# Question
Title: What are the first moves chosen (White), by brute force chess engines?
Title says it all. Feel free to add comment, theory, or explanation.

Just to clarify, this is only regarding turn 1 of White, and no proceeding turns after it.

# Answer
Houdini 1.5 on my old machine (1.8 G 2 cpu) slows down a lot around 20 ply (10 moves).

At 20 ply, it seems to slightly favor a four knights queen pawn game, starting with d4 or Nf3 over the Four Knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6)

it switches at 22 ply to the Ruy Lopez Berlin (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Be7).

at ply 23, it switches back to d-pawn four knights, but starting with 1.Nf3
> 4 votes

# Answer
**None** \- yet.

Brute Force is a pretty well defined problem solving technique that consists of checking each and every candidate for whether it is a solution. Since we are starting at move 1, a **candidate** has to be defined as **a complete game of chess** and the only possible **objective criterion** for its evaluation is whether it **forces a win for white** or not. No engine has analyzed a forced win for white from move 1 so far, so **no actual brute-force engine has reached a conclusion yet**.

As soon as you introduce a **heuristic** (or multiple ones like positional advantage, material advantage, space advantage...) for evaluating **partial solutions** (game positions that are not a checkmate yet) and their distance to a complete solution, **like all chess engines do**, it stops being a brute-force engine. Those evaluation techniques are the reason why chess engines are able to choose moves **at all** until the whole space of possible chess games is solved and/or a force win for white is found (which I think is highly unlikely).

Thus, my answer is that there are no brute-force engines in use today - if there were one it would still be thinking. Yes, brute-force might be used to describe the basic technique that modern heuristics developed from, but the evaluation criteria are actually a lot more important for an engine's capabilities. To put it bluntly, calling todays chess engines 'brute-force' is akin to calling a house a 'hole-thing', just because you need to dig a hole for the foundation. The rest is much more important and interesting.

I hope you, dear reader, will not take this as nit-picking on words, but as an addendum to the **actual answers** already given by other people. They answer the spirit of the question, this one... just the semantics - there was nothing else left to answer. :)
> 3 votes

# Answer
A chess engine works by trying to "rate" positions, and evaluate how strong they are. It could find a checkmate in 4 moves (that one where white checkmates by getting queen to f7 (IIRC)) but it'd be stupid to consider this "AHA! My evaluation is that I have won!" As such it is very subjective as it depends hugely on what it thinks the opponents best move is.

It is for this reason it is not (read: I really really doubt, with my mathsy-background) known if chess is a fair game, that is will "perfect" playing by both sides lead to a draw, or white or black to win, because that "perfect" part is so subjective.

With 0s and Xs, it is a fair game because it is easy to show that "perfect" playing leads to a draw.
> 1 votes

# Answer
A very interesting article regarding this.

It gives an overview of what Houdini suggests for the first few moves for White (and also Black).
> 1 votes

# Answer
Figured I'd post the famous Deep Blue vs Kasparov games.

```
Game #  White       Black       Result  Opening     Comment
1       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 c5
2       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
3       Deep Blue   Kasparov    ½–½     e4 c5       Draw by mutual agreement
4       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     Nf3 d5      Draw by mutual agreement
5       Deep Blue   Kasparov    0–1     e4 e5       Kasparov offered a draw after the 23rd move.
6       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
Result: Kasparov–Deep Blue: 4–2

Game #  White       Black       Result  Opening     Comment
1       Kasparov    Deep Blue   1–0     Nf3 d5
2       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 e5
3       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     d3 e5       Draw by mutual agreement
4       Deep Blue   Kasparov    ½–½     e4 c6       Draw by mutual agreement
5       Kasparov    Deep Blue   ½–½     Nf3 d5      Draw by mutual agreement
6       Deep Blue   Kasparov    1–0     e4 c6
Result: Deep Blue–Kasparov: 3½–2½

```

Deep Blue

e4 c5 = 1-0-1

e4 c6 = 1-0-1

e4 e5 = 1-1-0

Kasparov

Nf3 d5 = 3-2-0

d3 e5 = 0-1-0
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, engines, statistics, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Are alphanumeric style chessboards becoming less popular?
It seems that most of the chessboards being offered for sale in the House of Staunton or Regency Chess \- except for cheap vinyl tournament chess boards - do not have alphanumeric coordinates marked on the four sides.

Has this style fallen out of favor or are the markings considered to interfere with a minimalist look or even distract during play? I have possibly over 500 games under my belt but still being able to rely on markings is handy especially when taking notes or studying.

# Answer
> 4 votes
They are still selling boards with coordinates and still using them in official competitions.

With experience you will see that you will no longer need numbers and letters to help you throughout the game (just think battleship).

# Answer
> 0 votes
This may be true that they are not as popular as before but Regency Chess does still stock quite a lot of the Alphanumeric boards like this one http://www.regencychess.co.uk/16-inch-no4-inlaid-wooden-alphanumeric-chess-board-p-28.html.

I haven't bought one as yet but am considering it for sure.

---
Tags: chessboards
---


title: When you're up in material

text:
# Question
Title: When you're up in material
In some games, I was up on material, but then lost due to either time pressure or blunders. How should I avoid these type of pitfalls?

# Answer
I see two things you can consider:

* trying to learn how to control your stress.
* playing many faster games to get used to play and think more quickly (if you often play games with 15 minutes per side, try to play games with 10 minutes per side).

Therefore you most probably won't often be in this situation anymore.
> 2 votes

# Answer
When you are up material, the simplest way to win is to trade material. Don't try to over complicate the game if unnecessary. Trade off the pieces and you will win the endgame -- easily.
> 1 votes

# Answer
This is a psychological issue. You have to change your thinking about what it means to be up material. Instead of thinking "I am winning," simply think, "I am up material, but what did I give up for that?"

Often to be up material you give up some kind of positional weakness, sometimes significant and that is probably why you are losing these games.

If you still see the very real danger you are in after being up in material you will play as hard as you should and not expect and easy win, and then you will find the wins. It's all a matter of not relaxing until the game ends.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: losing, winning
---


# Question
Title: Similar opening positions and structures
When I first started chess, my mentor asked me to learn one opening that I like and stick to it, study it and master it. But things will not always go the way you think, your opponent might not always start `1. e4`. However, starting `1. e4, 1. d4 , 1. Nf3...` might leads to the same position after a sequence of moves (considering the in between moves to reach that position does not consist of a blunder).

What is the most common opening position(s) / structure(s) to be in regardless of the starting move? This is because by studying those, I think I can try to shape the board into those positions which I'm comfortable in.

# Answer
There are two paths you can choose and they both depend on the current pawn structure you play.

You see, I understand exactly what you face here, as I have the same problem. When you work or have other reasons not to devote yourself to studying chess, you need to learn the least amount of openings possible in order to focus on more important stuff such as tactics/endgames/middlegame.

Therefore you need openings **that are immune to transpositional tricks**, but on the same side **you can reach their middlegame positions as Black anytime.** At best, you will need two openings -\> against `1.e4` and against everything else.

As I have said, there are two choices:

## FIRST CHOICE :

*CARO-SLAV PAWN STRUCTURE*

You can use *Caro-Kann defense* against `1.e4` and *Queen's Gambit* against `1.d4`. These two openings have **a lot of similar middlegames** and studying pawn structures for both sides will greatly help you. Compare the below diagrams to see what I mean:

```
[Title "Queen's Gambit"]
[fen "8/pp3ppp/2p1p3/3p4/2PP4/4P3/PP3PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

And this one:

```
[Title "Caro-Kann"]
[fen "8/pp3ppp/2p1p3/3p4/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Now consider exchange variations that can crop up from those structures:

```
[Title "Queen's Gambit declined"]
[fen "8/pp3ppp/2p5/3p4/3P4/4P3/PP3PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

And notice that this is the same position **only with the colors reversed:**

```
[Title "Caro-Kann"]
[fen "8/pp3ppp/4p3/3p4/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

This means that if you take time to learn *Carlsbad pawn structure* you could cut down the amount of work drastically.

Furthermore, both *Caro-Kann* and *Queen's Gambit declined* are **immune to transpositional tricks** so White is unable to "kick you out" of your opening choice:

```
[Title "Caro-Kann"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5!

```

This is a line from *Caro-Kann* and is considered unclear. On other moves Black simply transposes into well explored lines as well.

```
[Title "Queen's Gambit"]
[fen ""]

1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5!

```

And you are back into *Caro-Kann*. On other moves Black simply transposes into well known lines.

On `1.e4` you could also use *French defense*, but it will require more work on middlegame structures, as they differ from the ones in *Queen's Gambit*. Still, the **total number of lines you need to learn** is lesser than the ones in *Caro-Kann* :

```
[Title "French defense"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5!

```

This is a good line for Black, covered in any repertoire book for *French defense*. Also, if White tries to trick you to not play *Queen's Gambit* he will fail and you can transpose into *French defense*:

```
[Title "Queen's Gambit"]
[fen ""]

1.c4 e6! 2.e4 ( 2.d4 d5! ) 2...d5!

```

And in both cases you are "in your opening", thus refuting White's try for tricking you out.

## SECOND CHOICE:

The second choice is *Sicilian defense-Dragon variation* or *Modern defense* for `1.e4` and *King's Indian defense* on `1.d4`.

**A lot of work is required here**, but these openings give **better winning chances for Black** than *Queen's Gambit* and *French / Caro-Kann defense*. They are also **immune to transpositional tricks.**

The pawn structure is nearly identical for all of these openings:

```
[Title "KID, Sicilian Dragon and Modern"]
[fen "8/pp2pp1p/3p2p1/2p5/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

It all depends on what you want:

QGD + Caro-Kann/French give you positional play, yet KIA and Sicilian/modern tend to be much sharper.

I chose QGD and French, and never regretted it, because I always "stayed in the opening" and the ideas are clear and simple. Still, I must add that these are harder to play then KIA and Sicilian/Modern, and achieving victory with Black is nearly impossible against quality opposition.

In the end, I recommend you *Andrew Soltis-Pawn Structure Chess* to help you grasp the middlegame concepts. With proper repertoire books you should be OK.

Hopefully this helps you a bit, if you have further questions leave a comment and I will try to help you.

Best regards.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The idea of mastering several openings is a good one because we can't mastering all openings.

In general, as white, you always begin with the same move (for example `1. e4`) to reduce the choice of openings for black.

But when you play as black you need to learn two openings at least: one against `1. e4` (for example `1... d5`) and one against `1. d4` (for example `1... d5` too). That way you reduce the possible variations for white.

Here's an example of reducing possible variations if your opponent plays as white:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4

```

or

```
[fen ""]

1.c4 d5 2.d4

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, study
---


title: Unbeatable openings

text:
# Question
Title: Unbeatable openings
I am a new chess player and after some days me and my friends decided to set a chess tournament. . As i am new to chess, I want some unbeatable (read: solid and sensible) openings so I can beat my friends in chess games. . . Please give me some best openings. . . Thanks in advance..

# Answer
While I agree with Henry's comment above that your opening choice won't be the deciding factor, choosing a good opening will probably help you.

Regarding openings:

1. Don't just memorize moves.
2. If you don't understand it, don't play it. This doesn't mean you have an encyclopedic knowledge, but avoid rote moves. The reason is that your opponent can choose a move for which you're not prepared. If you're only memorizing you'll be lost. But if you know why you're doing what you're doing, you have a better chance to respond effectively.

You need one opening as White, and one or two as Black.

For White, a common opening is the 'King Pawn's Game". This opening makes it easy for you 1. develop your pieces, and 2. castle your king to make it safe.

Here's how it goes:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.O-O

```

By the 5th move, White is developing nicely and has castled. Black is doing ok too, but for now, get your pieces developed. Perhaps your opponent won't make such prudent choices.

