Kf7 77. Ke4 Kf8 78. Ra8+ Kf7 79. Ra7+ Kf8 80. f4 Rb6 81. Kf5 Rc6 82. Ra8+ Kf7 83. Ra7+ Kf8 84. Ke4 Rc5 85. Rb7 Kg8 86. Rd7 Kf8 87. Rd5 Rc4+ 88. Kf5 Rc6 89. Ke5 Kf7 90. Rd7+ Kf8 91. Rd6 Rc5+ 92. Ke6 Rc8 93. Kf5 Re8 94. Kg6 Re7 95. Rd8+ Re8 96. Rxe8+ Kxe8 97. Kxg7

```

(I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with the replayer here.)

Sometimes the computer would draw because it didn't seem to playing for a win (e.g. pushing pawns, or just letting them hang).

# Answer
> 5 votes
The following explanation is for the general 3 vs 2 pawns on one side situation, which does apply also to this game. Of course the situation is the same whether the pawns are on the a-c files or on f-h files.

---

This is a fairly simple draw if you follow a few simple rules:

* don't exchange rooks
* do exchange pawns whenever possible
* keep your king close to your pawns
* if necessary block the enemy king or check using your rook

If you do this, your opponent should not be able to enter your camp or bother you with checkmate or anything.

That leaves your opponent with one winning attempt only, which is to create a passed pawn in the center (here on the f-file).

In order to prevent this, the usual recommended set-up is to push the pawn on the border of the board forward (here the h-pawn) and to protect it with the pawn on the adjacent file (here g-pawn). (This setup is already realized in the quoted game with black pawns on g7 and h6.)

This setup ensures that in order to create a passed pawn, the opponent has to exchange all other pawns first.

The resulting position with rook+pawn vs rook should then be an easy draw as the defending king is placed close to the queening square of the pawn.

---

The same general rules apply to 4 vs 3 pawns + rooks endgames. A good pawn structure for the defending side would be h5-g6-f7 (or similarly on the other 3 corners of the board). 4 vs 3 pawns is slightly more tricky as there are more pawns that need to be exchanged in order to secure a draw.

---
Tags: endgame, draw, rook-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Is there a live streaming of the WCC2018 of the players themselves?
I was able to find on YouTube several live streaming videos of GMs commenting the Carlsen-Caruana games. But I wanted to see the actual players and the real board! Is there any streaming of that? I mean, there must be at least one camera on the guys themselves. Thanks!

# Answer
I'm sure the official website (https://worldchess.com/) has it, which you'll need to pay.

Please note video of the players are copyright owned by World Chess. The games have no copyright but the video of the match is absolutely covered. YouTube users are not in a position to show you anything unless authorized.

It's like finding live World Cup soccer match on YouTube. It didn't happen, and won't happen to chess as well.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: world-championship
---


# Question
Title: Is there any analysis of the Carlsen-Caruana World Championsip match by AlphaZero?
How cool would it be to have the world's most powerful computer analyzing games played in a match between the world's two strongest human players? Has it happened yet and is the analysis available?

# Answer
Yes, there is: AlphaZero on Carlsen-Caruana Games 1-8 and AlphaZero on Carlsen-Caruana Games 9-12. We don't have seen the PGNs with their concrete lines so far.

I'm not sure how helpful that is. Just one minute thinking time … seems to be a bit short. Some deeper calculation might be more valuable.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, world-championship, alphazero
---


# Question
Title: Oscillating Stockfish Evaluation on Laptop
I'm using `stockfish-9-bmi2` on my laptop to provide me move by move evaluation of games. I've set Stockfish to evaluate to `depth = 25` plys. I find that the evaluation provided oscillates move-on-move after a certain number of moves. Below is the plot of the evaluation:

In the above plot, the `ply-count` is on the `x-axis`, the `evaluation` from Stockfish is on the `primary y-axis (left)`, the `Mate-In` number is on the `secondary y-axis (right)`. The Blue line with white circles is the plot of the evaluation and the red circles depict the mate-in number.

