title: 50-move rule: FIDE wording seems weird

text:
# Question
Title: 50-move rule: FIDE wording seems weird
FIDE rules seem to say that I have to claim draw (3-repetition and 50-move) **before** I actually touch/move my piece. And if I move my piece first, and *then* claim the draw, it doesn't count.

1) Is this really what FIDE is saying?

2) If so, why??? It's the (seeming) inconsistency which confuses me.

Why not either:

a) I cannot claim draw before I move, nor can I claim draw after I move

a) I am able to claim draw before I move, and I am able to claim draw after I move (but before I hit my clock)

---

Here's the sentence from the rules:

`If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.`

Here is more context:

```
9.2

    The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when
    the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a
    repetition of moves):

        a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and
        declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or

        b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

    Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has
    the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and
    the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.

    Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en
    passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is
    forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is
    moved.

9.3

    The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:

        a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his
        intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves
        having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and
        without any capture, or

        b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without
        the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

9.4

    If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the
    draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
Hi thanks for the question!

Yes this is what FIDE are saying. If you are about to play the 50.0th move of the sequence, or to cause a position to occur for the third time, then you need to claim before you move.

I think this is because after you have moved the piece, your opponent is allowed to respond, without waiting for you to punch the clock. If you then say "hey wait a minute" then this could be disruptive when one or both players are in time trouble. Best make the draw claim when it's clearly your turn to take the next action, i.e. before the piece is moved.

I am sure that people sometimes forget in the excitement though, which must be very frustrating!

---
Tags: rules, fide, 50-move-rule, threefold-repetition
---


title: When and why was en passant invented?

text:
# Question
Title: When and why was en passant invented?
Other than castling, the only "strange" move that chess pieces can ever make is *en passant*. It seems a little odd to me that someone thought that such a "different" move was so important to include in the legal moves. When and why did this come to be?

# Answer
> 20 votes
From Wikipedia:

> Allowing the *en passant* capture is one of the last major rule changes in European chess that occurred between 1200 and 1600, together with the introduction of the two-square first move for pawns, castling, and the unlimited range for queens and bishops (Davidson 1949:14,16,57). Spanish master Ruy López de Segura gives the rule in his 1561 book *Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez* (Golombek 1977:108). In most places the *en passant* rule was adopted as soon as the rule allowing the pawn to move two squares on its first move, but it was not universally accepted until the Italian rules were changed in 1880 (Hooper & Whyld 1992:124–25).
>
> The motivation for *en passant* was to prevent the newly added two-square first move for pawns from allowing a pawn to evade capture by an enemy pawn. Specifically, the rule allows a pawn on a player's fifth rank the opportunity to capture the opponent's pawn on an adjacent file that advances two squares on its first move as though it had advanced only one square (Davidson 1949:16). Asian chess variants, because of their separation from European chess prior to that period, do not feature any of these moves.

# Answer
> 13 votes
The answers currently here don't fully explain the motivation for the rule. One answer quoted this Wikipedia passage:

> The motivation for *en passant* was to prevent the newly added two-square first move for pawns from allowing a pawn to evade capture by an enemy pawn.

That is true, but it doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter: passed pawns are extremely powerful. A passed pawn is a pawn that can never be obstructed or captured by an opposing pawn. All else being equal, if one side has a passed pawn and the other doesn't, that side will usually win.

Consider this pawn structure:

```
8/p7/1p4p1/1PppPp2/8/2PP1P2/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

White has a passed pawn on the e-file because there are no black pawns that can stop it from reaching the eighth rank and queening. Black will have to rely on his other pieces (not pictured) to stop the pawn from queening, which means those pieces won't be available to do anything else.

Black's g-pawn, on the other hand, is not a passed pawn because white's f-pawn will eventually capture it if it tries to queen. That means white's pieces won't be tied down trying to stop the g-pawn.

Now look at black's a-pawn. It's not a passed pawn because it has to get past white's b-pawn before it can queen. However, if the a-pawn were allowed to advance two squares, and the en passant rule didn't exist, it *would* be a passed pawn because black could move it to a5 without being captured. But, since the en passant rule does exist, attempting this would be a horrendous mistake because white would capture the pawn en passant and suddenly white would have a passed pawn on the a-file.

So, in essence, the en passant rule allows you to advance your pawn to the fifth rank without fear that your opponent will simply bypass your pawn by moving two squares.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In a "real" war, if one army moves a unit adjacent to the enemy army, it is likely to provoke a return "fire" from the enemy army. In chess, this "fire" is expressed by capturing.

En passant is a compensation for a pawn being allowed to advance two spaces on its first move. A unit that marched at "double time" would probably rest after half the journey, then resume its march to the destination.

So assume that the pawn marches one square, rests, then tries to complete its march to the second square. But if there is an enemy pawn on the adjacent file, that pawn might start a "duel" with the marching pawn when it is resting. That would result in an en passant capture.

---
Tags: history, pawns, en-passant
---


title: Why is en passant hardly heard of?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is en passant hardly heard of?
So many people I know (or have played chess with) have never heard of *En passant* and will call me out for cheating.

> En passant is a move in chess. It is a special pawn capture that can only occur **immediately** after a pawn makes a double-step move from its starting square, and it *could have* been captured by an enemy pawn had it advanced only one square. The opponent captures the just-moved pawn "as it passes" through the first square. The result is the same as if the pawn had advanced only one square and the enemy pawn had captured it normally.

Read more on *En passant* at Wikipedia

---

I find that it is overall an uncommon move, I hardly ever have the opportunity to use it.

Why aren't people taught the move when they first learn chess? (I didn't know about it until I'd been playing for multiple years)

---

Read more on *En passant* at Wikipedia

# Answer
> 15 votes
It is taught together with the rest of the rules of the game. You playing for years without knowing about it has nothing to do with that, either you learn the rules or you don't, you won't self-discover them no matter how many years you play, specially not when your playing pool is limited solely to your friends who may not know certain rules either. So you not knowing about it doesn't make for a case that it's poorly taught.

Now chesswise, I think it's quite clear why it's a relatively rare type of move given that it can only be played when there are still pawns at starting position and when moved two squares, constraints make events rare. That said, its potential as a move is still rather frequently employed, for instance to stop your opponent's desired queenside pawn expansion, following is a typical example:

```
 [Title "En passant being employed"]
 [fen "r1bq1rk1/pp1nbppp/4pn2/2pp4/P2P1B2/2P1PN2/1P2BPPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 8"]

 1...a6 2.a5 b5 (2...b6 3.axb6) 3.axb6

```

Black plays a6 to prepare b5 and their desired setup is to have the a6-b5 pawns which provides important light-square control and creates space on Black's queenside. White on the other hand, prevents it by simply playing a5, with the underlying tactical idea being to capture with en passant in case black tries to expand with b5. If black did play it regardless, then after white takes, black's left with a weakened a6 pawn. So with a5 we stop both b6 and b5 for good.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Quite frankly it's because most people don't care enough about chess to grasp the motivation behind the rule, so, because it comes into play so rarely, they forget the rule even exists. I would bet that at least half of the players at my local library's chess club (which is a very casual club) couldn't tell me what a passed pawn is or why it's important. It takes serious study for concepts like that to stick, and most casual players are content to be woodpushers.

It's also a tricky rule to master because it's so weird. I had to teach chess to a complete newbie a couple of weeks ago and at first I decided not to mention the en passant rule because he had enough on his plate as it was. In one of our games, though, he played a pawn advance that allowed me to capture en passant. I explained the rule to him and demonstrated the capture (then took it back; it wouldn't have been fair to exploit a rule he didn't know). Yet he made a couple more such moves that very day; the rule just wouldn't stick in his mind. So it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people learned about en passant, but completely forgot it by the time you used the rule because it went in one ear and out the other to begin with.

---
Tags: en-passant, teaching
---


title: What was Black's last move?

text:
# Question
Title: What was Black's last move?
It's White to move. What was Black's last move, and what could have happened before that?

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/3P2P1/3P2Pk/2KR3N w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
> 12 votes
There is only one black piece left, so the last move was with the king. Black's last move was obviously Kg1-h2. The king could not have come from h3, because there is no way the white pawn could have given check from g2 (its initial position). All other squares around h2 are occupied by white pieces.

Since the black king came from g1, it was in check from the rook on d1 before the last move. Obviously the rook could not have moved to d1 from somewhere on the d file because the pawn on d2 blocks the way. So there are two possibilities how the rook could have given check:

1. discovered check, i.e. a white piece moved away form e1 or f1 making space for the attack on the black king on g1
2. long castle

As for "1" None of the pieces currently on the board could have moved away from the 1st row (i.e. from e1 or f1) to give way for the check. However if **a white knight moved from f1 to h2 giving check** that would be a discovered check and the black king captured this knight on h2. Obviously this is the only option for a discovered check.

As for "2". If white castled long, that means that the white king never moved (castling rules) before, meaning the white king was always on e1. Then the question is: How did the black king get to g1? With the white king on e1, the black king could not have entered via f1 or f2. Neither it could have come via g2 (where there is still the original white pawn).

This would mean that it came via **h2**. But is that possible? In order to get to h2, it would have to come from h3 (not possible because of the original never-moved pawn on g2) or from **g3**.

However the black king could never have entered via g3, because the square was either i) attacked by a pawn from f2 or ii) occupied by that same pawn from f2.

That leaves as the only option, as last moves 1. Nf1-h2+ Kxh2

---

Going back one move further, what was the last move of black before Nf1-h2+? There are two possibilities: it could be a move by the king or it could be a move by a piece which got captured on h2 by the knight.

Let's analyze both options.

## Black moved the king in move 0

If the last move was by the black king it could not have come from f1, g2, h1 (which are blocked by white pieces) and neither could it have come from f2, because there is no way the knight on h1 could have given check. That leaves only h2 as possible option. So assuming the king came from h2, where it was in check, the last white move must have been Ne3-f1+. So the moves are now 0. Ne3-f1+ Kh2-g1 1. Nf1-h2+ Kxh2.

That is not the end of the story yet, because looking at the position before 0. Ne3-f1+ you note (basically for the same arguments as before, that the last move of black must have been Kg1-h2. On g1 the king would have been in check. This check (for the same arguments as presented before) could only have been a discovered check by the knight on e3.

So we have a situation where the black king is shuffling between g1 and h2 while the white knight is moving between f1 and e3. How can this infinite loop be broken? The only way to break this is, if there was a black piece at some point on f1, which blocked the check from the rook. This black piece on f1 got captured by the white knight when the black king was on h2.

