# Question
Title: What are some beginner opening variations after an opening has been chosen?
I have seen a ton of questions on how to choose an opening repertoire, but I haven't really seen anything on once you choose an opening, are there specific variations that one should start off with that are easier than others. I will use the French Defense as an example. Every time I played the French Defense, I instinctively played `3.e5` (The Advanced Variation), but it was pointed out to me by stronger players that as a beginner, I should try to stay away from the Advanced Variation for now and stick to the`Main line`3.Nc3`or The Exchange Variation`3.exd5 exd5\`. Is the above true regarding the French Defense? What variations of other openings are usually good for beginners to learn?

# Answer
> 11 votes
I would say that it almost does not matter. I think that anyone under 1700 USCF will get far more out of the study of the basics of the opening phase of the game and the general strategic ideas of the specific opening she or he has chosen. From a practical perspective it is too difficult to say what you are going to get 13 moves into an under 1600 USCF game to really dedicate too much time to an opening.

So the exact variation simply does not matter at the beginner level (assuming that is players under 1400 USCF). Notice in my terminology I consider a novice to be someone completely new to chess who has never played in a tournament and really only knows how the pieces move and the basic rules. I distinguish this from a beginner who knows a bit more about chess, may have played in a tournament, has a rating under 1400 USCF as mentioned before. I know these terms are generally synonymous but I think that it's important to distinguish between these two types of "beginners".

So my suggestion would be that at the beginner level one just shouldn't be too concerned about picking the exact variation but instead dedicate more time to learning about the general ideas of more openings by studying GM games from a variety of openings in addition to the openings you have chosen to play and keep your memorized book to a minimum.

Here are some suggestions on how to study the opening from Dan Heisman: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman37.pdf

> When a player first starts out to learn the openings, he gets the most efficient use of his time by learning:
>
> 1. General opening goals and guidelines,
> 2. A few main opening sequences (tabiyas), and
> 3. How to avoid making the same mistakes over and over.

# Answer
> 6 votes
> it was pointed out to me by stronger players that as a beginner, I should try to stay away

I find such approach extremely boring and destructive. Are you playing 3.e5 and feel comfortable with it? Keep playing like that then! Don't get me wrong, it's ok if at some point you will feel the need to try another variation. That may happen because you played 3.e5 in 100 games and didn't achieve a desired result (a certain overall score), or didn't achieve a certain desired positional picture (pressure on kingside flank of black due to your advanced e5 pawn). This way you'll have a serious reason to consider alternatives, more serious than just "stronger players told me".

Your goal as beginner is to make progress in understanding the positions on the board, not to blindly learn some long variants which are being told to give you advantage.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Well-I'm amazed at the advice you have had! If as White you play against the French defence, imho the Advance variation is a fine variation to use! This variation has been played many thousands of times by GrandMasters and is a good opening! I believe the theory for the Advance for White is less complicated than the mainline `3.Nc3` where you can quickly get mired in the very tricky Winawer variation-which I do not believe is suitable for beginner chess players! The Advance gives an interesting game for both sides.I find the Advance variation as White interesting to learn and play, and as a lower-rated player very suitable and I get enjoyable games with it! The Winawer however is fine for GM's (Bobby Fischer's favourite against the French defence) but imho not for beginners. The French exchange variation is imho borderline alright! I find it a dull variation to play and I never play it as White. As Black when White plays it against me I am prepared for a boring game & generally get one.

As for other openings you may want to decide if you like `1.e4` or `1.d4` or `1.c4`. I like `1.e4` and my favourite opening is the Scotch as there is so much less theory than the Italian or Ruy Lopez and not many people play it. For `1.d4` many players use a system opening such as Colle-Zuckertort and this is well suited to beginners; check it out. `1.c4` is the English opening - I have even less experience with this than `1.d4`.