However, for the same game, when I jot down the evaluation from lichess.com's analysis board, which is also using Stockfish 9, I get a much more stable evaluation move-on-move. Lichess.com's analysis board also uses `depth = 25` for most moves but can use a different number for certain moves. Below is the plot for the same:

In the above plot, the Blue line depicts the evaluation. The break in the trend is because of a Mate-In-3 on `ply count = 63`.

Considering that both methods use Stockfish 9 and is set to depth = 25, can someone help me with why the results on my laptop oscillates so much?

My Laptop's configuration:

* OS: MacOS High Sierra
* Processor: Intel core i7 2.2 GHz
* RAM: 16GB
* Stockfish: stockfish-9-bmi2

The game used is Praggnanandhaa vs Vishy Anand - Tata Steel Chess India Blitz 2018

```
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6 6. a3 g6 7. Be2 Bg7 8. Be3 O-O
9. Qd2 b5 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. f3 Nbd7 12. h4 Ne5
13. Bh6 Bxh6 14. Qxh6 Rc8 15. g4 Rxc3 16. bxc3 Qa5
17. Nf5 gxf5 18. gxf5 Qxc3 19. Rdg1+ Ng6 20. fxg6 fxg6
21. h5 Bxe4 22. fxe4 Qa1+ 23. Kd2 Nxe4+ 24. Ke3 Qc3+
25. Bd3 Qd2+ 26. Kxe4 Qxh6 27. hxg6 Qf4+ 28. Kd5 h6
29. g7 Rc8 30. Ke6 d5 31. Rg6 Rc6+ 32. Kxe7 Rxg6
33. Bxg6 Kxg7 34. Bd3 Qe5+ 35. Kd7 h5 36. Rg1+ Kf6
37. Rg6+ Kf7 38. Rh6 a5 39. Kc6 b4 40. axb4 axb4
41. Kd7 Kg7 42. Re6 Qd4 43. Ke8 Qg4 44. Ke7 h4
45. Be2 Qg5+ 46. Kd6 h3 47. Re7+ Kf8 48. Re5 Qf6+
49. Kxd5 h2

```

P.S.: I have also tried using `stockfish-9-64` instead of `stockfish-9-bmi2` and the results are similar

# Answer
If I understand correctly your x axis is the moves. Your script implied Anand and Prag were blundering every time they make a move,

Clearly you have a bug in your script. Stockfish engine always give you a score relative to the player making the move, NOT white. You need to multiply the score by minus one if it’s Black to move.

Please do this and you will be fine.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish, statistics, evaluation, lichess
---


title: Blitz Touch Move Rule

text:
# Question
Title: Blitz Touch Move Rule
In a "friendly" blitz game I got into an argument with my opponent in the following scenario:

My opponent's knight was pinned to his king. He did not notice and touched his knight to move it. I became excited and before he had a chance to press his clock, I took his king.

The question is: by official rules does my opponent lose the instant he touches the knight? (Making any action taken after this instant irrelevant?) Or does he need to "complete" the move by pressing the clock?

# Answer
> 7 votes
The touch-move rule never compels you to make an illegal move. It may compel you to make a stupid move, but not an illegal one. For example, you'd be forced to move a knight that's pinned against your queen and lose your queen as a result, but you'll never be compelled to move an absolutely pinned knight which would put you in check.

See this related question for more discussion, but I'll quote here the relevant FIDE rule here:

> 4.5 If none of the pieces touched in accordance with Article 4.3 or Article 4.4 can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move

# Answer
> 1 votes
Taking the king is not a chess move, and putting your king en prise is an illegal move.

I wish your rule was the rule. I could draw with Magnus Carlsen every time. I would touch my rook on my first rule, and as I have to move it and can't, therefore, I would walk away with a draw :-)

Touching a piece that cannot be moved such as the rook in my case, or the knight in your case, simply results in the touch being ignored.

So in your case, you were mistaken: he simply needs to make a legal move with any piece and then press the clock. I believe had he completed the illegal move, you could have asked him to take it back, and get a time bonus in blitz.

However, touching the knight does not compel him to make that illegal move.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If your opponent moved his knight and let go off the knight then he has made his move and you may reply before he presses the clock. If you wait until he presses the clock then you can claim that he made an illegal move. The penalty for this in blitz is that you get an extra minute on the clock, the position goes back to before his illegal move and he has to make a legal move. If he completes (i.e. makes and then presses the clock) a second illegal move then he loses the game.