For Black, you'll need 2 openings, one against e4 and one against d4. I'll let someone else go into more detail, but consider the Caro-Kann against e4.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Well, it is important to work on your openings and get a decent opening repertoire. The best move for a beginner would be 1.e4 as Whites. Then you should consider all responds from Black to your first move. Main variations will be: 1. - e5 1. - e6 1. - c5 1. - c6 1. - d6 1. - d5 1. - Nf6 1. - Nc6

All these moves lead to totally different middle games therefore you need know some main variations for all these openings. It would be good if you also find out respective games played by world-class GMs so you can better understand the following middlegames. Chessbase has got all the games you want. The same counts for Black repertoire. You need to consider what will you respond to: 1. e4 1. d4 1. c4 1. Nf3 1. g3

It needs to be said that many start moves can lead to the same openings with different move orders. For example, you can play King's Indian as Black against 1. d4, 1. c4, 1. g3 and 1. Nf3. It will also depend on you opponent's moves.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: What is the last piece to be developed, and why?
Statistically speaking, for white and black, what is the last piece moved from its starting position, and why?

# Answer
> 6 votes
I think a good approach to this is to see what pieces most likely move first.

Central pawns normally always come out.

The bishops and knights come out early

If you castle early, one of the rooks plus the king will have moved

The other rook is sometimes left stationary unless there is an open file.

The queen normally gets into play.

Since you want to keep the king safeguarded, especially if castled, I would say most players would try to move the pawns in front of the castled king last or leave them on their original squares.

# Answer
> 4 votes
There are *so* many factors that would affect that. Player strength, for one, as weaker players tend to play heavy pieces first (beginners *always* have to be told not to push their rook pawns and bring their rooks out in front of their pawns).

Next, the opening choice affects it strongly, because that can dictate both castling and pawn structure.

Since `O-O-O` is rarer than `O-O`, a good guess for the last piece is the QR, because every other piece has to move before it can. But pawns figure in as well, and given the rarity of queen side fianchettoes I'd guess the b-pawn might even nip the Rook for last moved.

What's the purpose of the question, aside from idle curiosity? Is there a principle you're aiming for?

# Answer
> 3 votes
We can remove a few unlikely contenders:

* The central pawns are developed quickly in most games to control the center and aid development.
* The c-pawns are also frequently moved in the opening.
* Knights are frequently the first real pieces to be developed since their development clears space for the king to castle and controls the center.
* Bishops are also developed early in most games, primarily for the same reasons as the knight.
* Kings castle early in most games.
* Since `O-O` is more common than `O-O-O`, we can also safely rule out the king's rooks.

That leaves us with the queens, the queen's rooks, and the a-, b-, f-, g-, and h-pawns. Among the pawns, I think the b- and g-pawns are most likely to move first, since the fianchetto is a relatively common maneuver. Among the two remaining pieces, the queen is generally developed earlier in the game than the queen's rook, so we can rule her out.

Now, we're down to the queen's rook and three pawns. Even though I initially thought the f-pawn was going to be the most frequent last piece developed, a quick look at my games says otherwise. The vast popularity of the Bird's opening, as well as frequent kingside attacks, ensures that the f-pawn is rarely the last piece developed.

I'm also going to rule out the a-pawn, since it is moved frequently in openings such as the Sicilian (e.g. the Najdorf) and the Ruy Lopez (e.g. main line).

With only the h-pawn and the queen's rook remaining, it is hard to make a comparison without statistics. While, in most games, the last piece to be developed will be a pawn, the large number of pawns relative to the number of likely pieces makes it possible that the queen's rook is the single, most statistically likely piece to be developed last.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The rook or the queen. Typically

Knights & Bishops should be developed early Queen should be out after the minor pieces are out The rooks are out last and usually come out via castling. Sometimes, it stays there and attacks from there (e.g. in the Sicilian Yugoslav attack, white players usually castle queenside and push the h-pawn, with the rook staying on h1)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'd say the queen for the very reason she isn't moved much early on - because she is more susceptible to attack!

Also, isn't knights before bishops a rule for the opening that holds true under most circumstances? I say this because that would nearly eliminate the knight from contention, or would in tournaments anyway.

---
Tags: opening, statistics
---


title: How does timeseal work?

text:
# Question
Title: How does timeseal work?
I know the the fics (free internet chess server: www.freechess.org/) does use a program called timeseal to measure the time that a user needed to take a move. This timeseal is some time measurement on the client. Measuring on the client is much better and fairer than measuring the time on the server since you don't lose time just by having a bad connection.

But since fics has a lot of interfaces to play on - what prevents rogue interfaces to say that they always only used 0.1 seconds for any move? Does anyone know how this is handled?

Just a sidenote: i don't want to build a rogue interface, but i'm trying to build something similar that is measuing client side time but should not be easy to cheat on.

# Answer
> 13 votes
I'm a chess player and programmer. There was actually a paper on this 10 years ago about the timestamp and other security on ICC. You should read it with the understanding that things may be different now:

How to Cheat at Chess: A Security Analysis of the Internet Chess Club

But in general, you are correct. It is possible to manipulate the times reported in timeseal (timestamp). I've actually done it, even with ICC's official interface, just to see if it can be done. Speed hacks exist for many games and I used an existing speed hack program to slow down my clock instead of speeding it up (which you normally would do to run faster in a game). The result was a game I played vs KBNK (a bot which lets you practice B+N mate), in which I mated the computer after about 30 moves in less than 3 seconds played time. Averaging 0.1 seconds per move or so on a non-trivial mate is definitely unnatural.

I reported the effect to the administrators of the site, but I was told they were able to detect it. In fact, they had a log of my fraudulent time stamps detected (somewhere... I assume they can see blatant false reports, as well as compare it to TCP/IP timestamps and see if the numbers are reasonable). I was told that they were able to detect such cheating and to please not use it but thanks for my concern.

So, yes it is possible to manipulate anything client side, but it is also possible that they can detect fraudulent time stamps server side. Better chess servers typically already have a team of people that investigate reports of cheating, either by computer or clock manipulation.

---
Tags: chess-algorithms
---


# Question
Title: What is the longest non-cyclic forced sequence of moves?
I am looking for positions from where every move is forced up to a certain depth. If the original position (or one in between) occurs again, the sequence is finished there.

# Answer
> 5 votes
## 9 moves

In the linked thread (not quite a duplicate), a valid answer is posed to this question:

> You mean like this?

```
[Title "Vilhelm Röpke, Skakbladet 1942, Mate In 6"]
[FEN "K1k5/P1Pp4/1p1P4/8/p7/P2P4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

> White mates in 6.

> I guess that's 9 consecutive forced moves. It would be eleven except for black's choice of promotion piece on his fifth move. I don't know if it's a record, and I don't know who composed this classic chess problem.

---
Tags: problems, forced-move
---


# Question
Title: How should black meet 2.d4 in the Sicilian Defense?
When playing the Sicilian Defence, what should black do when white's second move is: `2.d4`

Should black take the white pawn, or should he continue to develop, by say moving pawn to `e6`?

# Answer
In classical chess openings, the first thing white tries to do is build a pawn center with pawns on both e4 and d4. So the first goal of 1.e4 is to follow up with 2.d4, and the first goal of 1.d4 is to follow up with 2.e4. Of course, there is an opponent, so usually white has to shift plans quite quickly, but that's the classical theory.

Black can react in several different ways. If he attacks pawn e4 right now, then white can't really move 2.d4; that's what 1...d5 and 1...Nf6 do. 1...e6 and 1...c6 prepare 2...d5, so that black also gets a foothold in the center. Moves like 1...g6 let white go right ahead and hope that black will be able to sabotage white's center later and use the empty space left behind. 1...e5 puts black's own pawn in the center, makes 2.d4 exd4 possible and opens up lines for the bishop and queen: the classical best move.

1...c5 does slightly less than 1...e5: if white does play d4, black can chop off the pawn, and it opens up a diagonal for the queen, but no minor pieces are freed. The point is that that e-pawn is a center pawn, and therefore more valuable than the c-pawn: if black can trade *c* for d, he'll have one more pawn in the center. It's a very long term idea and he'll suffer first because he is behind in development, but the extra center pawn is helpful in defence and if he survives he'll probably have a better pawn structure.

So the whole idea of the opening is to play 2...cxd4 after 1.e4 c5 2.d4. 2...e6 would be followed by 3.d5, when black can't trade c for d anymore and white gets a slight space advantage.

This also explains the three main ways to play white against the Sicilian: fight it head on by still going for d4 (either 2.d4 or 2.Nf3 3.d4) and try to destroy black using the development advantage, *prepare* d4 with 2.c3 ("the only move that takes the Sicilian seriously", van der Sterren), or all the other plans that use d3 instead of d4, trying to show that white can do without d4 and that therefore 1...c5 is silly.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is the Smith-Morra Gambit. Your opponent plans to play c3 to invite dxc for rapid development. The Smith-Morra is extremely dangerous for black. Even if you do not fall for one of the numerous mistakes that results in a quick win for white, white usually has great development and a lot of pressure for a long time. As someone who plays the smith-morra myself, I would strongly discourage you from accepting the gambit.

There are several ways of declining the Smith-Morra gambit.

d5 (which can lead to a Caro-Kann type position if they play e5, but with the ability to develop the knight to c6)

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5

```

d3 (leading to a Maroczy Bind type position)

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3 4. c4

```

Nf6

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6

```

I would recommend declining the Smith-Morra with d5 as the easiest/best way to handle the Smith-Morra.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
Well, Morra gambit is not very dangerous for black. In young age I usually have taken the pawn and played scheme with Nc6, Ne7, pawns a6, b5, e6, f6. Later I have become a huge fan of hedgehog systems, that's why I give pawn back after 3... d3. The problem with this hedgehog is that White have some extra tempos there and they can use them if they go to Bishop b2 fianchetto. It is dangerous to play this position by Black, if White player has good openening knowledge but Black didn't.
> 1 votes

# Answer
You mean in 1e4 c5 2d4 right ?

Well the point of the sicilian is to trade our c5 pawn for d4 and open the c file and get rid of white's center pawn

Anyway, that line u talk about is called smith-morra gambit

See this video for better preparation here
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: What is the best way to prepare and optimize my skills for an Open section of a State tournament?
I am an intermediate chess player (1500-1600 skill level USCF) and will enter the Open section of a State tournament. I would like to prepare for this tournament in three months, what would be the best way to become a stronger chess player to at least survive against 2000 USCF rated players or higher?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I think this question is a bit too broad to answer, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I think the best thing you can do in 3 months is to play as much as you can. You can play online and pick a semi-serious time control such as G/15. For **all** the games you lose (or really all of your games), you should analyze it thoroughly until you understand what it is that you could have done better. You can use a chess engine to help you as well as any other resource (Analyze the games with a high rated friend afterwards). If you played a poor move in an opening, you need to make sure you revise your repertoire. If you made a tactical blunder you need to ask yourself why you made that mistake and how you can avoid it next time, if you lost in an endgame maybe research that endgame to see how you can play better next time. I would suggest, at least, 5 games a day if you can manage.