## Black moved a piece to h2 in move 0

If black must moved another piece that got captured on h2, this piece can be a black pawn, knight, rook, or queen. It can not be a black bishop, because it could not have moved to h2 (because g3 and g1 were occupied by pieces).

## Summary

Two possible solutions:

```
0. .... N/Q/R/pawn h2
1. Nf1xh2 Kg1xh2

```

or

Initial position:

white: pawns on d2,g2,g3; Nh1; Ne3; Kc1; Rd1; black: Kh2; some piece on f1

```
-n. Nx piece f1+ Kh2g1
[any number of repeating moves with the knight shuffling between f1 and e3 and the king between g1 and h2]
-1. .... Kg1h2
 0. Ne3f1+ Kh2g1
 1. Nf1h2 Kg1xh2

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
Building on user1583209's answer, here is a complete sequence of moves to show how the black king managed to trap himself in the corner in the first place:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/8/2N1N3/3k2P1/3P2P1/2KRq3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Ke2 2. Nc3+ Kf1 3. Ne4 Kg1 4. Ne3 Kh2 5. Nf2 Qg1 6. Nh1 Qf1 7. Nxf1+ Kg1 8. Nh2+ Kxh2

```

Another possibility:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/7q/2N1N3/3k2P1/3P2P1/2KRq3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Ke2 2. Nc3+ Kf1 3. Ne4 Kg1 4. Nf2 Kf1 5. Nh1 Kg1 6. Ne3 Qf1 7. Nxf1 Qh2 8. Nxh2+ Kxh2

```

---

Third example by user1583209 without blocking piece:

```
[FEN "8/8/8/7q/2N1N3/3k2P1/3P2P1/2KR4 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qh6 2. Kb2 Qh7 3. Ra1 Qh6 4. Kc1 Qh7 5. Nf2+
Ke2 6. Nh1 Kf1 7. Ne3+ Kg1 8. Nf1 Qh6 9. Kb2
Qh7 10. Rd1 Qh6 11. Kc1 Qh2 12. Nxh2+ Kxh2

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
For the King to be on h2, it must have previously been on either h3 to g1. Being on h3 would have been impossible, since the g2-pawn has been there the entire game. So, the King must have been on g1.

One could give a counterargument saying that Rd1 has been on the 1st rank for more than one move, since it appears stuck. However, this idea is refuted by the fact that White could have castled with 0-0-0.

But then if White castled queenside, his King must have been on e1 the entire game.... which poses the problem of how Black's King got to g1 in the first place. I'm stuck at this point.

EDIT: I didn't consider the possibility of White ALREADY castling, and then Black moves his King to e2. Maybe there's some White piece on the first rank that allows Black's King to move to g1 without being attacked by Rd1. Then, as user1583209 pointed out, a move like Nf1-Nh2+ Kxh2 would give us the final position.

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


# Question
Title: Is a queen vs rook endgame always winning?
Other than specific scenarios where the side with the rook can draw, is it always possible to win as the side with the queen in rook and queen endgames?

# Answer
The best resource I know for endgame statistics remains the ICGA endgame stats. The spreadsheet posted there contains pretty much all endgames up to 6 men. So for example KQKR is found in row 27 (assuming White has KQ), with the following percentages:

```
       wtm    btm
W win 99.01 65.51
 draw  0.80  5.83
B win  0.19 28.65

```

So as long as White has the move, KQ is almost certain to win. Black victories with Black to move are likely due to be immediate capture or skewer. (Pin or fork of the queen leads at best to a draw, of course.)

Interesting to compare with KRBKR, row 107:

```
       wtm    btm
W win 41.25  5.09
 draw 58.70 94.06
B win  0.05  0.85

```

With White to move, Black does much better than in KQKR, which is curious since all that has happened is that the queen has been "unpacked" into its "constituent rook and bishop". With Black to move, the position is an almost certain draw: Black has lost the quick steals, but equally can protect himself from most of the situations where he might end up losing.

Note: (1) This is a *tablebase* based on computer analysis of all possible positions with up to 6 pieces. It does not refer to actual games played over the board. (2) The spreadsheet refers to "non-broken positions" which approximates to "legal positions".
> 6 votes

# Answer
According to Wikipedia, citing *Fundamental Chess Endings*, such endgames are wins for the side with the queen, unless there's an immediate draw or win for the side with the rook.

However, such endgames are complex enough that even a grandmaster may not necessarily win before 50 moves.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, queen-and-rook-endgame
---


title: Pieces, pawns and chessmen

text:
# Question
Title: Pieces, pawns and chessmen
In English as far as I know, *pawns* were once not *pieces.* A player had eight pieces and eight pawns which, together, totaled 16 *chessmen.*

When did this usage change? Why?

And (if you happen to know) how is it in the other major chess languages, like French, German and Russian?

# Answer
The terms are a bit loose. To quote from Wikipedia:

> In chess, the word "piece" has three meanings, depending on the context.
>
> 1) **It may mean any of the physical pieces of the set, including the pawns. When used this way, "piece" is synonymous with "chessman"** (Hooper & Whyld 1992:307) or simply "man" (Hooper & Whyld 1987:200).
>
> 2) In play, the term is usually used to exclude pawns, referring only to a queen, rook, bishop, knight, or king. In this context, the pieces can be broken down into three groups: major pieces (queen and rook), minor pieces (bishop and knight), and the king (Brace 1977:220).
>
> 3) In phrases such as "winning a piece", "losing a piece" or "sacrificing a piece", it refers only to a bishop or knight. The queen, rook, and pawn are specified by name in these cases, for example, "winning a queen", "losing a rook", or "sacrificing a pawn" (Just & Burg 2003:5)

Source: Wikipedia, emphasis is mine.

From the same article, the term pieces to include pawns has been noted since the late 1980's. Speculating, it may be that commentators did not see the need to distinguish between the terms pieces and men, hence coming into common use. For example, Josh Waitzkin's tutorials in Chessmaster, first made in the 1990's, use the term pieces instead of men. I've seen terminology become more lax over time, e.g. pieces being 'killed' instead of 'captured'.

As for other languages, I am unable to say I'm afraid.
> 8 votes

# Answer
As you ask for German, we make the distinction as in your question:

```
Figur chess piece
Stein chessman
Bauer pawn

```

We also distinguish between

```
Leichtfigur light piece (knight or bishop)

```

and

```
Schwerfigur heavy piece (rook or queen)

```
> 4 votes

# Answer
As you do, I have the impression that the usage has changed within a lifetime, but I can’t be more precise than that.

I tend to use the generic “unit” as do many problemists. For non-pawns I use the term “officer”, but I am not sure if that includes the king. I am sure I slip into using the word “pieces” often but these days it’s a synonym for “unit”.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: terminology
---


title: Simultaneous check

text:
# Question
Title: Simultaneous check
My pawn is pinned by the enemy bishop, however if I push the pinned pawn 1 space my rook would then put the opposing king in check resulting in a simultaneous check with my opponent to move next Can I move my pinned pawn in that situation?

# Answer
No. Doing so would put you in check, and it would be the enemy's turn.

You can think of it this way, the enemy would have the first opportunity to take a king, so if the game was about taking kings, then you would lose in this situation.

You can never make a move that would allow the enemy to take your king, even if you put their king in check at the same time.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


title: Checkless Chess

text:
# Question
Title: Checkless Chess
Is there any material difference between chess the way it is now versus doing away with check and checkmate and defining victory as simply capturing the opponent's King, assuming an available King capture is always taken?

Here is another way way of putting it, along with the motivation for my question: If a chess AI ignored the concepts of check and checkmate, and treated the material value of a King as infinity, would that change its behavior?

# Answer
> 12 votes
Your "checkless" chess AI would run into problems with the stalemate rule. It would consider the poaition with white king on a6, white pawn a7, black king a8, a win for White because wherever Black moves his king it will get captured. In standard chess, of course, the position is a draw.

# Answer
> 6 votes
This variant is distinct from regular chess. Some positions you can win more quickly, and others more slowly. This comes about because stalemate is still a thing.

```

[title "White to move. (a) mate in 3 moves (b) unroyal: capture king in 2 moves"]
[fen "7k/5P2/8/5K2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

Solution:
(a) 1. Kf6 Kh7 2. f8=R Kh6 3. Rh8#
(b) 1. Kg6 Kg8,Kg7,Kh7 2. fxKg8,KxKg7,KxKh7

```

[title "White to move. (a) mate in 1 move (b) unroyal: capture king in 3 moves"]
[fen "8/8/8/5N2/K7/8/4p1pp/4Bbrk w - - 0 1"]

```

Solution:
(a) 1. Ng3#
(b) 1. Bf2 e1=? 2. Ng3 ~ 3. NxKh1

By the way, does anyone here know a name for this variant of chess where there are no checks or checkmates, and you win by capturing the opponent's king? I'm calling it Unroyal Chess for the purposes of this post. "Checkless chess" is something different. It means that check is illegal *unless* it ends the game with checkmate.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Apart from stalemate, what you have to account for is the possibility that both kings are captured in succession, restoring the balance. That's what one of my chess programs did, capturing a defended piece with the king, because the defending pawn was pinned against my king.

So, if the only possible moves are with the king, you need to check whether those are actually legal, or whether the position is stalemate. And when a king is taken, you need to make sure that subsequent moves don't change the evaluation. Apart from that you need to check for checkmate only in the current position, as far as I can see.

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you ignore check/checkmate and do something else, the side giving check would be able to capture the king on the next turn. Therefore, what you are asking is simply the current rules.

Chess AI is already representing the king as infinity internally. You are not changing anything.

---
Tags: checkmate, chess-variants, programming, check, kings
---


title: Ratings criteria chess24

text:
# Question
Title: Ratings criteria chess24
My rating in chess24 is 1560, is the rating based on my wins or any other criteria considered? I can see the scores change when I win or lose.

# Answer
According to this page on their site, "A new member starts with a rating of 1800 and after a rated game that number changes. The change depends on the result of the game and your opponent's strength."

I have no reason to assume this is incorrect or incomplete. These are probably the only factors.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating
---


# Question
Title: Why continue to increase search depth after mate is found?
Playing with test sets, several times I come across a behavior of the chess engines which I can't understand: Let's say I have the endgame