In the main you need to decide what opening suits you and develop and study the principal variations from there. As a `1.e4` player I often get `1...c5` (Sicilian defence) played against me. There is a huge range of variations for Black in this opening-so to take Black out of some of the main variations I play `2.c3`. This often unbalances Black who was hoping to play his pet Sicilian line and I am learning how to play this `2.c3` Alapin variation and it is very interesting. You need to find similar opening variations you are comfortable with.

Hope this helps-happy chess! :-)

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'd say, play the variations that best suit your temperament. `3. e5` is a tough, fighting variation that will likely lead to victory for one side or the other. On the other hand, the exchange variation is an "easier" variation more likely to lead to a draw (although White does retain the advantage of the first move).

---
Tags: learning, opening
---


title: How to prepare for an opponent

text:
# Question
Title: How to prepare for an opponent
How does one prepare for an opponent (OTB or Online)? Do you go through recent games? How far do you normally go back? Would certain factors about an opponent dictate how you prepare for them?

# Answer
There can be no one-size-fits-all as to how to prepare for an opponent, as this will depend greatly on the playing strengths of both the one preparing and the opponent, and what works for one person won't necessarily work for another. So I'm somewhat hesitant to answer at all, but I'm hoping that the following three vignettes of chess preparation will shed a little light on the matter for you, without being blatantly inaccurate or overly biased.

> **1. Bobby Fischer prepares for Boris Spassky.** Leading up to the 1972 world championship match, Fischer famously immersed himself in a deep study of all Spassky games he could get a hold of, going as far back as he could, to the point that he basically knew all Spassky games on record inside and out. (See e.g. the mention and footage of his "big red book of Spassky" at 8:10 of this *60 Minutes* report from 1972. The video's a little hazy, but you can make out that the book is *Weltgeschichte des Schachs 27: Spassky*.)
>
> For someone of Fischer's prodigious talent and understanding, this kind of focused study could yield extremely useful insights in terms of both (1) concrete opening preparation for the match, and even (2) uncovering particular strengths/weaknesses in Spassky's middlegame and endgame play.

This is all well and good for grandmasters, as such particular preparation can be the best use of their time, especially as they necessarily have very strong general skills already. Most of us mere mortals, however, wouldn't be able to reap the same benefits from such an in-depth study of an opponent, for the simple reason that we don't understand enough about chess itself to truly glean much useful information from all that study, and besides, our time could be more efficiently spent improving our overall game. As to the specifics of preparation at that rarefied level of play, well, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Nevertheless, here's an account of my own very limited personal experience down at my level, which should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

> **2. A relatively strong amateur prepares for a particular opponent.** Even if I found the idea of preparing for an opponent to be appealing (I very much do not), I still think it would usually be a mistake for someone of my level (~ 2100 USCF) to spend much time on a finely-grained study of a particular opponent (assuming one even has access to many of the opponent's previous games in the first place), for the basic reason I spelled out above: I don't know enough to draw the right conclusions.
>
> Despite that, I have lately found myself facing many repeat opponents because I've been playing a lot at my local club, and without having set out specifically to do so, I have ended up getting a useful sort of individualized preparation from previous games. For instance, there is a fellow expert player who I've now faced 6 times. The first two games were hard-fought draws in which I was on the defensive each time, and somewhat fortunate not to lose. The crude knowledge I obtained about him from those games, and which has proved useful, was just (1) that he is *very* aggressive and seemingly always looking for a direct attack, and (2) that apparently I could outplay him when things were kept quiet.
>
> In the 4 games since, I have 3 wins and 1 loss, but that loss was only because of a fingerfehler when playing out what would've been mate-in-3 during a time scramble (probably the only time I've ever been *truly angry* after a game). In terms of the objective chess play, things have gone very poorly on his end since my realization about how to approach him. We have nearly identical ratings, and I believe that my recent success against him can be directly attributed to this very rudimentary sort of "preparation," namely: I know that if I play cautiously and sufficiently deaden the position against this opponent, then the resulting game suits me much more than it does him.