There's not much you can do in 3 months, but the best thing you can do is play as much as you can and learn as much as you can from your losses. It is easy to lose and simply play another game and forget it happened. It is better to figure out why you lost and try to figure out how to avoid it next time.

If you could average 5 games a day, that's 450 games in 3 months. If you've learned anything from each of these games, that's got to be worth something.

---
Tags: tournament, training
---


# Question
Title: What motivated Kasparov's comments on the Anand-Gelfand match?
I was watching an interview with Kasparov which occurred before the Anand-Gelfand match was played, and he said:

> "Nobody should be offended, it is just a fact, but it's the first time in a long period of time that a World Championship match, with the official champion and official challenger, doesn't have anything to do with fighting for the title of the strongest chess player on the planet."

Why exactly would he say that? Was it just because Carlsen was not playing, or are there deeper reasons?

# Answer
Kasparov's reason for that statement may be no deeper than this:

The current rating list does give a concrete, factual basis for his assessment, though it is certainly something with which others might disagree. Current world #2 Levon Aronian, for one, made a point of contradicting Kasparov:

> "I don’t think \[what Kasparov said\] is true. The player that made it through a very tough Candidates’ Tournament and the player that has held the title for so long are, by rights, the strongest players in the world."

Ultimately, how one defines the "strongest" players is clearly a subjective matter. As for what underlying personal motivations Kasparov might have for saying what he did, we shouldn't speculate; so if that really is what you're after, then I concur with the current vote to close the question. But if you take the rating list to satisfy the "why" of your question, then it seems OK to me.
> 13 votes

# Answer
Kasparov has been known to make controversial statements. He's just not politically correct. But it is the fact that the match winner will not be considered world strongest chess player by most. According to May 2012 FIDE Elo list Anand was no.4 and Gelfand no.20.

The part about it being first time in long period of time is questionable, recent FIDE world chess champions like Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were also not in the World's top few and Kasparov himself chose Kramnik for his "classical world champion" match who arguably was not the strongest player possible (but beat him anyway).
> 7 votes

# Answer
Kasparov is a great player but has one singular flaw. He wants to be in the lime light even after his retirement. If that means throwing a few of the contemporaries under the bus, he will happily do that.

FIDE has a system to select a challenger for the World Championship. The eventual challenger comes through after a well fought series of matches against other best players. Now, enters Kasparov who in his mind has already thrown FIDE and its system under the bus.

Emperor Kasparov declares he doesn't like the current choices. Now, all chess fans are supposed to do is to drop dead from the real world and enter the great Kaspi's mind. Kapsi will decide who should play against whom! What a deal!

All geniuses are a bit mad men themselves and you can't fault Kaspi for that!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: world-championship, kasparov, gelfand, anand
---


title: Learning different strategies?

text:
# Question
Title: Learning different strategies?
Ok, So I learned how to play chess yrs ago, but suck at it-and wanna knw if there are any nice strategies to beat your opponents? If so can you guys tell me about it and explained the whole concept to pretty please?

# Answer
> 3 votes
There are three phases of the chess game - **opening**, **middlegame** and **endgame**. You should learn about these. Also, as a human being there is also the **psychological** aspect of the game. Then there are also **free chess programs** that you can use to analyze your games. So you may want to look into various threads on this site that are related to these topics.

Look for tags like opening, middlegame, endgame, software, training, tactics, strategy, etc.

There are plenty of threads on these topics, so I'll be a bit biased and recommend some of my own answers :D -

**Psychological**

How to start learning chess?

What advice wold you give to a novice in chess?

What to do after losing a game?

**Opening**

Why is the center of the board considered important in chess?

Should I understand openings or just memorize them?

What opening traps can I set that do not weaken my position?

**Middlegame**

What are some good middlegame plans and strategies?

What is prophylaxis and why is it important?

**Endgame**

How do I improve my endgame?

How do I checkmate with a queen, with a rook, and with bishops?

**Software**

Websites for practicing chess tactics

Free Chess Software

---
Tags: strategy
---


# Question
Title: With only the King left, how can you get a draw?
Let's say I have only the King left.

I've read several rules and posts of people saying there is a limit to the number of moves your opponent has to check mate you in, but there are some inconsistencies:

* I found the number of moves varying depending on where I found the info. It seems to be 50, but I am not 100% sure.
* It seems there are some exceptions and cases where the count is reset, but the information seems quite spread all over.

I'd like to understand this rule in detail and know all the special cases if possible, as it seems way too fuzzy for me and the people I play with.

# Answer
> 19 votes
If a player has a theoretical win, that person has a move limit (50 moves) with "no fundamental alteration of the position." That means no captures of pawns or pieces, and no *pawn* moves. The count is reset if either of these things happens.

There used to be an exception for positions like king, bishop, and knight vs. King (a checkmate). It was known to be winnable in a maximum of 34 moves. But players got *twice* this maximum, or 68 moves (Milton Hanauer, "Chess Made Simple"). Apparently, this, and other exceptions, were removed later, according to a comment below.

# Answer
> 10 votes
> For the most part, a draw occurs when it appears that neither side will win.
>
> Draws are codified by various rules of chess including stalemate (when the player to move has no legal move and is not in check), threefold repetition (when the same position occurs three times with the same player to move), and the fifty-move rule (when the last fifty successive moves made by both players contain no capture or pawn move).
>
> A draw also occurs when neither player has sufficient material to checkmate the opponent or when no sequence of legal moves can lead to checkmate. Unless specific tournament rules forbid it, players may agree to a draw at any time.
>
> Ethical considerations may make a draw uncustomary in situations where at least one player has a reasonable chance of winning.
>
> For example, a draw could be called after a move or two, but this would likely be thought unsporting.

Source

# Answer
> 10 votes
I know you mainly asked about the 50 move rule, and that has already been answered, but I thought I'd answer the **exact** question as stated which was **"With the King as the last piece, how can you get a draw?"**

1. Both players can agree to a draw
2. Opponent Stalemates you (you have no legal moves, but are not in check)
3. You stalemate your opponent (yes you can do this with just a king, but he has to help you by blocking himself with a pawn for example)
4. Your opponent does not have mating material (no pawns and one, Knight or Bishop, or less)
5. 50-move rule. After 50 moves have passed without a capture or a pawn advancing, you can claim a draw.
6. The same position is repeated 3 times and you claim a draw. For the position to be the same it must be the same players turn and the same set of possible legal moves (including castling rights and en passant opportunities). The position need not repeat 3 times back to back, but at any time.
7. Your opponent runs out of time on the clock in a timed game and you claim it. The game is drawn because you do not have mating material.

# Examples

(2) Opponent Stalemates you (you have no legal moves, but are not in check)

```
[fen "8/3kp3/8/8/8/8/4K3/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kd3 Kd6 2. Kd4 e5+ 3. Ke4 Ke6 4. Ke3 Kd5 5. Kd3 e4+ 6. Ke3 Ke5 7. Ke2 Kf4
8. Kf2 e3+ 9. Ke2 Ke4 10. Ke1 Kd3 11. Kd1 e2+ 12. Ke1 Ke3

```

(3) You stalemate your opponent (yes you can do this with just a king, but he has to help you by blocking himself with a pawn for example)

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/7R/3K4/p7/r1k5 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Rh1+ Kb2 2. Rxa1 Kxa1 3. Kc2

```

(4) Your opponent does not have mating material (no pawns and one, Knight or Bishop, or less)

```
[FEN "8/6q1/3k4/2n5/7Q/4K3/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Qd4+ Qxd4+ 2. Kxd4

```

(5) 50-move rule. After 50 moves have passed without a capture or a pawn advancing, you can claim a draw.

```
[Event "ICC 3 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[White "Smallville"]
[Black "depressnyak"]
[FEN "r7/3q2k1/3bb2p/r1p1p1pP/PpPpPpP1/1P1P1P2/R1Q3KN/R7 w - - 6 33"]

1. Kf2 Qe7 2. Kg2 Bd7
3. Kf2 Qe8 4. Kg2 Qb8 5. Nf1 Bc7 6. Nd2 Qe8 7. Qd1 Qc8 8. Kg1 R8a7
9. Kg2 Qa8 10. Kg1 Bd6 11. Kg2 Bc6 12. Kg1 Be8 13. Kg2 Bf7 14. Kf2 Be6
15. Kg2 Qe8 16. Kf2 Bf7 17. Qh1 Qe6 18. Kg2 Be8 19. Qd1 Bd7 20. Kf2 Qe8
21. Kg2 Qc8 22. Kf2 Be6 23. Kg2 Qe8 24. Kf2 Qd7 25. Kg2 Qe8 26. Kf2 Bf7
27. Qh1 R7a6 28. Kg2 Be7 29. Kf2 Qd8 30. Kg2 Qe8 31. Kf2 Be6 32. Kg2 Bd6
33. Kf2 Bd7 34. Qd1 Bc6 35. Kg2 Qa8 36. Kf2 Be8 37. Kg2 Bf7 38. Kf2 Qe8
39. Qh1 Be7 40. Kg2 Be6 41. Kf2 Bf6 42. Kg2 Qc8 43. Qd1 Qc6 44. Kf2 Qe8
45. Kg2 Qd7 46. Kf2 Bf7 47. Kg2 Qc6 48. Kf2 Bd8 49. Kg2 Bc7 50. Kf2 Qe8 51. Qh1

```

(6 The same position is repeated 3 times and you claim a draw. For the position to be the same it must be the same players turn and the same set of possible legal moves (including castling rights and en passant opportunities). The position need not repeat 3 times back to back, but at any time.

```
[White "Fischer"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[Date "1971"]
[FEN "8/pp3p1k/2p2q1p/3r1P2/5R2/7P/P1P1QP2/7K b KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Qe5 Qh5 2. Qf6 Qe2 3. Re5 Qd3 4. Rd5 Qe2

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
By the "rules" of chess, 50 moves without captures or pawn moves will result in a draw. When the ONLY pieces left on the board are two kings, a draw occurs. You can also ask the other player for a draw ("I offer a draw"). Threefold repetition of a position will also result in a draw.

# Answer
> 5 votes
There is no rule about a number of moves that applies only when one side has a king. So the real answer to your question is, there's no such thing.

However, there is a rule that states that if 50 or more moves (full moves, so 50 by white and 50 by black) have happened without a pawn move or capture, the player to move may claim a draw. It's not necessary that one of the sides has a lone king for that.

---
Tags: rules, kings, draw
---


title: Openings - e4 vs d4

text:
# Question
Title: Openings - e4 vs d4
In more than 90% of chess games I play in, the first move is either `d4` or `e4`.

When I am black, I try to counter `e4` with `Caro-Kann` and `Sicilian`, and against `d4` I usually just play `d5` and see where it goes from there.
I'm however puzzled by one thing; what difference is there between `d4` and `e4`?