```
[FEN "8/k7/3p4/p2P1p2/P2P1P2/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]

```

which after an amazing 3 sec of analysis with asmFish9, I know it's at most a mate in 45 moves. The needed moves then continuously decrease until the result seems to stabilize to a mate in 32 moves (found already after 22 sec., with a 57-ply search). Now my question: since the engine knows the maximum number of moves needed for this position in order to force a mate is 32, why does this ply number continue to increase and increase if I let the engine search? As I write, after 27 min. of searching, the mate is still a mate in 32, but the ply depth has reached 100(!). Even if a ply was 1/2 move, I'd claim that the maximum ply depth to be searched would be 64 for a known mate in 32. What's going on here, why does the engine continue to go to depth? I'd find it more logical if it would just stop at 64 and rather search to the sides, in case a earlier mate exists.

# Answer
When an engine searches, it doesn't look at all possible moves. It has to do Alpha-Beta pruning, where it rules out moves it considers extremely bad, and doesn't even consider them.

Once the engine finds a move, one of the things it does is then go back to these moves that are probably bad, and reconsiders them. I'm guessing that the 100 ply search depth is dedicated to those sidelines, with the engine trying to find a better line than the one it originally suggested.

You're right though that this would be impossible, given the engine already found a mate in 32, or 64 ply. But engines don't care how good their original line is, they always try to find a better one (what else would an engine do in the meantime?). Maybe it's more logical to get an engine to stop searching in the scenario you mentioned with the quickest possible checkmate, but again it's not like it has anything else to do.

When they perfect AGIs that can specialize in a variety of things at the same time, you'll probably see your logic implemented. But for now, mere AIs may as well search indefinitely.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I suspect it's an edge-case optimization that doesn't really matter.

What is the point in spending time making your engine more efficient at searching once mate has been found? You've already found mate! Your job here is done.

The performance cost of having some additional check of `if(currentPly > matePly){...}` called millions of times isn't worth the "benefit" of more efficient post-mate searches.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, checkmate, ply, depth
---


# Question
Title: Tactical difference between chess and Chinese chess
Is there any difference in tactics between chess and Chinese chess? If so, which one is the most fun? What are the important things to learn from it?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Douglas Crockford has written an accurate overview of Chinese Chess (or Xiangqi) from the perspective of a chess player. I quote the following:

> ## The Board
>
> Xiangqi can be played on a 9 by 10 uncheckered board. The board is separated into two territories by a **river** running horizontally through the center of the board. Bishops are unable to cross the river. Pawns gain the ability to move horizontally when they cross the river. Each of the territories has a 3 by 3 area called the Palace. The kings and queens are never permitted to leave the Palace.

> ## Pieces
>
> The king (or **general**) can move one square horizontally or vertically. The king is restricted to the nine squares of the palace. The King cannot leave the Palace, even to avoid checkmate. Kings act as rooks for the purpose of checking: If the two kings are in the same file, there must be at least one blocking piece between them. There is no castling.
>
> The queen (or **guard**) moves one square diagonally (as in Shatranj). A queen cannot leave the Palace, even to prevent checkmate. Queens are restricted to five of the nine squares in the Palace. Each side has two queens.
>
> The bishop (or **elephant** or minister) moves exactly two squares diagonally (as in Shatranj), but cannot jump. Bishops cannot cross the river. There are only seven squares that a bishop can occupy.
>
> The knight (or **horse**) moves like the Chess knight, except that it cannot jump. It moves one square vertically or horizontally, and then one square diagonally.
>
> The rook (or **chariot** or car) moves like the Chess rook. It can go any number of spaces vertically or horizontally.
>
> The pawn (or **soldier**) moves one space forward only. Unlike the pawn in Chess, this pawn does not capture diagonally. It does not have the option to go two on its first move. There is no en passant capture. There is no promotion of pawns into queens. However, once the pawn crosses the river, it acquires the power to move sideways. The pawn can never move backwards. Each side has five pawns.
>
> The **cannon** is unique to Xiangqi. It is the only piece which moves differently than it captures. The cannon moves likes a rook. It captures by moving like a rook with a jump over one piece. There must be exactly one piece of either color between the cannon and the piece it captures. The intervening piece is called the gun mount or screen.
>
> ## Checkmate and Stalemate
>
> Check and Checkmate are the same as in Chess. *Stalemate is a win*, not a draw. You cannot avoid defeat by forcing a stalemate.
>
> Perpetual check and other repetitions are not allowed.

As someone who has played both games, I would say that Xiangqi is more fluid because you are able to move *every* single piece on the get-go, meaning that there are more variations in the opening move. You can be aggressive by placing your cannon behind the centre pawn or you can be defensive by placing an elephant there. The good thing about not having a row of pawns in front is that you can deploy your chariot in two moves to control the river where early battles will be fought mainly with lower value pieces such as horses and soldiers.

The middlegame strategy usually involves positioning a number of your attacking pieces to exploit your opponent's weakness, perhaps at the flank. Opportunities can be created when you are attacking your opponent, forcing your opponent to move his defensive pieces like the guard and the elephant to the centre, cutting off his more powerful pieces from coming to the rescue. Other strategies involves deploying double cannons at the centre column or placing them at the last row, effectively forcing the opponent's king out into the open.

If both sides are equally matched, then the endgame would be played where fewer pieces are left on the board. The position of the king becomes very important at this stage if there are no chariots on either side. The king who dominates the centreline would limit the other king's movement to just three squares, or a third of the palace if the opponent's king is exposed.

In conclusion, I would say that there are more similarities than differences between Chess and Chinese Chess. Those who are good at Chess would naturally be good in Chinese Chess and vice versa. Strategies used in Chess can certainly be adapted to Chinese Chess as long as you have a flexible mind and can be creative with your attacks and defenses. For those who have not play Chinese Chess, do try it. It is fun.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chinese chess appears to be more difficult, or at least more subtle, because the powers of the pieces are generally less than in western chess.

Only the Chinese chariots are the equivalent of the western rooks. The Chinese horses are almost equal to the western knights, except that they can be "hobbled" in certain instances. The "jumping" properties of Chinese elephants and cannons make them less useful than western bishops, and there is no equivalent of the western queen with the combined powers of rooks and bishops.

Chinese pawns are slightly more powerful than western pawns, after they cross the river, but there is no promotion mechanism on eighth rank (and no queens to promote them to).

To compensate, the Chinese king is confined to a nine square "palace," but western kings try to achieve the same "fortress" protection by castling, at least early to mid game.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I played International chess in childhood rather well, now I play only Japanese shogi and Chinese xiangqi. Xiangqi has triple and even quadruple check and many new tactics connected with Cannon. Cannon can make double threat by moving other piece on the board, Cannon makes double pins, can protect or attack pieces like X-ray through two pieces, double checks are much more common than in chess. And xiangqi has more space for shifting pieces, penetration into an enemy camp. Xiangqi has flanking trio rule and so on. Other type of tactics based on the features of the movement of figures and is associated with the blockade. In chess, only a pawn is directly blocked. In xiangqi almost all pieces block each other, or are blocked by space features like river and palace.As well xiangqi has a lot of mating formulas based on the before mentioned facts.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I played international chess a lot, learning chinese chess now. Here is my impression.

Intl chess peices are much more mobile. Queen in intl chess has no matching piece in chinese chess. Rooks are equal. Knight in intl chess is better (at worst - equal) than in chinese chess.

King in chinese chess is way less mobile. "Defending pieces" (king, advisors and elefants) smother your king very often. A spot in front of the king is a trap. By moving there you block your advisors. Castling is a good idea in intl chess, but in chinese chess king shouldn't move.

On average, at a given position less squares are under attack in chinese chess. Hence, you can put your room in enemy lines. If you do this in intl chess you will lose your valuable piece (see catch ing enemy queen puzzles).

Brinning a game to a draw is easier in intl chess. This is because two kings cannot stand on the line of sight and because they cannot leave their cartle. Thus, obvious draws (King +pawn or King+knight vs King) in intl chess are wins in chinese chess.

Cannon piece is has no analog in intl chess and is hard to get used to.

In intl chess as the game progresses the value of king increases. King is supposed to be passive in midgame, but become active in king+rook+pawn vs king+rook type ending. In chinese chess game progress impacts knight vs cannon values the most. In early game cannon\>\>knight. In late game knight \>cannon.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Great answers so far. There's a few factors that I want to add as a Westerner who has played occasionally in China.

(1) Stalemate doesn't exist. Power to the strong! The resource of pat which makes western endgames interesting right to the end doesn't exist in Chinese Chess.

(2) The analogies to western 50 move draw rule are very complicated and situational, and I've never got my head around them.

(3) Some of the pieces are quite weak compared to their western counterparts, but cannons and the superpower whereby two generals can't face one another on the same open file are uniquely powerful and it's always fun to play with these rules. Quadruple checks rule!

(4) **Finally and most importantly** over the last few years a new rule has revolutionized Chinese chess as it's played in the neighbourhoods. The 15 pieces for each side excluding the general are turned upside down at the beginning of the game and shuffled. They are then randomly placed on the same squares as the normal starting units, and then they all move like pawns, their identity only being revealed when they capture or are captured themselves. The general begins face up on his normal square. Even the owner is not allowed to peek to see what unit really is. This is like a cross between Fischer 960 chess and "morphs" from Magic the Gathering, and adds a lot of excitement to the game, particularly for the spectators who often crowd round the outdoors games.

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


title: Can a grandmaster always draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Can a grandmaster always draw?
I was watching the Candidates recently and noticed that the commentators talking about Wesley So’s last game got annoyed that he was aiming for a draw and didn’t really have any fight in him.

A draw was agreed after only 20 odd moves, and that got me thinking - if a top grandmaster were to aim for a draw against AlphaZero for instance, would they always manage? Can a Grandmaster force a draw?

# Answer
No. It may be difficult to win against a top GM who is playing for a draw, but it's by no means impossible.

If GM's could *always* draw at will, we could stop all championship matches once either player won a game, since the outcome would be decided. But we don't do that, because the outcome is *not* decided after one player gets one win.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: draw, grandmaster
---


title: CPU v. GPU for chess engines

text:
# Question
Title: CPU v. GPU for chess engines
GPUs are better at certain types of calculations, e.g. generating bitcoins and performing climate simulations.

Would chess engines benefit if they calculated with GPUs instead of CPUs?

Maybe some knowledgeable person can highlight the differences between the two and enlighten us as to whether GPUs are (un)suitable for the type of calculations that chess engines execute.

# Answer
**EDIT:**

Few other points raised in http://web.archive.org/web/20201022142829/http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic\_show.pl?tid=32317

* GPU not so good for recursion
* GPU not so good for floating
* GPU might work better for new machine-learning approach, but not the traditional engine algorithms

**Original**:

@Maxwell86 has already given excellent links and resources. Pay attention to the zeta-chess engine. It's a GPU chess engine. Unfortunately, GPU has not proven its usefulness in chess programming. In fact, the zeta chess engine project went absolutely nowhere.

GPU works very well on floating calculations and algorithms that can be paralleled. This requires independence. But if we look at a typical min-max (or alpha-beta) tree (used by every chess engine )

The right branch depends on the left branch. In particular, if we can get a cutoff (fail-high), we wouldn't even need to search the remaining nodes. Unfortunately, this is not something that a GPU can do efficiently. It's possible to write a GPU program for alpha-beta, but the GPU threads (known as kernels) will need to be paused to wait. Unlike a CPU, a GPU kennel can't just switch to something else ( a process known as thread-switch or even process-switch).

Our existing algorithm and engine knowledge was derived for the CPU world. The entire algorithm would need to be reinvestigated for the GPU. Unfortunately, there is not much interest and research on it.
> 15 votes

# Answer
I have no experience with GPU programming, but, typically, GPUs are very efficient in executing simple commands in a parallel way. Apparently, this is not the case for the search tree that is used for chess engines. Therefore, the GPU loses its computational advantage over a CPU.

Of course, this is the current state of GPU programming for chess engines, but GPU programming is relatively new, so maybe they'll find solutions for the current problems in the future.

Here are a couple of interesting links, especially the blog about implementing a chess engine for GPU is quite insightful.
> 7 votes

# Answer
The LC0 (Leela Chess Zero) project, an open source adaption of AlphaZero for chess, shows the benefit of gpus, floating point performance and memory bandwidth used in large neural networks.

http://lczero.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lczero
> 5 votes

# Answer
I finished my current run on Zeta v099a, my experimental gpu chess engine.

https://github.com/smatovic/Zeta

The actual conclusion of the current iteration is, that an simple engine, with standard chess programming techniques, can be ported to OpenCL to run on a gpu, but it would take more effort to make the engine competitive in terms of computed nodes per second (speed), heuristics (expert knowledge), and scaling (parallel search algorithm).

Computer Chess, as an computer science topic, evolved over decades, starting in the 40s and 50s, and reached one peak 1997 with the match Deep Blue vs. Kapsarow. Nowadays chess engines are tuned by playing thousands and thousands of games, so to get an chess playing engine running on the gpu and to get an competitive chess playing engine running on the gpu are two different tasks.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I've some experience with CUDA and chess programming (not engine programming). This question also came to my mind many times. Here is my opinion, I never studied this.

Well, first, it is virtually certain that with current design of chess engines it's impossible. Otherwise someone would simply do it.

Whether you could use it in completely new design, that's a bigger question. There's no problem with integer operations, but clearly there is huge thing that you must run primitive code with no serious branching on many of entities.

In my opinion all the tree calculations should run on CPU.

But I can imagine (I don't say it's possible) some partial evaluation function(s) that just make as much evaluations on positions as possible, to give CPU more time, to help him build the tree in a better way, lets say one such function could calculate how serious calculation should be made on each position.

You can calculate number of squares attacked, pieces attacked, firepower around kings and in some subregions on board, pawn structure related things, you could probably make GPU optimised code for these. You can probably get a lot of useful informations for free (no CPU time, no CPU waiting), but you would have to be real genius to use full horsepower of modern GPUs for such small things.

It is probably not very interesting thing to do to create completely new design of engines to get let's say 30% extra speed. And to get let's say 20x speedup on state of the art GPUs, you would have to make evaluation functions really alien.

And last thing on this what I see to be a problem. You can run one code on CPU with not many thinking, but in CPU+GPU scenario you would have to deal with really different ratios of CPU and GPU. speeds and core counts. You would need different code for 16 cores cluster with weak GPU than on slow CPU with super fast GPU to use full capabilities of hardware. Benchmarking CPU vs. GPU and then running more code on the faster machine would be desirable. But still, I think you will get nowhere close to feeding 3000 cores beast just with evaluation function(s).

Edit: Just to make things clear, CPU would regularly send GPU arrays of positions to make partial evaluations. Maybe that wasn't clear from what I wrote.

Many problems to make this work.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I see only benefits in using a GPU based chess engine and don't see any serious problems doing that. Maybe you have that issues try using a standard chess program, don't know much about the others. I just start up to write a chess programm from the first line on, as a second CUDA based program after I make some first programming tests on CUDA without specific sence. Soon I can make some first performance tests and test games against other engines. Maybe during next week. I just start creating it but I'm already close finish it and most functions already finished.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, calculation
---


# Question
Title: What are the actions one can do against chess.com players who stop moving when they are in an objectively losing position and refuse to resign?
One of my opponents at chess.com just stopped moving after falling into objectively losing position, refused to resign, and made me wait for 20 minutes to claim a win by time.

I've recently resumed my online chess activity and I have experienced this childish behavior of some online chess players several times already.

Does chess.com's engine detect such unsportsmanlike behavior? Or is there a way to flag such users, so that they could be punished? What is the proper etiquette for us to proceed in such cases?

Here's the game position when my opponent stopped moving and refused to resign:

```
[Title "Me vs Malicious Player"]
[FEN "8/7P/2k1p3/p3P3/Pp1K2P1/1P6/8/8 w - - 0 44"]

```

# Answer
The behavior you describe is bad sportsmanship and goes against the policies of chess.com. See the chess.com fair play policy and this blog post about the new abuse report system which includes an option specifically for "poor sportsmanship / stalling in games".
> 39 votes

# Answer
Assuming you also have plenty of time on your clock, **make a break**: have a drink, or check your mail, or pay a visit to the bathroom, or grab a book (even if it's an openings book, it doesn't count at cheating in that position ;) ), or go verify if your baby hasn't hurt herself with that knife she was trying to grab when you were too busy calculating your Bxh6! sacrifice to stop her.
Meanwhile, check every five minutes that the opponent hasn't played (the worst trick would be if he plays a meaningless move at some point and ends up winning on time). After your well-deserved 20' pause, collect your point, block this undelicate opponent to make sure you never play against him anymore, and look for another partner. You will win the next game as well thanks to your fresh mind after the 20' break.

In case you're a real chess lover who doesn't care about his virtual Elo rating, and really just want to start a new game as soon as possible, **the alternative** is to resign yourself. I almost never do that because I *do* care about my little rating points (*vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas*) and because the pueril opponent might believe he has been smart when he gets gifted that pseudo-win, which might even encourage him to continue his misbehavour. But objectively, we shouldn't care at all what the abusing, unfair player is thinking - It's not our job to educate him, and we don't have the means to do it anyway.
> 49 votes

# Answer
I followed @itub's suggestion and filed a report against the particular user. Here's the answer I got from Chess.com support:

> \[...\]
>
> Certainly, this is not what we want on our site! I have sent this member to our investigative department for a close watch on this account. They will be monitored and if they continue this behavior, we will have to close their account!
>
> Thank you so much for reporting! We appreciate it so much!!
>
> \[...\]
>
> Chess.com Member Support Staff

Since Chess.com also takes it seriously, I do suggest to report malicious users instead of not doing anything, so that in future they don't ruin online chess experience of your fellow mates as well.
> 21 votes

# Answer
Pre-move

h8Q
Qh7
g5
g6
g7
g8Q
Qhf7
Qxe6
Qgf7
Qee8++

and go to sleep. Then file a complaint in the morning.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Time for an update: Chess.com has just released a new formular for reporting abusing players.

It includes a category "poor sportsmanship / stalling in games" that totally fits your situation.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Unfortunately there isn't much you can do to make the game end immediately. If you care about your online rating and don't want to do something like offer a draw, you'll have to wait. I'd suggest doing something else that you need to do with that time.

After the game though, there is plenty you can do. The best course of action would be reporting the user to Chess.com, explaining how they made you wait 20 mins. For proof, you could take a screenshot of your game when your opponent has 15 minutes, and another screenshot when he runs out of time. This will show Chess.com it is the same position, and that your opponent just let the clock run down.

Additionally, you can block the user so that you never play them again. This will save you some time in the future, if you get paired again.

Here's Chess.com's link on how to deal with unfair players. They give instructions on how to report a player, as well as other things:

https://support.chess.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1444879-fair-play-on-chess-com-what-you-need-to-know
> 2 votes

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


title: Who is winning is this game of chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Who is winning is this game of chess?
What do you think are the chances for the black to win?

# Answer
It's game over for Black. Down by material, mating attack, zero counterplay etc. The Black's rook is under attacked.

> 1...Rd6 2.e5 Qxe5 3.Qg4+ Qf5 4.Qxh5 winning easily

1-0 unless White makes a horrible mistake.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Black is down in material by a couple of pawns and the black King is very weak.

Unless there are any immediate tactics (doesn't look like there are, but haven't checked with an engine), white should win this.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: online-chess
---


# Question
Title: Is the chess game from the movie "Revolver" a plausible game?
The movie "Revolver" has a scene with a chess game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI1oSkX-Zag

Is the game plausible?

# Answer
The scenes we see in the movie are not completely coherent, some of the things we see are in the wrong order, and the initial chessboard seems to come from the same game, but it is not completely consistent with what happens later. Anyway, the combination they play, with the checkmate, looks like this. Of course the combination is quite simple, and it does not match with the idea they want to give in the movie (the two people are supposed to be tournament players, as we see from the scenes with the chess clocks), so for them this combination would be trivial, and the suspence we see in the last three moves is quite unjustified.