But that's as fine a point as someone like me can put on the matter: "I like quiet, he likes chaos." Big whoop. This is of course a far cry from the sort of preparation Fischer carried out, but that's as it should be, and even so it has proved useful for my own modest purposes. An important point here is that this information is something that I discovered naturally in the course of playing this opponent, and was not something I devoted separate time and energy to figuring out (which I maintain will often be quite a waste of time).

Finally:

> **3. A novice prepares for a particular opponent.** This really shouldn't happen, as the novice's energies should most definitely be focused on all-around improvement, rather than on any particular traits of an opponent's play. Taking what I wrote above a step further, the novice simply isn't equipped to draw many appropriate/useful conclusions at all from an opponent's earlier games, and should instead simply direct all effort toward playing good moves and a solid game.
> 14 votes

# Answer
At my level (B player) I would not bother too much preparing for an opponent. Sure, if you know your opponent only plays the Colle, you can book up some on that opening, or book up on an anti-Colle opening.

Games at my level are won or lost on tactics; little else matters.

I'd agree with point #3 in Ed's post.
> 8 votes

# Answer
For club players with 1/2 - 1 hour:

Find out what colour you are likely to have and try to find out what your prospective opponent's favourite opening(s) is/are with that colour (ask friends, lookup online). If they play several, just have a guess.

Decide if you have an opportunity to avoid this opening with something you prefer - e.g. if he likes to play the Spanish you could get in earlier with a Petroff - or if you are likely to end up in the opening of your opponent's choice.

Spend time ensuring you learn something new about your prediction for the opening, e.g.: What are the key themes/critical squares? What are the common traps, or any recent interesting departures from book?

If the predicted opening is played, you gain time and confidence at the board. If not, you've still learnt something that you should be able to remember for next time.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I would try to play *other* opponents with a similar style (positional, aggressive, etc.).

Failing that, I would try to "model" the opponent's game, and devise countermoves. Also learn some of his favorite openings.
> 4 votes

# Answer
At one time I played in a slow time control club on ICC. I was ~1600 or so, so we weren't exactly the top level. One game, it was very clear that my opponent had looked at my recent games and found an issue in one of my opening responses. My team was pretty furious that I resigned after 10 minutes of play, but it really was a crushing hole in my opening that I've since avoided. Since then I've learned that you should clear out your history before a match, by playing random openings in bullet games or even an opening that you don't usually play, to lead them down the wrong path.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: opening, preparation
---


# Question
Title: Specialized tactics books to improve position analysis?
I know that Mig Greengard used to have the VisualEyes column in Chess Ninja. In that column you were given a position and then a list of moves (say 3 or 4 moves forward) and then you were asked to solve the tactics problem from the position resulting from those moves.

Are there any books or other resources with positions that offer a similar experience?

---

An example might be like this:

After:

```
7. Qb3 Qe7
8. Nc3 c6
9. Bg5 b5
10...

```

White to move and win.

# Answer
Larry Evans authored "What's the Best Move" in Chess Life for years. It is what you describe - a position with multiple guess answers. You're supposed to choose the right one, and say why.

He published a book with the same name.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, tactics, books
---


# Question
Title: How do strong players react to being paired with a (much) weaker player in a tournament?
I am very curious as to how stronger players react to encountering weaker players in a tournament (say, more than 200 rating points below themselves).

Specific questions that come to mind:

* Is it typically an indication that you will have an easy win? Or do you worry that you will have a tough game nevertheless, and lose an opportunity for an easy win / rating, etc?
* Does the stage of the tournament make a difference in the above? E.g. encountering a lower rated player towards the end of a tournament may mean that they are particularly on form.
* What is your strategy to get the most out of these games? Do you vary your style (say, switch from calm to aggressive, or play safely for a sure win / draw, or do you just try to stay with your normal style)?

I'd be interested in answers regardless of your actual rating (it is the relative difference in rating which is important), although it would be useful to give an indication of the broad range that your rating occupies (say, e.g. 1700 to 1900, or 2200 to 2400).