* Are they equally good?
* Do they have their own merits/drawbacks?

From what I've read, `e4` is usually considered by far the best move in non-pro chess, but I don't really see how there could be a big difference between `d4` and `e4`.

# Answer
This question is a good first stop for students of the opening.

Comparing the two:

# **1.e4**

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq e3 0 1

```
* **Less influence over the centre**: 1.e4 doesn't stop the freeing pawn moves 1...c5 (Sicilian Defence), 1...d5 (except at top level, Scandinavian Defence), 1...e5 or 1...f5 (was Black going to weaken his king with this move anyway?). No control over the d4 or e4 squares.
* **Less coordination**: White's e4 pawn is left floating unsupported in the middle of the board.
* **More active pieces**: White's queen and bishop freed for operations on the wings.
* **Better king safety**: 1.e4 facilitates rapid castling after 2.Nf3 ... 3.Bc4, for example.

# **1.d4**

```
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/3P4/8/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq e3 0 1

```
* **More influence over the centre**: 1.d4 stops the freeing pawn moves 1...c5 and 1...e5, and controls the d4 square via the queen.
* **More coordination**: White's d4 pawn is supported by the queen.
* **Less active pieces**: White's queen and kingside (castling) bishop development hindered compared to 1.e4, but an eventual fianchetto of the kings bishop to the g2 square, although slower, may be more active and point more effectively toward the centre in the long run.
* **Less king safety**: White's kingside pieces will take longer to develope hindering the preferred kingside castling. The King is opened to immediate bishop-checks along the e1-a5 diagonal (Nimzo-Indian Defence, for example)

So, in very broad general terms, with 1.e4 White is wanting to throw his king into a castle then charge forth into the fray; whereas with 1.d4 White takes a more controlled approach, on his opponent's forces, on his own forces via piece coordination, and is confident enough to handle his king dallying in the centre.

If you accept all of the above, we can then use this knowledge to make decisions about our opening repertoire and move decisions in the opening. For example, some questions might come to mind given all of the above, like:

* As White with 1.d4, what is the line that allows the fastest castling so that I can blunt one of 1.d4 openings weaknesses while retaining its advantages?
* As Black facing 1.d4, what is a reply that takes advantage of White's slow castling, perhaps something that involves a quick attack that will catch his king in the centre?
* As Black facing 1.e4, what is a reply that results in all my pieces set up to attack White's kingside as that is where his king is likely to end up.

Etc. There are many questions that suggest themself after comparing the pros and cons of 1.e4 vs 1.d4. It is true that perhaps making any conclusions is premature based on just one move, but then your opponent might make follow-up moves that exacerbate one of the above stated disadvantages further...

And then there are other considerations unrelated to the disposition of the pieces on the board:

* The sum total of the theory in existence on 1.e4 is likely more than there is for 1.d4 openings. The Sicilian Defence in particular is a vast body of theory, but also the centuries old Ruy Lopez, the French, etc. You may be inclined to avoid this theory.
* Former World Champion, and one of the most dominant players in chess history, Bobby Fischer preferred 1.e4 and used it almost exclusively throughout his career, describing it as "Best by test."

There are differences. I encourage any chess player to really look closely at the two before deciding, and base their decision on their own critical analysis rather than just blindly accepting known maxims like "beginners should play 1.e4 because it results in open positions and tactical games."
> 24 votes

# Answer
They are indeed equally good. 1.e4 tends to lead to more open positions (the board is not cluttered up with pawns and pieces can move around freely) than 1.d4, which it is why it is recommended for less experienced players, since you have to learn how to use your pieces first to be good at playing more closed positions, where you constantly have to decide whether it's a good idea to open the position up by playing freeing pawn moves.

The big fundamental difference between the two moves comes down to (theoretically) how White is going to complete his big pawn center by playing the other central pawn move that he didn't play on move 1. If he started with 1.e4, it's not so hard to play d4 later, because the queen is already supporting it, and in openings like the Open Sicilian and Scotch he plays d4 very early indeed. If he started with 1.d4, a later e4 is a little harder to accomplish in comparison because no pieces are already supporting it. In broad strokes, this is why 1.e4 openings tend to lead to more open positions. (Of course, there are plenty of exceptions.)
> 11 votes

# Answer
d4 is protected, e4 is not. That's the main difference. White's center is definitely stronger with d4 and c4 than in a typical open game, and play tends to be more strategic and a little slower. But don't think d4 can't be just as exciting or dangerous. White routinely gets good attacking positions with d4. The Pillsbury Attack is a position to shoot for, often leading to a quick, direct attack against the black king.

Here's the classic example: Pillsbury vs Marco, 1900

Nf3-e5 before black has played Nc6 or Nd7, followed by f4, is characteristic of the Pillsbury Attack. The N on e5 is a monster, and if black ever takes it, white recaptures with the f pawn, kicking the black N off f6 and opening the f file for his rook.

This is a fun position to play, recommended for club players. Be on the lookout for a chance to make the Greek Gift sacrifice too.
> 4 votes

# Answer
There is not much difference between the two as they are two of the strongest opening moves to make. If unopposed, often `1.e4` is followed by `2.d4` or vice versa (`1.d4` `2.e4`).

The real difference comes when the mirror move is made.

In these scenarios `e4` is definitely more of an aggressive posture. When `1. e4 e5` is encountered White has many aggressive options such as bringing the knight out to attack `e5`, bringing the queen out to `Qh5` to attack the king side (not really recommended), pushing `d4` to attack `e5`, or setting up a bishop aimed at `f7` with `Bc4` (out of order though if made on move 2), or the hyper aggressive `f4` (kings gambit - kind of risky if black plays Fischer's line).

However, `d4` is more of a structural approach. When `1. d4 d5` is encountered White may consider many different avenues of moving forward, but there are not very many immediately aggressive approaches (perhaps `2. c4`, the Queens Gambit). In this scenario, `2.e4` should not really be considered as viable. Even with an attack on `d5`, it is still defended by Black's queen. So White's only choice here is to build. Begin moving the knights out, perhaps set up a London system, or maybe fiancetto king side and prepare for the mid game.

`e4` plays on the idea of immediate attack or traps in the opening, whereas `d4` tends to aim for attacks and traps in the mid game. Of course, these are just generalities and the game seems to always get away from generic approaches rather quickly.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The queen's gambit declined, nimzo indian, bogo indian, and queen's indian defense lines are just as strong for white as for example the sicilian and ruy lopez mainlines - but -

1. the variations are numerous and complex and requires greater study than the old standby ruy lopez
2. statistically there is a higher probability of a decisive game in the `1. d4` openings than in the `1. e4` openings

The queen's pawn games normally start with the rote: `1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6`. `1. d4 d5` limits the possibilities.
> 0 votes

# Answer
it may be interesting for you to see a direct comparison of the 1. d4 mainline (queen's indian defense) with the sicilian defense mainline. here is a link (if the link does not work please google "comparing chess openings part 3").

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2441568
> 0 votes

# Answer
The obvious difference is about what possibilities of developing your figures will be got. In the case of `1.e4` your queen will be granted an opportunity to develop herself without any interference on the development of other figures (`Qg4`,`Qh5`). In the case of `1.d4` your queen will make an interference for bishops at `c1` and `f1`. So, the `1.e4` is really better. But, you can receive an `1 .. c5` that i don't like to play due to huge amount of theoretical background required.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: opening, 1.d4, 1.e4
---


title: For best chess players.... Help me

text:
# Question
Title: For best chess players.... Help me
I have one question in my mind that while playing chess game with real person... . I also want to become winner.not only me but all starters. . 1. What do you feel. 2. How do you think. 3. How can you beat your opponent. 4.how do you make strategy. . Thanks in advance.....

# Answer
> 0 votes
The truth is on the board. Focus your efforts on discovering the truth about the position and what the position needs. Understand each position as best you can, then play the move that makes your position better.

Don't just look for the answer inside yourself, but solicit outside knowledge. Ask others, including your opponent after a game; chess players love to brag about how much they understand about the position, even when they lose. There are also some good books that are very helpful in learning how to break down a position.

# Answer
> 0 votes
1. Feelings are not really relevant, are they? Happy to be playing I guess.
2. What is my opponent planning? Is there a real threat? What are my options? Do I have any opportunities?
3. Do not be intimidated by a strong opponent, you can still give them a good game. Likewise, never underestimate a weak opponent, even if they're chasing material at the expense of position with unguarded pieces everywhere, you could still lose.
4. Just play carefully. Some aggressive moves your opponent makes turn out to be no threat whatsoever, so think before you react. Similarly, sometimes defensive moves can turn the game on its head.

---
Tags: strategy, chessboards
---


title: Chinese Chess online (Xiangqi)

text:
# Question
Title: Chinese Chess online (Xiangqi)
I was curious about this question, I watched two videos and learned a bit about Chinese Chess. Where can one play it online? What site has the biggest online Chinese chess community, where you can play against computers or challenge other players.

It must be free and and must support westernized pieces because I can't read Chinese characters.

If the site has tutorials on the Chinese chess, it would be nice.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You can try PlayOK, it's free and has quite a lot of players for Xiangqi, and supports westernized pieces (though I'd recommend just learning the chinese characters, it doesn't take long). It also has some players for Shogi (japanese chess), which I personally find to be a much more interesting chess variant, though if you want to play more of that there are better sites (for example 81dojo). For rules/tutorials, I guess the best place to start is simply the Xiangqi Wikipedia entry.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can also try www.vietson.com.

You can also try www.vietson.com. Variations of Chinese Chess are also available such as Dragon Chess, Shuffle Chess and Blind Chess

# Answer
> 2 votes
PlayOK and Vietson, both are nothing for Beginners. Vietson is today the Strongest App to play Offline. while Online PlayOK became very popular among skilled Chinese and Vietnamese , so it is too late for western players to join. As level of play is extremely high. Graphics of PlayOK is excellent, except that the grid of lines showing rather rectangles instead of exact squares on the Board. Another disadvantage is that it is too fast even for a skilled players at the end when suddenly everythings stops , and is gone , and a new game starting and you do not even understand if the other side won because you ran out of time, or did the opponent give Checkmate. Too late to see and understand even for skilled players. Also Sounds sometimes work and sometimes not. Site Administrator usually does not respond to Questions or comments. There is also www.chessvariants.org. But they use very old Computer Programs and their graphics are miserable. If you have Java Try Coffee Chinese Chess 0.6

---
Tags: chess-variants, xiangqi
---


title: Chess Research Analysis Setup

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Research Analysis Setup
For research purposes, I would like to have a chess engine hooked up to a tablebase where I can be guaranteed that the chess engine is looking at ALL moves and calls the tablebase in real time in small positions. Chess engines may discard some moves on the way to calling the tablebase later, and I need to avoid that, for my purposes. At the very least I have to know that no moves, no matter how silly, have been discarded. Can anyone advise me as to what the best available setup is for this purpose? Or whether some code should be added to an open source engine?

# Answer
You might find some luck looking to chess problem solvers. In chess compositions, a problem is 'cooked' if it has more than one solution (usually) or any solution that is unintended. If possible, problems are listed as C+ if they are proven by a computer to have only the intended solution(s). Obviously, these solvers do not throw away any moves to make such a proof.

Popeye Solver is one such solver. You can find more information about it on Wikipedia and the web.

You weren't very clear on what you were trying to accomplish though (this would have been important), so I'm not sure if it will work for you or not. Typically, with a program such as popeye it has a position, a stipulation, and a set of conditions. For example, a FEN position, "mate in 5", and "orthodox chess" (or perhaps varying rules).
> 2 votes

# Answer
> I would like to have a chess engine hooked up to a tablebase where I can be guaranteed that the chess engine is looking at ALL moves and calls the tablebase in real time in small positions.

I thought that chess engines are already hooked up to tablebases? Also, to make sure what moves the engine looks like, there should be a "verbose" mode for engines?

> Chess engines may discard some moves on the way to calling the tablebase later, and I need to avoid that, for my purposes.

Chess engines probably discard moves according to their search algorithm, in order to limit their searching time. But exactly which moves that are discarded probably varies between engines. Yet, engines should have an "exhaustive" mode that takes longer time and checks more moves?

> At the very least I have to know that no moves, no matter how silly, have been discarded.

You could write a script that keeps track of "all possible moves" and then compare it against the moves that the engine has considered. Thus, you get the list of all discarded moves.

> Can anyone advise me as to what the best available setup is for this purpose? Or whether some code should be added to an open source engine?

I would advice some sort of wrapper around a Linux command line engine. Write the engine verbose output to a file. Have a script that keeps generating the "all possible moves" list at every point in the game. Then, compare against this list. Also, handle the tablebases as needed, perhaps the engine gives some nice options for this. I haven't done anything like this before, so these are my best guesses on how to set this up and make it work!
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Phone application for classical games

text:
# Question
Title: Phone application for classical games
I am looking for mobile phone website where I can download and replay games of Tal, Smyslov, Alekhine, Lasker etc.

Could anyone with help me with info?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can download a PGN viewer for your phone platform, then search chessgames.com for your favorite players and their games for playback. Having a PGN viewer installed is helpful also for sites like chessbase or chessvibes that sometimes link straight to the games file and not an online viewer.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can go to free chessgames database and search and replay any game that you like.

---
Tags: websites
---


# Question
Title: Queen's Indian Defense question that has me stumped
After the moves `1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6` if White plays `3.Nf3`, Black often plays the Queen's Indian Defense with `3...b6`. But if White plays `3.Nc3`, then Black rarely plays `3...b6`.