```
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/pp1nbppp/4p3/q2pP3/8/2RBBN2/PP2QPPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. Ng5+ Bxg5 3. Qh5+ Kg8 4. Bxg5 Nxe5 5. Rh3 Ng6 6. Qh7+ Kf8
7. Qh8+ Nxh8 8. Rxh8# 1-0

```
> 8 votes

---
Tags: film
---


# Question
Title: When was the FIDE title of Candidate Master first awarded?
Specifically, in which FIDE rating list do players first appear with the Candidate Master title?

And which country (federation) had all the titles in that first list? Not that I'm suggesting a stitch up :-).

# Answer
This seems to be a quiz question, you probably know the answer but anyway ...

The first rating list that contains the Candidate Master title is April 2002 and all the players on that list with the said title are from England followed by Wales in the next rating list (July 2002). There are two relatively well known names among the first eleven people in history who held the CM title.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: fide, titles
---


title: scid vs pc interface

text:
# Question
Title: scid vs pc interface
I am having an issue setting up scid vs pc. I see tons of tutorials and they all show a nice interface with the board, analysis, and other windows all visible on one view. However all I get get is the board showing and the current few moves. Everything else is on separate tabs. I have searched high and low through the menus and options and Google searches but no answers. I tried to upload the screenshot urls but only one will post, if I ad the second one it deletes the 1st one. Thank you.

# Answer
Try setting Options -\> Windows -\> Dock Windows. If I understand your problem correctly, that may fix it.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software, scid
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to win with a black bishop and king vs a king?
I am playing with only a bishop (black squares) and king vs a lone king. Is it possible for me to win?

# Answer
No. Even if you got your opponent's king to a corner and checked it with your bishop, your king can control only two of the three flight squares.

The most you could achieve is a stalemate, if your opponent helps. Therefore king and bishop vs king is considered a draw by insufficient material ("dead position" is the term used in the FIDE Laws of Chess; see article 5.2.2).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: bishop-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Main Ideas behind Spanish Game, Cozio Defense
I've been practicing the Spanish Game so I can have better tournament results with it,

**Spanish Game**

```
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6

```

**Spanish Game, Cozio Defense**

and I asked my friend to play the Cozio defense,

```
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7

```

And the game that popped up was

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

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. Nc3 g6 ({Center control}) 5.d4 exd4 6.Nd5 Nxd5 7. exd5 Qe7+ 8. Kf1 Ne5 {Either way I can't castle, but since I have space I'll keep my queen} 9. Qxd4 Bg7 {Pin the knight to the rook, and I have decent control over white squares and development so I didn't feel threatened that bad and nabbed the pawn} 10. Bf4 f6 {Really good spot to develop and incorporate bishop with some unfinished ideas of attacks} 11. Re1 O-O

```

From here came a bunch of exchanges initiated by white that lead to a slow endgame and draw.

What are the main ideas and advantages of this opening?

---

P.S I don't think Nxd5 was the strongest move from analysing it in an engine and noticing it in the game I had tempo on the e5 square.

and my comments on the moves didn't show in the pgn (I'm not quite sure how to annotate those), but the basic idea was I am a positional player.

-I am playing White

# Answer
Indeed, 6...Nxd5 is not the main line. I remember some games with 6...Bg7 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bf6 Kf8, which is supposed to be a normal line, playable for Black.

In your game continuation, 8.Be2, keeping castling rights, looks good, e.g. 8...Ne5 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Re1 0-0 11.Nxd4 d6 12.f4 with a better development.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, positional-play
---


# Question
Title: What's the best move by white in this game?
In this game white must win. Please help me.

# Answer
> 7 votes
The key move is the **g3** move.

* If the e3 rook is unpinned, black has lot's of troubles
* If the b8 knight is under-protected, Qxb8 wins easily

1.g3 achieves both.

```
 1.g3 Qc7 2.Rxd7 now wins (Qxb8 or Rxe8 coming)

```

Black should resign.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Good openings for a beginner (for white)
I am a beginner in chess and I like to play some of my friends who are basically at the same level. Usually who wins is based on who makes that one amazing (and lucky) move and quite frankly I want to gain an edge over my friends. I have noticed that I usually just open randomly and this is what happens most of the time:

* One of the sides (or both) are neglected and both of my rooks are trapped for the entire duration of the game until most of my pawns are decimated and my rooks have some moving space. I have noticed that a lot of beginners/casual players have the same problem, since it seems to take a lot of moves to properly free up space for a rook.
* Only the pieces which I gave space at the beginning (which usually are my queen, 1 bishop and both knights since they are never trapped by pawns and of course a couple of pawns) are used and the other pieces are totally neglected, kind of the same as the first point only more general.

Some my final question is:

*Is there a **simple** opening for beginners which frees up a lot of space for the powerful pieces to be utilized, especially rooks?*

p.s. - I am aware that there exists no perfect opening, but keep in mind this is very low level chess. So I'm looking for an opening which is usually enough to have a nice setup and is not countered easily by **weak** players.

# Answer
> 17 votes
I asked my chess teacher (rated 2100 USCF); she said "E4 games" (the Italian game, Ruy Lopez (Spanish), the Sicilian, the Vienna game or the Scotch). Her personal recommendation was the King's gambit.

I disagree; I like d4 and c4 openings, closed positions. Beginners don't know how to play against d4 or c4. There are these different openings like the Polish defense/Orangutan, the Nimzo-Larsen attack, and the Benkö, which I won't go into much detail.

# 1.e4 games

* Open games
* Open diagonals
* Fluid or absent center pawns
* Tactics
* Attacks
* Gambits
* Combinations
* Fast

Beginners usually like e4 games because they control the center, they develop quickly, and they get ready to castle (3 main rules in the opening) unlike in 1.d4 openings. A suggestion is to get knights out first, and bishops out next.

## Italian (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4)

* *Giuoco Piano* (Italian for *quiet game*):

3. Bc5 4. c3 (preparing to push D4 to gain space)
* *Two Knights Defense*

3. Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 (black should not take the pawn)
* *Blackburne Schilling*

3. nd4 (Take the *knight* and **not** the pawn; otherwise lose a minor piece)
        4. nxe5 Qg5 5. nxf7 qxg2 6.Rf1 qxe4+ if 7.be2 Nf3# if 7. Qe2 Nf3#
        (So white will have to give up a minor piece eventually to not get checkmated)

## ***Ruy lopez*** (1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 3. bb5)

* *3. a6* (Bobby Fischer likes 4.Bxc6, but the main line is 4. Ba5 b4 5. bb3)
* *3. nd4* (The exchange variation either Be2 for white, or nxd4)

## Vienna (1. e4 e5 2. nc3)

* 2. Nc6
        3. nf3 nf6 (transforms into the 4 knights game)
        4. f4 (turns into a gambit so you can take away from the center)
* 2. Nf6 3. f4±
    (the famous Vienna gambit. Varies on next move, but white is better)
* 2. Bc5 3. f4
    (it is extremely common to play f4 as third move for white, if he doesn't take, play nf3 the next move)

## Sicilian (1. e4 c5)

* 2. c3
    (The Alapin variation, the most popular prepares to push d4 to white's advantage, by 2. nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.cxd4, and white will have more space, so 2.e5 is an alternate, but leaves a hole for his knight on d4.)
* 2. nf3
    (The king's knight variation, very popular)
* 2. f4
    (Grand Prix attack, 2. d6 3.nf3; I like white's position more.)
* 2. d4
    (The Smith-Morra gambit. 2. cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.nxc3. White literally sacrifices a pawn for attacking on the d and c files. or 2. cxd4 3.Qxd4 nc6 Black will gain a tempo on white's queen, I do not recommend to take.)

## Scotch (1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. nxd4)

The center is broken quite early, but that does have advantages, I play 4. nf6 5. nxc6 bxc6 preparing to push d5, if 5. e5 then qe7 pinning the pawn.

Usually, though people play 4.Bc5 5. Nxc6 Bxc6. It's really a question of whether you want your bishop or knight out for black.

* **Scotch Gambit** **My Personal E4 recommendation**

1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 3. d4 exd4 4.Bc4 (a)4. Bb4+ loses for black because if 5.c3 then 5.dxc3 6.dxc3 if 7.Bc5 then 7.Bxf7+ 8.Kxf7 Qd5+ 9. king moves wherever Qxc5 +- Whites advantage. If Bd6 or Bf8, it either wastes a move and/ or messes up your position (undoes development/ blocks in pawns). Be7 is Game over, you might as well tip your king sideways due to Qd5!!.
* **King's Gambit** 1. e4 e5 2. f4 white will try for the d4 square

*Accepted* 2.exf4 3.nf3 d5 and so on. This was Bobby Fischer's favorite line for black.

*declined* 2.e6 3.Nf3 Nc6

*Falkerbeer* 2.d5 3.exd5 d4 black sacrifices a pawn for a good centre and black has to cope with an annoying pawn

*Interesting line* 2.nc6 if 3. fxe5 Nxe5 4.d4 Qh4+ black is better. if 3.nf3 then f5 trying for equality.

* **French**

+ ***"D4, C4, Nf3 Games"*** (I LIKE D4)
    + Closed Games
    + Blocked files
    + Blocked diagonals
    + Blocked Center
    + Positional Play
    + Strategy
    + Bind
    + Regrouping
    + Slow

***D4***

* **Queen's Gambit** (MY FAVORITE OPENING FOR WHITE)

*accepted*

*declined*

*Marshall*

*Tarracsh*

*Albin Countergambit*

*Chigorin*
* **King's Indian defense**
* **Pirc**
* **Benoni**
* **Blackmar-Diemer Gambit**

***C4/Nf3***

* **English opening**
* **Reti**

***"Other Openings"***

Open games

* **Polish**
* **Nimzo-Larsen Attack**
* **Benkö**

I highly recommend the following books for openings: Chess Openings for Black, Explained: A Complete Repertoire (Revised and Updated), and Chess Openings for White, Explained: Winning with 1.e4, Second Revised and Updated Edition by 2 Gm's

\*********************** Might not be finished, still be working on.....\***********************

# Answer
> 17 votes
The `Scotch Game` is definitively an opening for beginners (playing as White).

It's opened game that permits to player having two bishops free easily (see behind). Moreover, theory is simple and this opening is not countered easily by weak players because few weak players know it.

Here's a diagram:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
Here is an excerpt from an excellent article by Grandmaster Gregory Serper:

> It was very common in the countless chess clubs of the former Soviet Union that coaches taught their young students to play gambits, sharp openings like the Greco Attack and the Sicilian Dragon. My recommendation for all my readers whose rating is about USCF 1300 or below: try to play open sharp positions as much as possible. Even if you play 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 go for complications whenever possible! Only a chess player who is proficient in tactics can be a successful tournament player. Don't forget the popular saying that "chess is 99% tactics". Don't be discouraged if you lose a game or two, the most important thing is to learn how to calculate variations and visualize a position, and you learn it best in sharp open positions!

# Answer
> 10 votes
To me it looks like you need to focus on the opening principles instead of particular openings. Openings will come in time, but if you stick to the fundamental opening principles, you will actually find yourself naturally playing openings without even thinking of it. Some opening principles include:

1. Control the center
2. Develop your pieces (Knights, Bishops, etc)
3. Castle early (this should connect your rooks)
4. Try not to move the same piece twice in a row
5. Try not to move more than 3 pawns in the first 8 moves

By sticking to the principles above, you will notice that you are in fact playing an opening and you don't even have to think about it, for now, at least.