**Update:**

Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. It's given a pretty good insight into the psychology of the situation, and I will accept one of the answers soon.

**Update 2:**

Just to clarify the question a bit, judging from the comment and some of the answers, it wasn't too clear. The intention was to find out what goes through the mind of a player when they are paired with someone who is considered weaker than them (with the example being a difference of \> 200 rating points). Do they anticipate an easy win and relax, or feel stressed that they are encountering someone who's on fire, and will be playing their best against them? How does this affect their game plan, and specifically, what would they do (on the board) to ensure a good outcome (preferably a win?).

Most of the answers seem to be along the lines of "do not underestimate the opponent" and "play your usual game", with a bit of "experiment with different play styles", which does actually answer my question. Thanks to everyone for contributing.

# Answer
I think the best thing you can do when playing a player that is rated below you is forget about the ratings, and play the person across from you, not their rating.

The last thing you want to do is this:

> Hmmm.... If i make this not very strong move, my weak opponent has an opportunity to make this blunder (and I am sure that they will), and I get to win a game right away with a pretty tactic, and if he or she plays properly I'll outplay him or her later anyway because I am stronger. So I will go for it.

The above is a recipe for disaster. I know from experience.

Also, I don't think that 200 point gap is very big. I believe that the weaker player is expected to score 25% (one win in four games or two draws in four games).
> 13 votes

# Answer
You never want to under-estimate an opponent - you only have to drop a piece to lose to someone 300 or 400 points lower. That being said, I don't mind playing weakies and getting an easy kill because the next round... **I'm** probably going to be the weakie. So it all comes out in the wash.

I have to admit I experiment on C players. Not to see what I can get away with as such, but to try new things, be uncommonly aggressive, or sac a piece when it would be fatal to do so against a peer. I have nearly been up-ended more than once, of course, but that's the risk and frankly half the fun.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I'm not a strong player (1850), but to me one of the more intimidating circumstances is meeting a 'lower ranked' junior towards the end of the tournament with say 3.5/4.

Clearly they deserve respect, and are very much of an unknown. Juniors also tend to be very keen on the latest book developments so opening choice can be even more critical.
> 8 votes

# Answer
If you define player weakness in terms of low rating only, expect unpleasant surprises. It is a good idea to consider the psychological profile of the "weaker" player. Some players play weaker after being defeated. Some keep playing at the same level. Paradoxically, there are players who play stronger after being defeated. A classical example is the young Alekhine playing in the St. Petersburg 1914 chess tournament. Conventionally, he could be considered a "weaker" player compared to other players in that tournament. In first round during finals, Alekhine lost to Lasker. At that point Alekhine was on the last place among finalists, by amount of points during preliminaries. He was a young and not very experienced master. Many would get frustrated in such a situation, yet Alekhine won his next game against Tarrasch. In second round, Alekhine lost to Lasker again. And after that he won against Tarrasch one more time, literally destroying him. So he played his best games immediately after being defeated.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I would say, to maximize your advantage, make it a "long distance" race. That is, the advantage of your greater ability will prevail unless you make a bad early mistake.

Capablanca, a world champion once lost a piece on move 9 against a much weaker master. He never recovered, and resigned on move 53. So don't let the weaker player steer the game into unfamiliar lines, perhaps one where he has "booked up" and you haven't.

This is similar to the answer I received to my own question.

How can one get the best possible result against a player of very different strength?
> 5 votes

# Answer
I think this answer applies to all types of competitions (individual or team). In your scenario, I am usually the weaker player, so I can speak for that side, but on ocassion, I am the stronger player.

> Is it typically an indication that you will have an easy win? Or do you worry that you will have a tough game nevertheless, and lose an opportunity for an easy win / rating, etc?