```
 [FEN ""]

  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 (3.Nf3 b6) b6!?

```

Does anyone know why that is? (assuming GM level play)

# Answer
The simple reason is because **3...b6** doesn't prevent **4.e4!** when White immediately grabs the center.

```
   [FEN ""]

   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 b6 4.e4!

```

The bishop on b7 isn't very effective in the kind of pawn structure that arises after **e4**. Often, White may play **f3**, strengthening the **e4** point and completely blunting the bishop on **b7**.

Consider this structure -

```
   [FEN "4k3/pbpp1ppp/1p2pn2/8/2PPP3/2N2P2/PP4PP/4KB2 w - - 0 1"]
   [Event "Bishop on b7 is blunted by White's pawns on e4 and f3"]

```

Black may want to break White's center with a move like **d5**, but that allows White to play **e5**, driving away the knight on **f6** with tempo and also establishing a strong pawn on **e5**, which may enhance White's attacking prospects on the kingside, as I discussed in point number 4 of this post.

```
  [FEN "4k3/pbpp1ppp/1p2pn2/8/2PPP3/2N2P2/PP4PP/4KB2 b - - 0 1"]
  [Event "The threat of e5 is always looming after d5"]

  1... d5 2. cxd5 exd5 3. e5

```

Black may also want to play **c5**, but in those positions, after a move like **d5**, the position transposes into Benoni type positions where the bishop is completely misplaced on **b7**, thus Black loses at least a tempo. Besieds, **b6** might also be a waste of time in some Benoni positions.

```
   [FEN "4k3/pb3ppp/1p1pp3/2pP4/2P1P3/2N2P2/PP4PP/4K3 b - - 0 2"]
   [Event "Unfavorable transposition to a Benoni type position"]

```

**Recommended Games -**

The following games in this line are quite instructive -

Harry Nelson Pillsbury vs Heinrich Wolf, 1902 1-0

```
   [White "Harry Pillsbury"]
   [Black "Heinrich Wolf"]
   [Date "1902"]
   [Result "1-0"]
   [FEN ""]

   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 b6 4. e4 Bb7 5. Bd3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e5 Ne4 8. Nf3 Be7
   9.  O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Nc3 11. Bh7 Kh8 12. bxc3 g6 13. Bg6 fxg6 14. Qg6 Qe8 15. Qh6 Kg8
   16. Ng5 Bg5 17. Qg5 Kf7 18. f4 Ke6 19. f5 Kd7 20. Qg7 Kc8 21. e6 Rg8 22. Qh7 Rh8
   23. Qg6 Ba6 24. Qe8 Re8 25. Re1 Nc6 26. Bg5 Nd8 27. Bd8 Kd8 28. f6 Rh8 29. Re5 c6
   30. Rae1 Rc8 31. Rg5 Bd3 32. Ree5 Rh6 33. Rg8 Kc7 34. Rc8 Kc8 35. e7 Bg6 36. e8=Q 1-0

```

Efim Geller vs Mark Usachyi, 1957 1-0

```
   [Event "UKR-ch"]
   [Date "1957"]
   [White "Geller, Efim P"]
   [Black "Usachyi, Mark"]
   [Result "1-0"]
   [FEN ""]

   1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. d4 b6 4. e4 Bb4 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. f3 O-O 7. Nge2 d5 8. cxd5
   exd5 9. e5 Ne8 10. O-O c5 11. a3 Ba5 12. b4 cxb4 13. Na2 Nc6 14. Rb1 bxa3 15.
   Bxa3 Ne7 16. Ng3 g6 17. Nc1 Bc6 18. Qe2 Ng7 19. f4 Re8 20. f5 Nexf5 21. Bxf5
   gxf5 22. Nb3 Qg5 23. Rf3 Rac8 24. Rbf1 Ba4 25. Nxf5 Rc3 26. Nxg7 Qxg7 27. Nxa5
   Rc2 28. Qxc2 Bxc2 29. Nc6 Qh6 30. Rg3+ Bg6 31. Ne7+ Kh8 32. e6 Rxe7 33. Bxe7
   fxe6 34. Rc3 Be8 35. Rc8 Qe3+ 36. Kh1 Qe2 37. Rxe8+ Kg7 38. Ref8 h5 39. Bd6 h4
   40. Be5+ Kg6 41. h3 a5 42. Rg8+ Kh5 43. Rf7 1-0

```

Phillip Viner vs Elias Castrillon, 1964 1-0

```
   [Event "Tel Aviv ol (Men) fin-D"]
   [Site "Tel Aviv"]
   [Date "1964"]
   [Round "5"]
   [White "Viner, Phillip"]
   [Black "Iniguez Castrillon, Elias"]
   [Result "1-0"]
   [FEN ""]

   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 b6 4. e4 c5 5. d5 d6 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. f4 exd5 8. cxd5
   Be7 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O a6 11. a4 Bb7 12. Bc4 Qc7 13. Re1 h6 14. e5 Nh7 15. b3
   Rfe8 16. Bb2 Ndf8 17. Qd2 Ng6 18. Rad1 Bf8 19. Ne4 Qd8 20. Nxd6 Bxd6 21. exd6
   Qxd6 22. f5 Nf4 23. Be5 Rxe5 24. Rxe5 g5 25. fxg6 Nxg6 26. Qxh6 Nf6 1-0

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
That's because black would normally use the king side bishop to pin the knight at c3

```
   [FEN ""]

   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4!

```

**update**

With the bishop at Bb4 if white tries to play the pawn to e4, then black could take it without a second thought. So basically with Bb4 who will control the center is yet to be determined.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-indian
---


# Question
Title: Did Aronian make a mistake in the opening against Anand in round 1 of the FIDE Candidates 2014?
Here is the game

```
[Event "FIDE Candidates 2014"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2014.03.13"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Aronian, Levon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2830"]
[ECO "C88"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez"]
[Variation "closed, 7...O-O"]
[EventDate "2014.03.13"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. h3 Bb7 9. d3 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Rxe5 Nf6 14. Re1 Rae8 15. Nf3 Bd6 16. Be3 Re7 17. d4 Rfe8 18. c3 h6 19. Ne5 Bxe5 20. dxe5 Rxe5 21. Qxd7 Nxd7 22. Red1 Nf6 23. c4 c6 24. Rac1 R5e7 25. a4 bxc4 26. Bxc4 Nd5 27. Bc5 Re4 28. f3 R4e5 29. Kf2 Bc8 30. Bf1 R5e6 31. Rd3 Nf4 32. Rb3 Rd8 33. Be3 Nd5 34. Bd2 Nf6 35. Ba5 Rde8 36. Rb6 Re5 37. Bc3 Nd5 38. Bxe5 Nxb6 39. Bd4 Nxa4 40. Rxc6 Rd8 41. Rc4 Bd7 42. b3 Bb5 43. Rb4 Nb2 44. Bxb5 axb5 45. Ke3 Re8+ 46. Kd2 Rd8 47. Kc3 1-0

```

So I am wondering. The Spanish Marshall should give black plenty of compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Yet, black did not seem to get much play after white grabbed the pawn. Did black make a mistake in the opening or later in the middlegame (endgame)? Thanks!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Aronian played two ***sub-optimal*** moves in the middlegame - **16...Re7** and **18...h6**. At each of these moves, the better move as per analysis by Houdini (depth 25 and above) was **Nd5!** (Houdini even prefers 17...Nd5, but 17...Rfe8 is not bad)

So his "mistake" was missing the opportunity to play **Nd5**, and instead playing **16...Re7** (which seems to be the major culprit) and **18...h6**. If, instead, he had used the **Nd5** idea, he could have equalized on move **16**, and might have had better chances for equality if he had used it on move **18**.

```
   [FEN "4rrk1/1bpq1ppp/p2b1n2/1p6/8/1B1P1N1P/PPP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 16"]

   1. Be3 Re7? (1... Nd5! 2. Bd2 c5=) 2. d4 Rfe8 (2... Nd5!? 3. Bd2 Nf4 4. Bxf4 Bxf4
   5.  a4+=) 3. c3 h6?! (3... Nd5! 4. Bd2 Rxe1+ 5. Nxe1 Nb6 6. Nc2+=) 4. Ne5! Bxe5
   5. dxe5 Rxe5 6. Qxd7 Nxd7 7. Red1+=

```

**Explanation for 16...Nd5!**

The idea behind **16. Be3** was to play **17. d4**, which would strengthen White's position and prepare the **Ne5** idea. Note that White couldn't play **16. d4** because of **16...Bxf3!** The **Ne5** idea gives White a pleasant edge in the endgame because of the two bishops. Therefore Black should have prevented it by preventing White's **d4** move. Thus, the move **c5** comes to mind, which discourages **d4** because of **c4**, trapping the bishop on **b3**. However, **c5** can wait for **Nd5**, an intermediate move, which forces White to retreat the bishop and also improves the position of the knight. After, **Nd5** and **c5**, Black is completely equal.