Let's use the `Ruy Lopez` as an example:

`1. e4` \- controls the center and opens the diagonal for the `Queen` and the `Bishop` `1... e5` \- fights for center control and opens the diagonal for the `Queen` and the Bishop `2. Nf3` \- Gets a piece out and controls a center square, plus attacking blacks `e5` pawn. `2... Nc6` \- Black gets a piece out and protects his `e5` pawn `3. Bb5` \- Puts a pin on Black's `c3` Knight.

A possible continuation for `White` and `Black` might be to castle, although with the `Ruy Lopez`, this can wait a few more moves.

I would also recommend if possible and this is only if you want to try and practice `e4` openings, to either ask your friends if you can play as `White` or seek games and play as `White` for a while. I did this with the `Scotch`, `Italian`, and `Evans Gambit` and became much better after playing them from `White's` perspective for a while.

You're gonna get moves from `Black` that don't follow `1. e4 e5` openings, but to illustrate an example from my own experience, just stick to the principles and you should be fine, no matter if you lose or win, you will learn something. I will use the `Sicilian` as an example. I am not an expert in the `Sicilian`, so when I play against it, I have no idea if I am playing an opening or not.

`1. e4` \- I want control of the center. `1... c5` \- Sicilian `2. Nf3` \- I want to develop a piece `2... d6` `3. d4` \- I make this move because I want to break up the center and open the game up. It kind of reminds me of the `Scotch` a bit, but others might disagree. `3... cxd4` `4. Nxd4` `4... Nf6`\- Attack `e4` pawn and develop a piece `5. Nc3` \- Protect `e4` pawn and develop a piece

If you looked at the board now, you would notice that `White` is close to castling, he has a `pawn` in the center, and both `Knights` are developed and there are open lines for his `Queen` and `Bishops`. `Black's` next move is an important strategic choice, but I wouldn't worry too much about it, I would just play. My main point above is that I had no idea how to play against the `Sicilian`, I just played the moves that felt natural at the time and came to find out, this is called the `Open Sicilian`.

# Answer
> 6 votes
The best first move for a new player in my opinion is `e4`. It results in the most open game with less emphasis on theory. A specific opening to look up would be the `Ruy Lopez` or the Spanish opening.

Also follow these general opening rules:

* Make only as many pawn moves as are necessary to get your minor pieces out.
* Knights work better when placed near the center (`Nf3`, `Nc3`)
* Avoid moving the same piece multiple times (it is a waste of move or *tempo*)
* Take control of the central squares (e4, d4) and try to ensure the opponent doesn't.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Yasser Seirwan's Winning Chess series recommend a Kings Indian Attack structure (Nf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0, d3, e4) because it is quite sound against almost anything your opponent can throw against you... and it has the analogous Kings Indian Defense as Black.

Its been solid enough that even Kasparov and Fischer have been known to play it, and doesn't require memorization.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Regarding the development of rooks...

Rooks usually come into their own later in the game, don't worry if they don't seem to have a starring role early on. In the opening:

1. Focus on getting the minors (Bishop and Knights) developed first
2. Castle as early as possible
3. Move the Queen off the back rank

Now the back rank is cleared and your rooks should be connected (i.e. they can "see" each other). At this point you can think about how to position your rooks most effectively:

1. Is there an open file (a vertical line cleared of pawns)? Move a rook to that file!
2. Is there a half-open file (none of your pawns are obstructing the file) ? Move rook to that file and it will exert pressure along the line.
3. Is there a file that is likely to be open soon (say the pawn in front is likely to be exchanged)? This is a good spot.
4. A rook that is "x-raying" (i.e. attacking though other pieces are blocking the line of attack) the enemy King or Queen often lead to advantageous tactics

If one rook is good, two lined up can be even stronger!

# Answer
> 4 votes
**If you want to go e4:**

The Ruy Lopez is complicated, but it won't baby you. I recommend it for all levels; anyone between a FIDE rating of 100 and 9999. The scotch is also an acceptable choice i guess, but i recently learned that at the top level it's actually just a draw. The Ruy Lopez secures an initiative for white.

Against the Sicilian, either the open Sicilian or the c3/Alapin Sicilian is a great choice. c3 Sicilian leads to isolated queen's pawn positions, which are very good for understanding more about the game of chess. The c3 Sicilian doesn't require a massive amount of theory either.

Against the french, just play the Tarrasch I guess. The Tarrasch is the most solid line against the french at the top top top level (in which almost nobody plays the french at the supergrandmaster level because it's passive and doesn't 'play for a win').

Against the Caro-Kann, you can try 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 Bd3 which is pretty easy to play if you do a little of homework, though it might be kind of dry. The absolute best response against the Caro-Kann is the advanced variation where you play e5, but it's actually hard to play and hard to get used to because black gets easy moves, and the pawn on e5 and d4 feels kind of over extended and loose. And playing c3 to hold the pawn chain together is never a good move in the main lines.

Against the Pirc, 150-attack or Classical system are good. Look them up if you ever face the Pirc at your level. It's rare. You can also try f4 (Austrian Attack), g3, and Bc4, though I don't actually recommend the austrian attack. It's about dead equal but not very drawish at the same time.

Against the Scandinavian, just the main lines. The Scandinavian is also rare. Qd6 and Qa5 are two different systems and completely different.

**If you want to go d4:**

You can try the London system or just the main lines (d4 c4 Nc3 e4 setup). The London system is about equal (white wants to be slightly above equal), but it's super impervious, solid, and you'll broaden your understanding about chess, and there are a several grandmasters who play the London system.

London System = d4 Bf4 e3 Nf3 c3 Nbd2 h3 setup.

Whether you play the London system or the mainline d4 with c4, you are going to have to watch out for:

The Grunfeld. The Grunfeld is actually the best best best absolute best opening against the d4 if you go for the Nc3 mainline (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5). The Grunfeld is very sharp and a lot of grandmasters are facing a little trouble against the Grunfeld. But, hey, grandmasters play d4 c4 setup, so it must be promising. The Grunfeld's endgames are always superior to white's in the main lines because of the 2-to-1 pawn majority on the queenside.

The Nimzo-Indian defense is also very solid and good for black, just right behind the Grunfeld by a millionth of an inch.

The Slav is right behind the Nimzo-Indian defense in soundness. The Slav can both be sharp and solid. Also the semi-Slav Botvinnik is the sharpest opening in all of chess openings. The Najdorf and the Grunfeld are just a little behind in sharpness but still super sharp.

**In conclusion:**

I recommend one of the following: -Mainline e4 -Mainline d4 -London System

**Alternates** -You can look at the English (c4) -You can look at the Catalan -You can look at the Reti, but you really have to like it to be good with it.

**Extra notes:** -Generally you want tactical and sharp openings if you're a beginner, because playing out their middle games will improve your tactics. e4 is sharper and more tactical than d4.

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Danish Gambit.**

Don't be afraid to crush them. They won't play precisely enough to counter you, and you'll have **tons** of space. Develop fast, rush towards *f7*, gain material if you can, just don't lose time going after pawns.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2

```

Usually, you push *e5* at some point, and sometimes it's yet another sacrifice.

Common themes :

* if black plays Bb4 (moving your king to f1 is acceptable and then) Bxf7+ Kxf7 Qb3+ wins the bishop back, a pawn, opponent can't castle anymore and files e and f are open for heavy pieces
* if black plays Nf6, e5 dislodges it (even if d6 has been played, and if dxe6, Bxf7+ before taking the queen) and it has a hard time finding a good square
* Qb3 comes in handy in a lot of variations, especially if black moves the Bc8 and doesn't defend b7, which is also a target. e.g. 5... d6 6. Nf3 Be6 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8. Qb3, and 8... Qc8 might save the day, but Nd4 or Ng5 keep piling up the pressure.
* against c6/d6/Nc6 and otherwise passive play, get out with Nf3, O-O, bring your rook to e1 and pound on the king and weak white squares before he gets his pieces out.
* the best defense for black in a lot of lines is to play d5, giving it back to relieve the pressure and get out faster, possibly trading the Ng8 for the Bd5, or blocking the white open lines if exd5.

# Answer
> 3 votes
For beginners, I generally recommend to begin from the end and start by learning endgames. Having said this, I can recommend a general plan of developing your pieces and securing your king that you can follow in every game, with both colors. For example, you can try a setup with 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.e4, 7.Re1, 8.Nbd2, 9.c3, 10.Qc2, 11.a4 followed by Nd2-c4 or Nd2-f1-e3 and developing the dark squared bishop to d2 and the rook Ra1-d1. For instance, the game could start with

```
[FEN ""]
1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 O-O 6.Nbd2 c5 7.c3 Nc6 8.Qc2 Qc7 9.e4 Rd8 10.Re1 a6 11.a4 Rb8 12.Nf1 etc.

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
For White, the Ruy Lopez is your `e4` opening. It allows for rapid development, early castling, and a nice tactical game. For your `d` opening, a good ole Queens Gambit is hard to beat.

You'll also need to learn 2 openings for the Black side. I like a King's Indian in response to `1. d4` and a Robatsch for `1. e4`.

They're all good in the beginning, however, so read up on some and learn the points of a few openings. Try them to see if you enjoy the positions that result.

There's really no such thing as a simple opening in chess. All are loaded with gotchas or nasty traps, ready to snare the complacent.

# Answer
> 1 votes
For White, I would recommend the Ruy Lopez. 1. E4 (opens lines for queen and bishop). 2. Nf3 (develops knight). 3. Bb5 (develops bishop). Black usually plays 3. ...a6, forcing 4. Ba4. Black might play Nf6, and White can play O-O, developing a rook through castling (which is what castling is for). If Black takes the e pawn, 5... Nxe4, White plays 6. Re1 and regains Black's king pawn. Then "rinse and repeat on the queen side: Nc3, Bg5 (or elsewhere, Qe2, and Rd1).

If you follow this sequence, taking "time out" only to defend or move attacked pieces, you will rise above the level of beginner.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I prefer the Italian Game, as it is what I played when I was a beginner. I used to won many games with that, especially when other beginners play the 2 knights game and doesn't know what they're doing.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I firmly think beginners should try all the 5 main common opening moves and try to understand the basic chess principles associated with these (e.g. 1.e4/1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3/1.f4). Then they can pick their favourite opening move that suits their style (1.e4 for full on attackers, 1.d4 for more cautious attackers,1.c4 for any broad style, 1.Nf3 for systemised play and 1.f4 for the adventurous but less mainstream attackers!?) and specialise with those (or go ahead and even learn other openings once they understand the basics eg 1.b4/1.b3/1.g3).