But instead of letting him press his clock and then claiming illegal move you took his king. First of all once you make a move you lose the right to claim for your opponent's illegal move. Second, taking the opponent's king is also an illegal move. If you didn't press your clock then you can take back your illegal move and make a legal one. If you took your opponent's king and then pressed the clock then your opponent can claim illegal move and gain an extra minute on the clock and the game continues.

Bottom line, your opponent does not lose because he made one illegal move. He doesn't get punished unless he completes the illegal move and in blitz you must claim for the illegal move (or the arbiter must see it and intervene) otherwise the game continues. Taking the opponent's king is also an illegal move.

Note that these are the rules for blitz and rapid. The rules for standard time controls are different.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In this scenario you are the one who loses (in case tournament regulations specify that an illegal move results in an immediate loss), not your opponent. As you stated in the question, your opponent has touched their knight and **while moving it**, you captured their king. Provided your opponent has **not** pressed their clock, it is their turn, not yours. Thus, you made a move in your opponent's turn.

As @itub stated, the relevant line from the rulebook clearly indicates your opponent has not made their move (as the knight move they intended, **but not played**, does not count).

---
Tags: rules, illegal-move
---


# Question
Title: How to check mistakes, blunders and missed wins on Chess.com?
On Chess.com, when you play live chess, when the match is done, on your right hand, above the view analysis button, it says something like this

How to check my mistake and can I do that without being premium member?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Click on view analysis or computer analysis button

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


title: Ambiguity in Text

text:
# Question
Title: Ambiguity in Text
John Nunn mentions the following in *Understanding Chess: Move by Move (2002)*:

> Pawn weaknesses vary in severity according to two factors: 1) whether there is any possibility of liquidating the weakness, ...
>
> As an example of the first factor, a backward pawn may not be a real weakness at all if it is impossible to stop the pawn advancing aside another pawn.

How do these two statements tie hand-in-hand?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Normally a backward pawn is considered a potential weakness since it cannot be defended by other pawns where it stands, and if it's impossible to move the pawn somehow it can become a very serious weakness indeed. But if the backward pawn can sidestep any threat against it by moving forward it may not even be an issue. In many cases, a backward pawn will come under attack by an enemy pawn if it were to move forward, and this is probably what John Nunn meant in the provided text; the "weak" pawn is pushed forward and will be "liquidated" against the enemy pawn.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The book is right. In chess, nothing is a weakness if it can't be exploited. In the following world championship game, Black had a backward pawn on d6. However, it was not a weakness.

Note b3, Rad8, Red2, d5!, the d5 push will liquidate everything. That was why Carlsen exchanged the pawn with his c4 pawn immediately.

> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937912

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: Does FIDE make any money from media coverage?
Unlike any other professional sports I know of, everyone seems to be able to broadcast chess world chess championship online.

That raises the question, are they making any money from media coverage? Can't they sell exclusive coverage to selected media?

# Answer
FIDE have sold the rights for the current world championship cycle to Agon. Given the very high levels of dissatisfaction with Agon it is unlikely that the contract will be renewed and the rights will revert to FIDE. There has been discussion of this on chess.com here.

Note that the moves of the game cannot be legally protected via copyright laws etc. Only the live pictures of the players playing the games can be protected like that. This has already been tested in the courts in several countries including the US (the most lucrative market) by Agon for previous matches.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide, world-championship
---


title: How to record these moves?

text:
# Question
Title: How to record these moves?
Suppose a complete hypothetical positions that white has 6 queens and they are at a1, a4, a7, g1, g4, g7, respectively. How to record the following move in the standard algebraic notation?

1. Moving the first queen to d4?
2. Moving the second queen to d4?
3. Moving the third queen to d4?
4. Moving the fourth queen to d4?
5. Moving the fifth queen to d4?
6. Moving the sixth queen to d4?

# Answer
> 4 votes
See for yourself: https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/3K4/q5q1/8/8/q5q1/8/8/q2Bk1q1\_b\_-\_-

It's Qa1d4 for total unambiguity. I imagine this corner case is not covered by every PGN reader though.