# Answer
> 2 votes
According to Anish Giri in *New in Chess* 2014/3, `13...Nf6` was a dubious move. Black should have played `13... Nf4! 14. Nf3 Nxg2! 15. Kxg2 a5!!` with a dangerous attack. The threats are `16... a4` and `16... Ra6`.

Anish Giri also criticizes `12. Nxe5` from Anand.

```
[Event "FIDE Candidates 2014"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2014.03.13"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Aronian, Levon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2830"]
[ECO "C88"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez"]
[Variation "closed, 7...O-O"]
[EventDate "2014.03.13"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. h3 Bb7 9. d3 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nxe5?! Nxe5 13. Rxe5 Nf6?! (13... Nf4! 14. Nf3 Nxg2! 15. Kxg2 a5!!)

```

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, anand, aronian
---


# Question
Title: The Anderssen v Zukertort game in the Yamie Chess kids' math boardgame
Spanish Game: Johannes Zukertort vs Adolf Anderssen 1865 - Berlin

```
[fen ""]
[White "Zukertort"]
[Black "Anderssen"]
[Event "Berlin 1865"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. c3 d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. O-O Ng6 7. Ng5 h6 8. Nxf7 Kf7 9. Bc4 Ke7 10. Qh5 Qe8 11. Qg5 hxg5 12. Bg5#

```

To give my question some pre-text, my friend Mato has done a quick YouTube analysis on this Anderssen-Zukertort game here which dates back to 1860s Germany I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCV45-Kaxy0

Thought I'd ask this here: There's a truly astonishing queen sacrifice in a math practice game that my daughter has come home from scouts with (she's attending an Atlanta charter school), and it's got me thinking about whether Adolf Anderssen was the "world leading" unparalleled tactician that some 1980's chess theory books celebrate him as. I'll disclose that I hadn't seen this classic Zukertort game before, so you'll have to forgive me if there is an analysis line of thought on this somewhere that I haven't turned up on google yet.

The kids' math game itself is called Yamie Chess (its aimed at middle school kids and been done by the looks of things by a US Woman's chess master called Jennifer Shahade) and it basically frames the above old grandmaster chess line of Zukertort v Anderssen with the spanish opening--quite astonishingly--through a Disneyesque cartoon style story, that presents a series of math lessons and puzzles that kids have to solve all the while interactively re-enacting this Anderssen game on the board almost like passing nintendo levels to move on to the next chapter. But all done with chess. It's long too... 250+ pages to get through the whole Anderssen game.

My question relates to 8.Nxf7 in the late middle game.

So, 8.Nxf7... isn't that a weak move? If not, why not? I was thinking 8...Kxf7 9.Bc4+ Ke7?.. as Ke8 could give Black some advantage. I just think it seems weird that Anderssen didn't see this coming. What is going on?

I appreciated that the Yamie Chess comic doesn't labor this line, actually the comic somehow manages to combine 8.Nxf7--if you can believe it--with a section on transitive properties in school algebra. Dumbed down common core math, it ain't.

# Answer
Objectively, I think you are right that `8.Nxf7` is a somewhat weak move. But it is also an *unsettling*, *complicating* move that poses a concrete defensive problem, enough of one in fact that a (truly!) great tactician like Anderssen made a serious misstep. You are also right that the main culprit in Anderssen's defeat was `9...Ke7?`, and that `9...Ke8` is far preferable objectively. So why might Anderssen have played it (besides the possibility that he may have just blundered, as all the greats have done)?

One plausible reason is that that alternative `9...Ke8` itself perhaps looked hopeless. It invites the same move as in the game, `10.Qh5`, with the difference that in this line the knight is pinned. Only two moves could save it: `10...Ne7` or `10...Qf6`. Each can be best met by `11.f4`, and it turns out that in the `10...Ne7` line the g6 knight is lost anyway (see board below). The move `10...Qf6` (which again is an ostensibly uncomfortable move to consider, lining up the black queen against the white rook on a soon-to-be open file) does save the day and leave Black with the advantage, but only with very precise play: `11.f4 exd4! 12.f5 Ne5 13.fxg6 Bg4!`. I'm going to trust Stockfish here in saying that each of those `!` moves is the only one to leave Black to the better.

It's very plausible that back at move 9 Anderssen didn't see that defensive possibility materializing. He may have thought he was already lost and that not walking into the pin was his best *practical* chance. After `9...Ke7?`, if Anderssen can just get a chance to catch his breath and run away with `...Qe8` and `...Kd8`, he will be better. The only move to stop that plan is the game's `10.Qh5!`, and at that point White really is just winning, as there is no way to save the knight. So Anderssen probably just threw up his hands and continued with `10...Qe8`. Then, either Zukertort plays the mate that he did, or Anderssen escapes; it was already out of Anderssen's hands at that point.

```
[fen ""]
[White "Zukertort"]
[Black "Anderssen"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7 4.c3 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.O-O Ng6 7.Ng5 h6 8.Nxf7
Kxf7 9.Bc4+ Ke7?
    ( 9...Ke8 10.Qh5 Qf6!
        ( 10...Ne7 11.f4 exf4 12.Rxf4 )
    11.f4 exd4!
        ( 11...exf4? 12.Rxf4 )
    12.f5 Nce5 13.fxg6 Bg4! 14.Qxg4 Nxg4 15.Rxf6 Nxf6 )
10.Qh5 Qe8
    ( 10...Be8 11.Bg5+ hxg5 12.Qxg5+ Kd7 13.Qf5+ Ke7 14.Qe6# )
    ( 10...Nf4 11.Qf7# )
11.Qg5+ hxg5 12.Bg5#

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
> My question relates to 8.Nxf7 in the late middle game.So, 8.Nxf7... isn't that a weak move?

No it isn't. In fact, it is **the strongest move** in that position.

> If not, why not?

Because it **initiates the decisive attack on the opponent's king.**

With `d6-e5` pawn structure Black chose in the opening, he is weak on light squares. The only pieces that can defend the light squares in such pawn formation are `Nf6` and `Bc8` along with the `f7` pawn.

Since Black chose Steinitz defense of the Ruy Lopes, his knight is posted on `g6` instead of `f6` which is one light square defender less. Furthermore, Steinitz defense gives Black **cramped game**, so he usually finishes **quickly** his development and tries to free his position with exchanges.

Here, Black was too slow with `h6` move. He weakened his light squares with that move ( `g6` square, and because of that the entire `h5-e8` diagonal as well ) thinking that there is still time to finish development.

White's pieces were able to get a strong grip on the light squares, and since he was better in the center, he was able to open the game advantageously. Furthermore, White had pieces well organized for kingside attack, which is also inherent characteristic for open games.

**The only thing needed was the right move/moment to open the game**, and that was the point of `Nxf7!` -\> White forces Black king to stay in the center/kingside where he has advantage and **removes the last defender of the light squares ( `f7` pawn ).** If White passes this chance then Black can continue with his plan. Now, after `Nxf7` Black **can't organize defense in time** since he is cramped, and his pieces are misplaced **for defense of the light squares.** White "crashes in" with his fast pieces ( bishops and queen ) and is supported with his mobile, well placed pawn center.

In order to get time to organize defense, Black will have to return the piece, but will be still a pawn down and cramped, which is enough for White to win. The following lines in the below diagram confirm this.

*NOTE: I am out of shape, and have uninstalled all chess software from my computer, so if a mistake in my analysis crops up please tell me so I can correct my post.*

```
[Title "Zukertort-Anderssen, 1895"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r2qkb1r/pppb1Np1/2np2np/1B2p3/3PP3/2P5/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Kxf7 ( 1...Qf6 2.Nxh8+- ) 2.Bc4+ Ke7 ( 2...Be6 3.d5+- ) ( 2...Ke8 3.Qh5 Nce7 ( 3...Qf6 4.f4+- exd4 ( 4...exf4 5.Rxf4 Qg5 6.Rxf8+ Rxf8 7.Bxg5+- ) 5.f5!?+- ) 4.f4+- exf4 5.Rxf4+- ) ( 2...Kf6 3.Qf3+ Nf4 ( 3...Ke7 4.Qf7# ) 4.Bxf4 exf4 5.Qxf4+ Kg6 ( 5...Ke7 6.Qf7# ) 6.Qf7+ Kh7 ( 6...Kg5 7.f4+ Kh4 ( 7...Kg4 8.Be2+ Kh4 9.Qh5# ) 8.g3+ Kh3 9.Qh5+ Qh4 10.Qxh4# ) 7.e5! Bf5 ( 7...Qc8 8.Bd3+ Bf5 9.Bxf5++- ) Qxf5++- ) 3.Qh5 Be8 ( 3...Qe8 4.Qg5+ hxg5 5.Bg5# ) 4.Bg5+!+- hxg5 5.Qxg5+ Kd7 6.Qf5+ Ke7 7.Qe6#

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, middlegame, knights
---


title: Does Black have a win in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: Does Black have a win in this position?
I was playing a game as Black against computer and came up a tactical move that defends me from pressure. I have expected a normal retreat of the queen yet computer kept sacrificing the knight like it was lost anyway, therefore this question :

Did I miss a win for Black or the position is just fine for White?

Here is the position:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "4r1k1/3q1ppp/pp6/2QN1n2/1P6/8/P4PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

*White kept playing `Nf6+` or `Qxb6` but I believe that any retreat of the queen is fine, what did I miss?*

# Answer
My suspicion is that the computer is calculating at a depth of 3-ply. At 3-ply depth, it sees that the following variations are winning -

`1. Nf6+ gxf6 2. Rxd7` and

`1. Qxb6 Qxd5 2. Rxd5`

winning material.

If it was at 4-ply or more, it would have seen `2...Re1#` in both lines and rejected those lines.