Anyway, you must play any of these opening moves with good chess opening principles in mind and then you will be in position to play for winning advantages.

General opening principles: Control the centre Develop pieces and pawns effectively (to good squares and quickly) Castle for king safety After castling, aim to have pieces developed with connected rooks Do not bring the Queen out early in the game Do not move the same piece or pawn twice or more in the opening

Specific opening principles depend on each specific opening. Here is a very quick and very brief introduction to some opening recommendations for White (with some illustrative game examples):

1.e4 c5 Open Sicilian (see Fischer vs Sherwin 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d3 1-0) or Bb5 anti Sicilian (see Fischer vs Olaffson 2..d6 3...Bd7 5.0-0 Nc6 6.Qe2 1-0) 1.e4 e6 French Defence (see Fischer vs Uhlmann French Winawer C15 1-0) 1.e4 e5 Guioco Piano (Italian game... see Fischer vs Rouse 2 Knights Lolli attack (d4) 1-0)

1.e4 OTHER.....so many 1.e4 openings. Follow opening principles!

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 Colle opening (see Colle vs O'Hanlon 1-0) 1.d4 Nf6 Colle opening! 1.d4 OTHER.....so many 1.d4 openings. Follow opening principles

1.c4 c5 English Symmetrical (see Fischer vs Spassky 1972 WChmp rd8\_1-0) 1.c4 e5 Reversed Sicilian (see Botvinnik vs Portisch English 2 Knights 1-0)

1.c4 OTHER...so many. Follow opening principles....

1.Nf3 d5 (see Reti vs Rubinstein 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 1-0) 1.Nf3 Nf6 (see Fischer vs Lapiken\_1956 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 1-0)

1.Nf3 OTHER ..so many..Follow opening principles

1.f4 e5 Birds opening From Gambit (accepted or declined... see Larsen vs From From gambit accepted 1-0) 1.f4 d5 (see Lasker vs Bauer 1.f4 d5 2.e3 1-0)

1.f4 OTHERS....so many.Follow opening principles

Hope this helps a little. Happy and good chess play :-)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I recommend trying for the following setup for a solid opening as white against weak players: Nf3, g3, Bg2, O-O with a subsequent Re1

This will protect your king early. You can play these moves against a lot of different openings. Be careful though about Black pushing their e pawn to attack your knight. You'll want to prevent them from doing so.

I looked at the moves of a bunch of Bobby Fischer's games one time and noticed that he very often castled before his opponent. Why not do it very early in the game so you can do it before your opponent? Now it is not so simple that this will win the game for you. In fact, it takes skill to be able to find good lines where you can castle earlier than your opponent in many openings. But you could definitely do it quickly in the opening and it may just bring similar benefits. It is such a simple idea and I believe it could be a good strategy against weak players. This is the best thing I can come up with for an opening idea that will give you an edge over your friends.

One of the earliest openings I remember reading about and playing was the Reti Opening. It starts out with 1. Nf3. It's a bit different since many people play 1.e4 or 1.d4. I stopped playing it pretty early on as I got caught up in 1.e4 openings. But when the game is fresh and new, there is a certain pleasure in playing more unusual openings. Plus there is less to focus on as it is a single opening instead of say the vast family of 1.e4 openings.

Another idea is 1.e3 - this is a bit sneaky because it looks like it does not do much but it opens diagonals for the queen and bishop. Of course 1.e4 does the same thing and is likely better because it controls the center but just starting out you could take it slow and also quickly get your opponent and you out of book where you can come up with your own moves after 1.e3 instead of following the moves from a book. Okay, maybe 1.e3 won't give you an edge because it cedes space to Black but it will get you thinking on your own.

Finally, two book recommendations for you are Play Winning Chess by Jeremy Silman and Yasser Seirawan and The Art of The Checkmate by Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn. The first goes over general concepts like space and time. The second book covers concrete examples of tactics. These two books will help give you an edge over weak players.

# Answer
> 0 votes
First, I would start with moving to e4. Next, just to free my rook, I would move my pawn on a2 to a4. After that, if your opponent has their bishop aiming for a2, move your pawn up to a5. Now your rook should be safe from being killed while moving to a3. The way I would move my rook on h1 would be to first move my pawn to g3. After that, I would move my bishop to g2. Then, move your knight to h3. Finally, castle! That way, you have freed your Bishop, Rook, and Queen; taken over the middle; and protected your king and kept your rook not trapped.

# Answer
> -2 votes
Try:

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bb4 4. Qe2

```

---
Tags: opening, beginner
---


# Question
Title: Why do grandmasters wear suits at tournaments?
Whenever I see photos of professional chess games, the players are always dressed impeccably and it's uncommon to see someone even missing a jacket.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but I don't understand why they dress so professionally, when they would be more comfortable (and perhaps perform better) in something else?

Is it to seem threatening to their opponents? Is it to make themselves feel more confident? Do tournament rules require it (but if so, why)? Is there any history or tradition behind it?

In case you've never noticed, I've included some images below.

*Aronian and Caruana at the previous Candidates tournament*

---

*Anand and Carlsen at the 2013 World Chess Championship*

# Answer
> 9 votes
The pictures you posted are of the top GMs in the world (Anand, Carlsen, Aronian, Caruana). These GMs almost exclusively play in elite invitational tournaments, normally with around 8-10ish players. As a result, these tournaments likely have a strict dress code because the organizers want to maintain the high prestige of the event.

For example, the Bilbao tournament is a double round robin with 4-6 of the top players in the world. It's regarded as a very strong tournament, solely based off these 4-6 players. So, imagine if the players showed up wearing casual clothes, like shorts and t-shirts. The players may be regarded by fans as "less professional", which will severely damage the reputation of the tournament.

Another reason top GMs dress in suits is that they are being endorsed, or want to be endorsed (look at Carlsen's shirt in the photo you posted -- he's advertising for Arctic Securities). If a company was looking for a chess player to advertise their brand, they'll prefer the player that looks better/more professional.

Conversely, most average GMs in open tournaments do not dress in suits. This is due to the 2 reasons mentioned above, except flipped. The prestige of open tournaments do not depend on how a select few players dress, since open tournaments have hundreds of players. Also, average GMs are not going to be endorsed by big companies, so they have no incentive to dress up (unless they want to).

---
Tags: tournament, history
---


# Question
Title: In early FIDE ratings files what does a flag value of "n" indicate?
Here are examples from the January 2002 FIDE ratings file -

```
   4603745  Kabisch, Thilo                         GER     2256   12   06.01.63 i
  13701940  Kabov, Sergey                          KAZ     2140    0   28.06.67
    931900  Kacarevic, Dejan                       YUG     2068    0   13.10.79 n
   4136497  Kachanov, Alexander                    RUS     2091    0   02.07.59 n
   4140729  Kachar, Vladimir                       RUS     2363    0   19.01.41 n
  13600613  Kacheishvili, Giorgi             g     GEO     2584   25   10.02.77
   4623614  Kachiani-G., Ketino (IM)         wg    GER     2460   17   11.09.71 w
   4138996  Kachkin, Konstantin                    RUS     2134    0   21.04.78 n
   4167678  Kachkina, Ekaterina                    RUS     2079    0   03.11.86 wn

```

The flags value is the last field. The value "i" indicates that the player is inactive, "w" that the player is female.

Interesting to note that Kachiani-G., Ketino has "(IM)" after her name as well as titles field "wg". Presumably this is meant to show that she was both an International Master and a Woman Grand Master.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Going through the January 2002 list, I notice that these "n" marks seem to concentrate on certain countries. Everyone from Russia, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and Latvia seem to have this "n" mark.

If you look at the April 2002 list, you'll notice that now everyone from the Philippines also has an "n". Perhaps the "n" stands for "nation" and designates something about the player's country.

---
Tags: rating, fide
---


# Question
Title: Can white win in this almost 20 year old puzzle?
It's White to move-can they force a win?. The left bottom is a1 as usual.