1. Qa1d4
2. Qa4d4
3. Qa7d4
4. Qg1d4
5. Qg4d4
6. Qg7d4

---
Tags: notation, queens
---


# Question
Title: Why is Carlsen criticized for poor preparation at World Chess Championship 2018?
As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.

But ... 11 games have been *drawn*. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?

In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?

# Answer
Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4

Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.
> 28 votes

# Answer
Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.

While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.
> 14 votes

# Answer
The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.

First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!

Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how ultra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.

The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Let's not forget that Carlsen played the **Sicilian** in all his black games so far, and had no problems. It's a riskier choice than the 1.e4 e5 of his previous matches and he's making it work.

Also playing all of 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.e4 is a riskier approach than sticking to one, and more exciting for the audience.

Maybe he did have novelties, just not in the lines Caruana played. Chess is a draw, and Caruana did not choose those lines for nothing.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Adding a bit to Brian Towers' answer, which I think is the best one.

In top-level chess, White has a noticeable advantage from the opening position. Therefore, "win with white, draw with black" is a common maxim: you don't have to aim to win your Black games, but you should aim to win the White games. In other words, you should come out of the opening with some advantage.

Carlsen is being criticized because in his White games, he has very often failed to get an opening advantage. This might be explainable if Caruana learned a completely new opening repertoire (Boris Gelfand did this in his match vs. Anand); however Caruana has simply continued to play the openings he usually plays. I'll highlight what happened after a screenshot of Caruana's laptop was leaked. Some people argued it was a ploy, because the screenshot basically showed that Caruana was looking at the QGD and the Petrov's Defense, which Carlsen ought to already have known. Former world champion Anand said as much, calling the "revelation" that Caruana was looking at the Petrov's Defense "completely useless". But if Carlsen had known Caruana was going to play these openings, he ought to have prepared some kind of line that would lead to an opening advantage. So why didn't he manage? For example, game 7 was a QGD that Carlsen already knew that Caruana was likely to play (if he didn't know it beforehand, he definitely knew it after game 2), and yet he still came out of the opening with no advantage.

A fair question is why didn't Caruana's opening preparation come under criticism. First, it's harder to prepare against Carlsen than to prepare against Caruana: Carlsen plays more openings. When you don't know what opening the opponent is going to play, you have more ground to cover, making things hard. After game 1 when Caruana learned that Carlsen was going to play the Sicilian, he did make some progress in game 3, gaining a small opening advantage. He did it again in game 5, where he reached a complicated position from which he could hope that Carlsen would fail to navigate correctly; and then again in game 8, when his position was even winning.

You'll have to come to your own conclusions about whether or not the criticism is fair. I'm simply explaining why it's happening.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, carlsen
---


# Question
Title: Is a given time control per side or in total?
The Wikipedia page about Chess Time Control describes for example:

> ... 90 minutes for the first 40 moves ...

A move in chess is defined as both White and Black side doing their separate move, so if the 90 minutes are per side, then the Wikipedia description appears to be misleading.

This applies also to the World Chess Championship 2018.

Are these 90 minutes per side, or total ?

# Answer
Time controls are **always** specified per side, so White has 90 minutes and Black has 90 minutes, for a total of 180 minutes (for the first 40 moves). See the FIDE handbook:

> 6.3.1 When using a chessclock, each player must complete a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time including any additional amount of time with each move.

It says 'each player', not 'both players'. It's probably not worded more elaborately since it's 'common knowledge' among competitive chess players.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, time-control
---


title: Can you take back a draw offer?

text:
# Question
Title: Can you take back a draw offer?
Is it possible to take back the draw offer if the opponent was not immediately replying to it?

# Answer
No. Rule 9.1.2.1 of the FIDE rules says it all:

> **9.1.2.1** A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer **cannot be withdrawn** and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.

(rule 11.5 is about not distracting the opponent during his move)

It's expected that the opponent takes his time to think about the offer, just as he probably spends time on thinking about his next move. He isn't required to actually refuse the offer, just making a move is quite normal too (once he touches a piece to move the offer is over, see above).
> 24 votes

---
Tags: draw
---