To answer your question, no, Black doesn't have a win in this position. White can play `1. Qc1` and white is fine.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Black has no win. White scoops up the `b6` pawn and enjoys the advantage.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "4r1k1/3q1ppp/pp6/2QN1n2/1P6/8/P4PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

     1.Qc1 Qa4 2.a3 Ne7 3.Nxb6 Qb5 4.Nc4 Nf5 5.g3 h6 6.Nd6 Nxd6 7.Rxd6 a5 8.bxa5 Qxa5 9.Qc6 Qa8 10.a4 Kf8 11.Kg2 Qxc6+ 12.Rxc6 Ra8 13.Rc4 Ke7 14.Kf3 Kd6 15.Rd4+ Kc6 16.h4 g6 17.Rf4 Ra7 18.Ke3 Kd5 19.Kd3 Ke5 20.Rb4

```

So says Stockfish 5. Everything past move 5 or so is probably suspect but you get the idea.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: What are the standard time controls for live chess (non-OTB and non-correspondence) on every chess websites?
I'm trying to establish what are the most common time controls for live chess (non-OTB and non-correspondence chess) on every chess websites.

And so I need to know what are the standard time controls (the ones that are suggested, if there are any) on ICC, FICS, ChessCube, Yahoo Chess, Chess.net, GameKnot, etc...

I checked on Chess.com, the suggested time controls there are: 1|0, 2|1, 3|0, 5|0, 5|2, 10|0, 15|10, and 30|0 (the first number represents the minutes, the second number represents the increment per move in seconds)

While on PlayChess and on Red Hot Pawn there is no predefined time controls.

So if you've got an account on any chess website please tell me what are the standard time controls there. Thanks in advance.

# Answer
What defines, "standard time controls"? Do you want the most commonly played time controls? Do you want the time controls which are suggested per each server?

To me, a more interesting analysis is to plot the percentage of games played vs time control and find the time controls with the largest spikes (popularity). But, I'm not sure how to get that information.

On ICC, the most popular time controls would likely be 3 0, 5 0, and 1 0. They have different auto-pairing pools for some standard time controls as well, each has a separate rating. This includes, 1-minute, 5-minute, 15-minute, and 45-minute. Although, 45 minute online is not very common.
> 2 votes

# Answer
# GameKnot

GameKnot's live chess uses time control ranges for matchmaking, so there's no single default. I've bolded the time controls that fall within the default matchmaking window below.

**Available Time Controls** (Minutes | Increment in Seconds):

* 3|0
* 5|0
* 10|0
* 3|3
* 3|5
* **3|10**
* **5|10**
* **5|15**
* **5|20**
* 10|20
* 10|30
* 10|60

---

I don't know of any non-experimental way to get stats on how often each of these time controls is used. You could do a rough approximation by searching for a bunch of matches in each time control and averaging your wait time.
> 2 votes

# Answer
On the playchess server you can list all the games being currently played. The most matches played are always the 3|0 ones, followed by 5|0, 1|0, 4|0, 3|2, 5|2 (dunno the exact order).
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, websites, chess-clocks, online-blitz, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Can the chess.com diamond package improve my game?
There's a bug on chess.com, when playing online chess, and I'm about to lose on time, I wasn't receiving "you're about to lose on time" emails. I lost 2 games on time because of that. I contacted support and they gave me 1 month diamond package to make it up for me. And they are troubleshooting the issue.

Can chess.com diamond package improve my game? How is it best used? I want to make good use of it while I have it. Because as of right now, I'm not interested in buying it.

I want personal experience if possible, how did you use it? Did it improve your game? Would it improve my game in one month?

# Answer
> 8 votes
**Yes, Chess Mentor training and chess.com videos can improve your game with daily training.**

I've been a chess.com diamond member since November 2013 and have been pleased with the gradual knowledge and rating increase I've seen since subscribing.

The main perks of the Diamond package are their Chess Mentor and the chess.com video library. You get unlimited access to both. Here's how I'm using them:

### The Video Library

Choose a video series such as GM Melik Khachiyan’s three-part “Becoming an Expert” (part 1, part 2, part 3), watch them all, and make quick notes about the key points you took away from each video. Really – take short notes; you'll retain more that way. Skimming through your notebook becomes really helpful too. There is little point in gaining knowledge if you can't retain it.

Every time you find an instructor you enjoy listening to, use the video index to find other courses they've authored and watch more from them — or just write down the name of their course in your notebook under a “to watch” list. Not sure who to start with? GM Melik Khachiyan, GM Ben Finegold, IM Daniel Rensch, and IM Thomas Rendle are all fun and informative. They make me feel good about chess. Melik, Ben, and Thomas are all professional full-time chess coaches, and Daniel's a strong player and one of the founders of chess.com.

Do this every day and you'll soon build up a thick notebook of tips and take-aways. You won't see a sudden dramatic improvement by doing this alone; instead, the idea is to absorb as many opinions, patterns, and maxims as you can. That way, in your future games, you'll have a team of amazing chess coaches in your head talking to you, whispering the knowledge and mantras you wrote in your book.

For example, GM Melik says in his Positional Tips series that, when you think you've finished calculating a line, always ask yourself, “what am I missing?” and make one final check. Hearing that voice has helped me avoid blunders. And, when an opponent plays aggressive chess right out of the opening with traps and fake threats, I often hear Melik’s advice to “stay strong, stay focussed” and repeat it to myself — a defensive mantra of sorts!

### Chess Mentor

Chess Mentor is a fabulous tool — it forces you to play through the lines by moving the pieces as well as visualising the sequence, explains why you went wrong, cheers you along, and flows onto the next challenge automatically.

Use it every day for an hour if you can alongside tactics training and video watching. You can pick out an individual lesson that takes your fancy, or follow a more thorough Chess Mentor course by an author you like. You can also repeat lessons to drill them. For example, I did the opposition drills several times, and have found I'm winning more endgames now. I knew the principle of opposition, but it was only by practising it — by actively moving the pieces on a board rather than reading a book describing the sequence — that it sunk in.

Don't forget to bookmark your chess mentor rating page to keep an eye on your progress report and encourage yourself to keep going.

### Not a replacement for playing slow games

Of course, while I've really enjoyed Chess Mentor and the videos on chess.com and ICC, if you want to get good faster, the things that have helped me so far are to:

* Play lots of slow time control games, where you have time to think and find the best move every move. (Blitz is okay too, but most instructors will tell beginners and improvers to spend about a tenth of their time playing blitz as they do playing chess at longer time controls of 45 minutes or more.)
* Review those games with your opponent, a computer, and a teacher.
* Identify and correct flaws in your thought process that caused you to lose your game. (e.g. “I forgot to identify my opponent's checks, captures, and threats before making my move. In the future I will always think, ‘checks, captures, and threats’ before I play my move – every move.”)
* Become really disciplined in your thinking process.
* Play chess in two modes only: you play your best move every move, or you resign. (A tip from Dan Heisman.)

---
Tags: strategy, online-chess, recommendations
---


# Question
Title: What factors define changing popularity of different Openings over time?
Recently I found some rather interesting graph displaying how popularity of different openings changed over time.

Image courtesy of; see also fullsize there

As far as I understand, new researches over classic openings may unveil some hidden treasures or vulnerabilities, but I can't figure out why changes were so drastic. For a comparison, in Physics, different approaches in Theory of Relativity also take place, but sooner or later more and more scientists group around three or so major approaches.

Furthermore, with today's progress in computational methods, strengths and weaknesses of each opening can be **formally** (not statistically) proven. Instead, what we are seeing here, "Other" openings take kind of 40% and growing on recent years.

So, my question is: **Why in Chess there is no obvious trend?** In other words, what factors (other than formal) define how each opening changes its popularity over time?

I realize that popularity may be based not only on pure science, but on players' (aesthetic) preferences as well.

# Answer
> 7 votes
> Why in Chess there is no obvious trend?

Because in chess there is no theory. The best you can get is the sorted list of moves **that are currently considered strongest**.

Furthermore, chess allows you to choose and to express your way of thinking/approaching the game. In chess **you have a chance to create your own position** while nature is already predetermined and we can only try to understand it and adapt to it. Rarely we get the chance to change/reimplement something.

Since we have a choice in chess, of course there will be different trends -\> some will like quiet positional play, some will go for sharp bloodshed and some will be somewhere in between.

> In other words, what factors (other than formal) define how each opening changes its popularity over time?

Factors are listed in "the first thing that came to my mind" manner, not by their importance :

**1. Number of lines player must learn;**

Small number will be good for amateurs, since they can actually "have a life" and be able to learn all the intricacies of the opening.

For chess professionals the opening should have lots of branches and lines.

**2. Can I obtain counterplay and how sound this opening is ?**

Professionals dodge the **forced** opening lines because they might be refuted with computer analysis or with a strong analysis.

Amateurs love these since they can leave a computer to work 2 days and do all the "dirty work" for them ( and will do it better! ).

Opening must give the player equal chance to win the game, and player **must have active counterplay.** Days of waiting for opponent to make a mistake or "run out of steam" are gone.

**3. How much explored it is?**

New lines offer a lot of chances for winning, while explored ones usually end with a draw. **This partly explains why some old openings got resurrected.**

## SUMMARY:

Opening trends are dictated by leading grandmasters and factors I described above.

With the emerging of strong chess software amateurs got the opportunity to compete with equal chances **if he uses opening that is suitable for computer analysis** and if he has decent playing strength.

Since popular openings are very well explored thanks to chess engines and enormous amount of games played, there was a danger of all grandmaster games ending in a draw. .

This was also foretold by Capablanca in the 1930s. In those days Black had a variety of good choices against `1.e4` so White turned to `1.d4` since **all black had** was Queen's gambit. This was an important thing since White had variety of lines to choose which can't be said for Black. Technically speaking, **only White could win**. Games became dull and technical for Black so after Second World War Black tried to find openings that gave him **equal chances to win.**

After Indian defenses were invented, Black entirely switched to `...Nf6` leaving `1...d5` as a relic of the past. Since the King's gambit was refuted and Italian game gave White nothing but a draw, people started playing Ruy Lopez.

Then came 1980s and computer revolution. After realizing that computer can calculate **every forcing line** with **100%** precision people started to turn their attention to `1.e4` again, and to other **forcing openings** for Black hoping that the masters of the old missed something. In those days almost **every opening was thoroughly played** and many of them got revived. Especially is important Queen's gambit since many players like Kasparov and Karpov liked to have a solid opening that gave them a chance to outplay their opponent after defending successfully. The beauty of the Queen's gambit is that it embodies all the good sides of the 3 factors listed above: **it remained sound/reliable for centuries**, it is reasonably explored and can give Black equal chances. Indian defenses are prone to being "refuted" temporarily until someone **with hard work** resurrects them.

As for `1.e4`, Ruy Lopez gave White permanent advantage ( although minimal one ) so Black tried to choose opening that gives equal chances but preserves solidity and soundness they had from `1...e5`. There came Petroff's defense to the rescue. After a lot of analysis it has been proven it fulfills 2 factors listed above -\> it was prone to refutation by a novelty at that time. Meanwhile, people also found that Marshall attack in Ruy Lopez can offer Black equal chances too so again people started playing `1...e5` more frequently. However, positional players disliked the sharped lines **that could be refuted by a novelty** and searched for solid openings. Then came Karpov and resurrected Caro-Kann. This opening suddenly got a burst in popularity since Karpov proved it satisfies all 3 factors listed above.

With the progress of chess software openings are analyzed **very fast with little room for error.** This results in professionals facing the "Capablanca prophecy" again, so they will again try to resurrect less known openings or invent new ones. One such example can be Scandinavian defense or Sokolsky attack, even Polish opening or Grob attack...

This is too broad to be explained here but I gave my best to explain it. If you need anything more leave a comment and I will reply.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Nice link, ups for that. Interestingly, I think not much changed during the last 50 years, except for the relatively large increase of the King's Gambit around the 90s and a slight decrease of the Sicilian in the last couple of years.

I believe that the grandmaster matches and especially the World Cup games have a huge impact on the openings. E.g., in the 1920s and 1930s, when the Soviet chess school came up, positional play became more important and you can see it in an increase of the move 1.d4 (in comparison to the more "aggressive" move 1.e4, picture in the link). New strategies were developed and influenced the whole chess community.

And still today, when one thinks of the current world champion, Magnus Carlsen. His influence is of that kind, that the main lines are played not as much as before. I believe that this idea of going into openings will be adopted by weaker players. But this trend can hardly be seen in this kind of charts, since all these games still belong to the mentioned 3-ply openings.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Another problem - Find color of the pieces
Please help me to find the solution of this next problem by the legendary composer Andrej Kornilow. It appeared in Shakhmatnaya Kompozitsiya 41 issue in 2001 and it was dedicated to A. Lobusow on his 50th birthday.

The colors of the pieces on the diagram is unknown. The diagram can be obtained in a legal game. One needs to find color of each piece: Black or White.