I think this has to do with your confidence level. If you lack confidence, then that is one problem all together, but if you are overly confident and think you have an easy win, then you could run into problems. I think the best approach would be to remain confident and except a tough game no matter what. As a weaker player playing a stronger player, I tend to play better because I really want to beat the stronger player. If I lose, I usually don't put to much into it because I just use the excuse "he/she was rated higher, so it's no big deal, it was meant to happen", but I know this way of thinking is not good. If I was the stronger player and I won, I would have the similar way of thinking in that "it was meant to happen", but if I lost, I would be pulling my hair wondering why I lost or saying to myself, "how could I lose to a lower rated player?"

> Does the stage of the tournament make a difference in the above? E.g. encountering a lower rated player towards the end of a tournament may mean that they are particularly on form.

Absolutely, if you encounter a weaker player at the end of a tournament stage, the weaker player is probably full of confidence, so you be on top of your game and not take anything for granted. This should apply to all stages though, not just the very end.

> What is your strategy to get the most out of these games? Do you vary your style (say, switch from calm to aggressive, or play safely for a sure win / draw, or do you just try to stay with your normal style)?

As a stronger player playing a weaker player, I have tendency to play more haphazardly and aggressive thinking the weaker player will just blunder, this comes back and bites me because I am usually the one that blunders. As the weaker player playing the strong player, I usually play more slowly and carefully and analyze each move the other player makes because I am really trying to win but also trying to learn at the same time.

I think at the end it all boils down to any given game any given tournament anything can happen. Just like the saying in football, "Any given Sunday". Whoever your opponent is, weaker, stronger, equal, every game should be approached with confidence and the will and want to win.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tournament
---


# Question
Title: What are the possibilities for checkmating with two bishops here?
Consider the following position:

What are the possibilities for checkmating the white king within 16 moves?

# Answer
> 5 votes
When I put the black K at h1, which seems fairly worst-case, Stockfish says mate in 16. This doesn't necessarily mean it's the fastest way, or even completely accurate; chess engines without end-game tables can be very awful.

Here's the solution. Good chance of being accurate ;-)

\[FEN "3K4/8/8/8/3b4/3b4/8/7k b - - 0 1"\]

```
1. ... Kg2 2. Ke7 Bc4 3. Kd6 Kg3 4. Kc6 Kf4 5. Kd6 Bf2
6. Kc6 Ke5 7. Kd7 Bb5+ 8. Ke7 Bh4+ 9. Kf7 Kf5 10. Kg7 Bg5
11. Kf7 Bf6 12. Kg8 Kg6 13. Kf8 Bg5 14. Kg8 Bh6 15. Kh8 Bg7+
16. Kg8 Bc4#

```

Again, I started the black K on h1.

I am not surprised. Consider that the K needs 8 moves to get all the way across the board. The adjacent bishops might need 8 more. That's 16, so 9 moves remain for rearranging pieces. No sweat. B+N is harder.

# Answer
> 7 votes
This likely is not the answer you are looking for, but Jerry (A 2200+ USCF National Master) from the Chess Network has a nice video explaining the algorithmic approach to checkmate with two bishops. I think it solves your problem in less than 25 moves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uimbIq9h\_7A

# Answer
> 6 votes
Endgame tablebases, which you can find at this website, will assure you that there is no placement of the Black King such that White can hang on for longer than sixteen moves if given the right to move first.

---
Tags: checkmate, combinations
---


title: Yusupov - Spiridonov training question

text:
# Question
Title: Yusupov - Spiridonov training question
One of the lessons on the Chess.com site uses the Yusupov - Spiridonov match, with Black to play after `1.Nf6+`:

```
[fen "5rk1/pb3p1p/1pr5/8/2P1p1N1/qPQ1P3/4B1PP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nf6+

```

The "correct" move to make here is for the rook to take the knight, which is fine.

What I didn't understand was the explanation of why that is the correct move:

> Had he moved his King to h8 White would have played Rd1-a1 after which Black loses his Queen to a discovered check with the Knight on f6.

I can't see anyway that black would lose his queen. The knight moving will put the king in discovered check, but the only way I can see black losing his queen is if white sacrifices a rook.

What am I missing?