```
[FEN "4k2r/6p1/p4pKb/p2N3p/p7/p5Q1/p1n5/qrn5 w - - 9 9"]

```

Note for people who saw an earlier version: the position was edited (including a swap of the colors) for a more beautiful puzzle by Laska's suggestions. The answer has now been fixed accordingly.

History: I came up with this puzzle when I was a student, almost 20 years ago. It was published in the magazine of my local chess club, but nobody found the answer. A friend popularized it with his new chess-friends after he emigrated to Canada.

# Answer
The solution is

> 1. Qc7 followed by Qe7, Qf7 or Qc8 mate (depending on Black's second move).

This works because

> Black can't castle because either his king or rook on h8 have moved already. As Brian Towers notes, the black a-pawns need to have captured 10 white pieces and/or pawns; there are enough pieces missing, *but* capturing the white e-pawn (or to the right) doesn't bring you any closer to the a-file. So, one white pawn on the queenside must have been captured on another file; this is possible via promotion, but since there's just one black piece missing (a white-squared bishop) the promotion could have happened on the d-, e-, f-, or h-file. The pawn has either attacked the black king at f7 or d7, or it promoted on e8, forcing the black King to move in all cases. Or it promoted on h8, forcing the black rook to move. Another possibility, as @Laska noted, is that the e-pawn captures the black bishop on the d-file and is captured itself before promotion; however, we only need a single capture on the d-file, and the original white d-pawn must be captured too.
> 14 votes

# Answer
As the tags suggests, the problem is a retrograde problem. If Black may no longer castle, there is an easy solution-1. Qc7 and mate on the second move.

The Black pawns on a6-a2 must have taken 10 white pieces or pawns. White has 3 pieces left, so the pawns could have taken 5 pieces and the pawns from a2 to d2. So one of the other pawns (e2-h2) must have been taken too. That only could have happened if one of those pawns promoted. But with the Black king on e8 and the black rook on h8, this is impossible, taking in account that the Black pawns are on f6, g7 and h5.

Conclusion: the Black king and/or rook must have moved, so castling is illegal and 1. Qc7 wins.
> 3 votes

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


# Question
Title: Does knowing your opponent's personality have any influence on the game-plan
From Reputation and badges should be kept hidden until the question is answered, the below assertion is presented:

It is often asked in chess, that does the personality of the opponent player has any influence on their game plan, the answer is almost yes for all grandmasters. Most also feel uncomfortable playing against Computer as a competitor in chess even if it's radically low-rated running at 1/10th of its strength. Why, because people lose, not because that they are weak players but because of the inherent psychology involved that "computers make no mistakes". On the other hand, low-rated players often lose quickly when they know before-hand that the opponent player is a grandmaster. However, if the opponent rating is unknown, he tends to a better play, and even a long shot at winning it.

Do you agree with the above assertion or did you had any contrary experiences in chess. How do grandmasters employ assessing the personality as a tool to develop their game plan?

# Answer
> If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu

Chess is a game with countless variations. It is commonly known that there are over 9 million possible positions after just three moves. Nobody is expected to explore all of them, not even the mighty supercomputers. There *will* be lines which are simply not fully explored in every game we play.

One of the early algorithms you learn when developing chess computers is min/max. It's a rather blatantly obvious algorithm when you get down to it: the idea is that both players are trying to maximize their own benefit. In min/max, we treat this as you trying to maximize your advantage, and they are trying to minimize it.

If you play chess using the kind of thinking behind min/max, you quickly find yourself limited. No two players are thinking exactly the same. They value different kinds of positions, different tactics. You may find that it isn't effective to model your opponent as trying to minimize your advantage. You have to recognize that they are merely trying to maximize their advantage. The two phrases, "minimizing your advantage" vs "maximizing their advantage" are closely related in many situations, but they differ greatly in others. In fact, Chess often hovers in that meddlesome region where the position is so strange that both players are approaching it quite differently. Nowhere is this more visible than in a gambit. In a gambit, you offer something in exchange for an advantage that you find more valuable. They don't have to take it. However, in many situations they may decide that it is in their interests to accept the gambit. Min/max cannot explain a gambit; it cannot explain why both players would want the same position for different reasons.

Accordingly, it is essential in Chess to get into the head of your opponent. Grandmasters may do this for months, studying up on the play styles of their opponents.

An opponent can get into your head at any time. Kasparaov v. Deep Blue may be the most famous example. In one game, Deep Blue simply refused to accept an obvious materialistic move and found a more "human" move. For the rest of the tournament Kasparov was *convinced* there had to be a human helping Deep Blue out, and that psychologically destroyed him (even though the computer wasn't even aware of a psyche).
> 3 votes

# Answer
You can only adjust your plan to your opponent when you have multiple moves that are equally or almost equally good objectively, since sometimes one of these moves might seem better than the others against a particular opponent. But making an objectively poor move in the hopes that your opponent will not find the refutation is asking for punishment.

By far the primary means of adjusting one's style to one's opponent is selecting the opening. For example, the Sicilian Defense and the French Defense are both good choices objectively, but you might have reason to believe your opponent will perform worse against the Sicilian than the French. But if you know the French better than the Sicilian, you should probably choose the French, or else your choice of opening might hurt you more than your opponent.

This isn't the sort of thing most players really need to worry about until they become quite strong (master level). Usually in a tournament game you should just make the moves you're most comfortable with and play the moves that seem objectively best.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Botvinnik lost to Smyslov and to Tal in world championship matches and then won with them in rematches. From his writing it follows that he has studied the style of his opponents and learned to play against them. In playing against Tal in the rematch he avoided tactical complications in favor of dry endgames and that supposedly worked out. This is just an idea how to answer your question. One would need to investigate this line more deeply.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The world champion Emanuel Lasker is reputed to be a master of psychology, adjusting his play to upset his opponents to the point of making inferior moves on purpose. This is just an idea to pursue in the literature. For example, Kasparov writes about it in his predecessor series.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The young Bobby Fischer used to play the same opening scheme from game to game against every opponent. Later he adopted the element of surprise and varied his openings. I remember reading about it somewhere and it was worded so that the aspect of psychological battle became one of his tools contrary to his previous straightforward play.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I remember reading about Taimanov's preparation against Fischer before the match which he famously lost 6 to nil. His helpers recommended him to play the French Defense because Fischer was known to be ineffective against it, but Taimanov disregarded this advice and played his favorite Sicilian Defense which was to Fischer's liking.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I remember reading Carlsen's comments after his first match against Anand to the effect that he soon discovered that he needed no change from his usual play but was prepared to play differently. I don't remember any particulars as to this modified way of playing that he had prepared but at least this answers the question in the positive that this phenomenon is real in preparation against opponents.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Let me quote Botvinnik's words from a chess history book in Russian. It is about his preparation for his rematch against Tal after losing the champion's title to him.

I decided to play working in two directions. Firstly, to take a lesson from Tal and become a tactical trickster. Secondly, to prepare openings and middlegame plans with a closed character so that the board is fragmented into separate regions, the pieces are little mobile, even if objectively my positions are worse, hoping that my opponent will not be able to make use of his ingenuity and memory, while my understanding of positions might tell.
> 2 votes

# Answer
American master Fred Reinfield advised people to "play the man and not the board."

While an opponent will have a given strength, X, s/he probably will not have the same strength in all types of games. It might be a strength of X+100 in positional games and X-100 in tactical games (or vice-versa).

Say your rated strength Y, is X-50. But if your strength is X in tactical games and X-100 in positional games, knowing your opponent's (game) personality may enable you to match your X level of tactical play against his X-100.

Some years ago, I was a 1500 player playing with two 1800 players. The two other players played evenly between themselves. I was "even money" against one of these two players because I was able to match my strength in positional games (relative to my rating) against his weakness in this area. I was a heavy underdog against the other player, who matched me positionally, but had better tactics than me.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, psychology, grandmaster, planning
---


# Question
Title: Checkmating the bare king with 3 knights – can the mate be forced on any edge square?
In the case where White has King and 3 Knights, and Black has just the bare King, it is known that White can force checkmate. But can White in fact pick any edge square in advance, and force the checkmate to occur with the black King on that square? For example, can White guarantee checkmating on `e8`, if he so chooses?

There's an answer to a related 3 Knights post

* mentioning "side mate" as opposed to "corner mate", without going further into it.
* In the given example the bare king is not obliged to go to the non-corner edge square where the mate occurs.

*Edit after answer accepting*
The question is answered in the positive: Any edge square can be chosen to become the mate square.

# Answer
Here's how to forcibly checkmate the bare King on f8 or e8 (*added later*: or on g8 or h8) once it's been cornered on h8. First put Kg6 and Nd7, so the other Knights can roam freely as long as they don't accidentally checkmate or stalemate the cornered King; then:

```
[Title "h8 to f8 (or g8 or h8)"]
[Fen "7k/3N4/2N3K1/4N3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. Nf7+
(1. Kh6 Kg8 2. Ne7+ Kh8 3. Nf7#) Kg8
2. Nde5 (2. Ne7#) Kf8
3. Kh7 Ke8
4. Nd6+ Kf8
5. Nd7#
(5. Ng6#)

```

and likewise:

```
[Title "h8 to e8"]
[Fen "7k/3N4/2N3K1/4N3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. Nf7+ Kg8
2. Nde5 Kf8
3. Nh6 Ke8
4. Nf5 Kf8
5. Nfe7 Ke8
6. Nd5 Kf8
7. Nce7 Ke8
8. Kg7 Kd8
9. Kg8 Ke8
10. Nc8 Kd8
11. Ncb6 Ke8
12. Kg7 Kd8
13. Nc6+ Ke8
14. Nc7# (14. Nf6#)

```

To answer the question **Glorfindel** asks in a comment: White can start the same way, then set up the Knights on c5/d5/e5 to form a gauntlet and use the wK to push bK to the a8 corner:

```
[Title "h8 to a8"]
[Fen "7k/3N4/2N3K1/4N3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. Nf7+ Kg8
2. Nde5 Kf8
3. Nh6 Ke8
4. Nf5 Kf8
5. Nfe7 Ke8
6. Nd5 Kf8
7. Kh7 Ke8
8. Nd4 Kd8
9. Ne6+ Ke8 (9... Kc8 10. Nc5)
10. Nc5 Kf8
11. Kh8 Ke8
12. Kg8 Kd8
13. Kf8 Kc8
14. Ke8 Kb8
15. Kd8 Ka7
16. Kc7 Ka8
17. Nb4 (17. Kb6 Kb8 18. Ne7)

```

and then use the previous analysis to force mate on any of a5/a6/a7/a8 (or b8/c8/d8), or push the King further to a1, etc. So once the lone King has been securely cornered it can be checkmated on any prescribed square on the board's edge.
> 8 votes

# Answer
**EDIT: This answer in incorrect, Noam solved the problem in the accepted answer.**

I'm leaving it as an example of an unsuccessful attempt. My mistake was to try to keep the wK on the 6th rank, where it cannot make tempo moves, and push the bK with the knights. Noam proved that the reverse strategy is the correct one: knights guard the bK, the wK pushes it sideways, and thus the wK has tempo moves between the 7th and the 8th rank.

---

After the question has been edited, I will try and demonstrate how White fail to mate on e8 starting from the same random position I used before (conveniently, it is not too far from e8).

The main point is that if you use a knight to block one escape square along the edge (say, d8), then you are basically reduced to mate in the hence created 'artificial corner' (here, e8) using a king and two knights. And just as in the KNNK ending, due to impossibility to attack the last black square (f8) and the last light square (e8) with the same knight, White fails and stalemates.

```
[FEN "6kN/8/4NK2/8/6N1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nf7 Kh7 2. Nfg5 Kh8 3.Kg6 Kg8 4.Ne5 Kh8 5.Nd8 Kg8 6.Ndc6 Kh8 7.Ngf7 Kg8 8.Kh6 Kf8 (8.Kf6 {the other plan: the king blocks in front and the two knights try to attack g8, then f8, then e8.} Kf8 9.Ng6 Kg8 10.Nge7 Kf8 11.Nfe5 Ke8 12.Ke6 Kf8 {and you cannot force the king to e8 and deliver mate.} 13.N7g6 Ke8 (13...Kg7 {escapes}) 14.Ng4 {and if it was White's turn the next move would be Nf6#, but this is stalemate.}) 9.Kh7 Ke8 10.Nd6 Kf8 11.Nf5 (11.Ng6 {mates on the wrong square}) Ke8 12.Nfd4 (12.Kg7 {stalemate}) Kf8 13.Ne6 Ke8 14.Nc7 {The knight can control either f8 or e8, but not both.}

```

Of course, if the square you have picked is in a corner, White succeeds. I feel like he would fail on g8, but I leave it for someone else to check.

---
> 4 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, knights, knight-endgame
---