```
[FEN "8/8/2NBQPN1/2QQKQQ1/2PPPPN1/2QPKPP1/2NPPPP1/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

It is easy to find colors of the most pieces:

> 1. The kings should not be checkmated by pawns (otherwise what was the previous move?), so the upper ones are White.
> 2. The knight on g4 makes a check to either king, so it made the last move.
> 3. All other pieces should not give a check to any king, so we must find the colors of them.
> 4. There are 12 pawns and 6 queens, so 4 queens were created, and all other pieces are original.
> 5. There are 2 White knights on the top, so knight on g4 is Black.

But then one needs to consider different possibilities of the pawn placements, taking into account possible movements. It is hard for me to find a solid approach to it.

# Answer
I'm going to start from scratch even though the OP posted a partial answer in the question, so I will be covering some familiar ground.

I began to break the problem down by assigning black to the upper king, then making every piece which attacked him black. Since the g4 knight attacks a king, no other piece can be giving check to either king.

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "8/8/2nbqPn1/2QqkqQ1/2PpPpn1/2QPKPP1/2NPPPP1/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

Immediately I see a problem. The d4 and f4 pawns both give check no matter which color they are, so I inverted the colors:

```
[title "Black to move"]
[fen "8/8/2NBQPN1/2qQKQq1/2ppppN1/2qpkpp1/2npppp1/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

This time I painted all chessmen white who would otherwise be checking the white king. Now there are two questions: is the g4 knight white or black, and which other pieces are white?

Let's analyze the promotion situation. There are 12 pawns and 6 queens. The game began with 16 pawns and 2 queens, so this establishes that a) 4 pawns became queens, b) no other pawns were captured or promoted, and c) the original queens are still present.

Let's look at captures. There are 25 pieces, and the game began with 32, so there were 7 captures total. What were the captures? Well, there are no rooks. Also Black has no bishops and White only has one. So in total, 2 black rooks and 2 black bishops were captured, and 2 white rooks and one white bishop was captured. This establishes that there was a maximum of 4 "lane-changes" for white pawns and 3 "lane-changes" for black.

Also, in tallying up the promotions, you have hopefully been able to deduce the color of the g4 knight. Since there are two other white knights targeting the white king, and no pawns were promoted to knights, the g4 knight must be black.

The other three pieces whose colors we can ascertain are the c2 knight and the d2 and f2 pawns, which must be black:

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "8/8/2NBQPN1/3QKQ2/6n1/4k3/2np1p2/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

Now back to the pawn capture analysis. Let's see the pawn skeleton:

```
[title "Pawn skeleton"]
[fen "8/8/5P2/8/2pppp2/3p1pp1/3pppp1/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

We know the color of only three, though we also know that at least 6 are black (since at least 2 white pawns promoted to queen), and that they got into their current position using 3 captures or fewer. First, look at the *a* column. Either that black pawn promoted, or it captured twice, leaving one capture left for the other pawns. Since one capture isn't enough to explain the state of the other pawns, Black's *a* pawn must have promoted. In that case, either White's *a* pawn must have changed lanes at least once to let Black's pawn by, or Black's *a* pawn changed lanes. Now, look at *b*. Either that pawn promoted, or it captured once. If it captured once, then either a black *c*-pawn promoted or again captured once (since there is at most one *c*-pawn left). And again, in order for Black's *b* pawn to promote, either it or White's *b* pawn must have captured so they could get past each other. So at least two captures are necessary for columns *a* and *b*. We have five captures left.

Let's try to eliminate the possibility that Black has 7 pawns and White has 5. Black promoted the *a*-pawn, so we're working with *b* through *h*. Again, since this analysis mandates that *b* didn't promote, it captured. After this, there are two *c* pawns, and in the diagram, there's only one *c* pawn, so one of those pawns must have captured, too. Remember Black only gets three captures, so he has one left. There are no *h* pawns in the diagram, so the *h* pawn must have captured. Out of the diagram, then, if Black has 7 pawns, then he has the *c* pawn, two *d* pawns, one *e* pawn, one *f* pawn, and two *g* pawns.

```
[title "Pawn skeleton"]
[fen "8/3pppp1/2pp2p1/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

Now, White. If White has 5 pawns, then he promoted 3. Since Black cannot have captured with his *a* pawn, White must have. Now White has two *b* pawns. In the diagram, there are no *b* pawns, and Black has the only *c* pawn, and the 3 *d* pawns are accounted for, and the two *e* pawns are accounted for. So either both white *b* pawns promoted, or else they would have to capture at least 4 times each to find a spot that would make sense of the puzzle position. Even one such *b* pawn journey would use up more than the rest of White's 4 captures, so this is impossible. White's *a* and *b* pawns must have promoted, using up one capture.

```
[title "Pawn skeleton"]
[fen "8/3pppp1/2pp2p1/8/8/8/2PPPPPP/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

I am already beginning to seriously doubt this situation. In order not to use captures, either White's *h* pawn promoted, or the *c* pawn promoted (after Black's *c* pawn captured and before the *b* pawn captured). Either way, White still needs to end up with one *d* pawn, one *e* pawn, and three *f* pawns. Let's try promoting the *c* pawn. It would use up the rest of the captures (3) to get the *g* and *h* pawns to *f*. Now the pattern can be fulfilled, but there are no captures left for White's *f* pawn to get around Black's *f* pawn, which must be on f2.

```
[title "Pawn skeleton formation"]
[fen "8/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. axb3 a5 2. d3 c5 3. b4 c4 4. b5 c3 5. b6 cxd2 6. c4 d5 7. c5 d4 8. c6 a4 9. c7 a3 10. c8=Q a2 11. b4 a1=Q 12. b5 bxc6 13. b7 c5 14. b8=Q c4 15. b6 e5 16. Qa8 f5 17. b7 e4 18. b8=Q f4 19. g3 f3 20. gxf4 g5 21. h3 h5 22. h4 g4 23. hxg5 g3 24. gxf6 hxg4 25. Qd8 g2 26. Qdc8 g3

```

But promoting the *h* pawn means we must cross with the *c* pawn all the way to the *f* file, using the remaining 3 captures, and leaving none for the *f* pawn to get around Black's *f* pawn, or for the *g* pawn to move over to *f*. And promoting any other pawns means moving *both* the *c* and *h* pawns, as well as getting around black pawns with the promoting pawn, as well as moving the *g* pawn over, as well as letting black's *f* pawn through. In short, White can't make it with 5 pawns in a setup with Black's only viable 7-pawn structure.

Therefore, since Black can't have 8 pawns, and Black can't have 7 pawns, and Black can't have fewer than 6 pawns (since White has at most 6), each side must have 6 pawns.

Now that I've established the number of pawns of each color, I can better analyze the distribution in the final skeleton:

```
[title "Pawn skeleton"]
[fen "8/8/5p2/8/2pppp2/3p1pp1/3pppp1/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

There are no *a* pawns, no *b* pawns, one *c* pawn, three *d* pawns, two *e* pawns, four *f* pawns, two *g* pawns, and no *h* pawns. Let's simplify this by counting the minimum lane-changes necessary if pawns are all the same color. We can eliminate the *a* and *b* pawns, assuming they promote (because otherwise another pawn promotes, and the *a* or *b* pawn uses unnecessary captures to move to that other pawn's file). The *h* pawns must move to *f*, making four captures, and a *c* pawn moves to *d*, for a total of five. Now from experience we also know that the *a* and *b* promotions don't come without a price. At least two additional captures are necessary to get them past each other, making 7. You may argue that another pawn could promote, but that would only increase the number of captures, since then the *a* or *b* pawn that didn't promote would need to make additional captures to get into the 5x5 square.

So far so good. We're getting in by the skin of our teeth. We have this:

```
[title "Pawn skeleton"]
[fen "8/2pppppp/8/8/8/8/2PPPPPP/8 w - - 0 0"]

```

We've used two captures to get the *a* and *b* pawns past each other to promote. They could possibly have been both black or both white, so I will leave that ambiguous. Basically we have 5 remaining captures, up to 4 for White and up to 3 for Black. Firstly we know the *h* pawns have moved to *f* (or *h* to *g* and *g* to *f*, but that comes to the same thing), and that a *c* pawn moves to *d*. We know the d2 pawn is black, the f2 pawn is black, and the f6 pawn is white. Sounds like the black *c* pawn moves to d2, so the c4 pawn would be white. So Black's *c* pawn comes to c3, White's *d* moves to d3, Black's *c* captures d2, White's *c* moves to c4, Black's *d* moves to d4. That footwork involves only one capture (black).

```
[title "Pawn skeleton"]
[fen "QQ6/2pppppp/8/8/8/8/2PPPPPP/qqB5 w - - 0 0"]

1. Qc8 c5 2. d3 c4 3. Bd2 c3 4. Qcb8 cxd2 5. c4 d5 6. Qc8 d4

```

The e2 pawn is presumably white, since otherwise, White's *e* pawn makes a capture to get out of the way, and we don't have room in our budget for such extravagance. So the e4 pawn should be black. For *f*, we know that Black has wormed into f2, and White got to f6. This can be attained by Black moving *f* to f4, White moving *f* to f3, Black moving *g* to g3, Black capturing gxf2 (two), White moving *h* to h4 then capturing twice (over to g5 then to f6), and Black moving *h* to h4 then making the final capture to g3 (three). It is also possible for White to move *g* to g3 and then Black capture h3xg2. But maybe this ambiguity can be ironed out later. In any case, the puzzle position has been attained.

```
[title "Pawn skeleton formation"]
[fen "8/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. a4 c5 2. b4 c4 3. bxc5 b5 4. d3 b4 5. axb5 a5 6. b6 a4 7. b7 a3 8. b8=Q a2 9. c6 a1=Q 10. c7 b3 11. c8=Q b2 12. Qa8 b1=Q 13. Qab8 c3 14. Qa8 cxd2 15. c4 d5 16. Qab8 e5 17. Qa8 e4 18. Qab8 d4 19. Qa8 f5 20. Qab8 g5 21. f3 f4 22. Qa8 g4 23. Qab8 g3 24. Qa8 gxf2 25. h4 h5 26. hxg5 h4 27. gxf6 h3 28. g3 hxg2

```

Playing around with these pawns inspired me to the final breakthrough. The remaining white bishop is the dark-squared one, which means that Black captured the light-squared bishop, and since the capture didn't occur on the bishop's home square, then the bishop must have gotten out somehow. The *e* pawn can't move, so the *g* pawn must have.

We now know all the colors.

```
[title "White to move"]
[fen "8/8/2NBQPN1/2qQKQq1/2Ppppn1/2qPkPP1/2npPpp1/8 w - - 0 0"]

```
> 17 votes

---
Tags: problems, retrograde-analysis
---