# Answer
After the moves `1. ... Kh8 2. Ra1` from your diagram position, the black queen is attacked and the only "safe" squares it has available (where it wouldn't be immediately captured on the following move) are then c5, d6 and e7. The text you quoted is pointing out that no matter which of those the queen might move to, there is a discovered check by the knight which nabs the queen anyway:

* `2. ... Qc5 3. Nxe4+` (or `3. Nd7+`)
* `2. ... Qd6 3. Nxe4+` (or `3. Ne8+`)
* `2. ... Qe7 3. Nd5+`

At best for Black in those lines, he's losing his queen for knight. Because of that, after `1. ... Kh8 2. Ra1`, Black could instead bite the bullet and play `2. ... Qxa1 3. Qxa1`, hoping to "only" give up queen for rook (and I think that's the line you have in mind at the end of your question). Now as it turns out, from that position Black actually has no way to avoid a further loss of rook for knight (again because of discovered check threats that still remain), and so would ultimately end up with a net loss (starting from your diagram position) of queen for knight in that line too.

```
[fen "5rk1/pb3p1p/1pr5/8/2P1p1N1/qPQ1P3/4B1PP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nf6+ Kh8 2.Ra1 Qxa1+ (2...Qc5 3.Nxe4+) (2...Qd6 3.Nxe4+) (2...Qe7 3.Nd5+) 3.Qxa1

```
> 8 votes

---
Tags: analysis, check
---


# Question
Title: Is a timed game less strategic than a non-timed game?
I'm somewhat new to chess. I've been playing on and off for years but it is only in the last few months I have been playing with an increased frequency and learning about openings, tactics and such.

I've never liked playing with a clock. I hate the extra pressure and feel like I don't have enough time to think things through. I think this is especially true for blitz type games, which I don't even consider playing.

It seems to me that when you play for speed, you are relying on rote memorization rather than overall strategy. This would seem especially true for the blitz type games, where a player will choose the best move from memory in response to the move the opponent made.

Without the timer you have a chance to consider the overall board, possible moves your opponent will make and a greater opportunity to play strategically.

Is there any truth to this type of thinking? Is it just a matter of opinion? Are blitz games more than just rote memorization?

# Answer
It's difficult to write a short answer to this question, but I will try.

Yes, the human mind is incredibly powerful at pattern matching. If you play chess for a long time, you will develop very strong "gut-feel" for a variety of positions - heuristics, if you will. These are shortcuts that your brain feels are particularly applicable to chess, and allow you to forego much calculation to arrive at the same conclusion. They are certainly incomplete, or only consider parts of the board. E.g. I have a gut feel for any two pieces placed so that a pawn could fork them; it certainly doesn't take into account the rest of the board. It is just one of hundreds of little "tools" I (subconsciously) use to make my calculations more efficient.

Now, you refer to this as **rote memorisation**, but I'd prefer to call it **pattern matching**, since the former implies a learned response, whereas my definition does not. Your actual question was whether the relative importance of this skill in rapid games leads to less time spent strategising.

I would argue that this is not necessarily the case. In my own experience, long games are dominated by extensive, deep calculations (i.e. *tactics*), not strategy. Strategy is definitely present, but I don't think I've ever spent hours thinking about strategy in any one game.

If you shorten the game, you are taking away the possibility of truly deep calculations; players need to rely on extremely quick (and selective) calculations, guided by their gut feelings and learned patterns. This **may in fact lead to a larger percentage of their time being used to strategise**, although it's difficult to say for sure. In any case, I would argue against the fact that blitz games are all about learned responses (although you absolutely must have high levels of pattern matching, to stay competitive).

**Aside:**

To be fair, I should mention the the following:

* During a blitz game, much of the opening may literally come from rote memorisation. The set of openings is huge, but still small enough that you can learn many to this level.
* You often see a complex, 5-move exchange take place in seconds, making it seem like rote memorisation is guiding the entire thing. In fact, what's probably happening is that both players have (extremely rapidly) calculated that they would like to see this exchange through to a certain point before it began. There is no use second-guessing themselves through the exchange, so they make the moves as rapidly as possible.
* During the endgame, rote memorisation can come back into it again, though to a lesser degree than during the opening.

Again, I think it's important to note that even though these seem to suggest your initial comment was correct, I don't think it necessarily means that there's less strategy, overall. I'm sure there's less strategy - the game is much, much shorter - but there's less everything. Percentage wise, who knows.
> 5 votes

# Answer
As far as I know, clock was introduced to combat abuse regarding time. So it's a needed thing. You say you don't like to play with a clock. And you immediately add about blitz. So it isn't clock that's the problem. It is that certain limited amount of time that makes you uncomfortable. To deal with this, I suggest you to just play longer games (though, with clock). I believe I understand your problem, since in some situations I feel exactly your pain: I am a slow thinker and I feel extremely stressed when I try to play chess with 10 minutes per game, but it becomes OK as soon as I get at least 15 minutes per game.

While clock is a stress factor, as you correctly point out, it also has positive consequences. One of them is that when you think about a move - you "float" less between estimating the same variant over and over, thus wasting time. You learn to be disciplined and estimate each variant only once (and have a final look over the one you choose just before making the move on board).
> 6 votes

# Answer
I think there's little truth to the idea that memorization plays a greater role in blitz than it does in longer time controls. When playing blitz, a player might tend be a bit more "habitual" in the opening stage than she would be when she can ponder a bit more, but in every game of chess (blitz or not) the point will come when memorization *can't* be a factor because you're in brand new territory. In general, blitz isn't really a matter of memorization any more than slower play is, at least in the sense of specific memorized lines.

Perhaps you mean something different by "memorization." If you intend it to refer to reliance on an ingrained accumulation of typical patterns that arise in chess, then I would agree that it plays a large role in blitz chess, but it does so in slower play as well. And in fact the simple recognition of familiar patterns probably goes further than you think toward constituting "strategic play" in general.

The crux of the matter may be this: you write, "It seems to me that when **you** play for speed, **you** are relying on rote memorization rather than overall strategy," but in your use of the universal you here, I think you're projecting your own blitz chess onto blitz chess in general. I don't mean this as a slight. Give even an "ordinary" master enough time to comfortably engage in some strategic thinking, say 30 minutes for the game. Now pit him against Aronian, giving the latter only 5 minutes. At worst, Aronian's going to be doing just fine in this contest. My point here is just that the time factor alone places no absolute limit on the potential strategic content of a game; it's a matter of who's doing it.

The only way I could engage in any kind of conversation with a Chinese speaker right now is if I were to memorize some phrases, but of course that doesn't mean that two Chinese speakers quickly prattling on with each other are relying on their memories to do so. At the moment, it may be that the only way you could imagine yourself proficiently "speaking chess" in the blitz setting would be from memory, but that can change. Someone like Aronian is essentially a "native" blitz chess speaker, while the rest of us are speaking a foreign tongue, but that doesn't mean we can't become fluent. I'm no great player, for instance, but even I craft actual plans during blitz (and occasionally successful ones).
> 5 votes

# Answer
I'm posting a second answer here in order both to distill some of the back-and-forth that's gone on in comments, shedding light on where disagreements lie, and to perhaps to answer the question thereby.

I believe that the reason for the gulf between how Sonny has been thinking/talking about the question on the one hand, and how folks like myself have been on the other, is really just because there are two separate questions here which got more intertwined than they should have been in the original post. What I mean is this: two questions we might wonder about are

1. Is there less strategy in blitz chess than in slow games?
2. Does memorization play a greater role in blitz games than slow games?

*These are distinct questions*, and a Yes answer to either one wouldn't necessarily imply a Yes answer to the other. But these two questions got rolled up into one big one in the question's text, and I think the root of all disagreements thus far is that Sonny came into the game with two background assumptions that some (e.g. me) think are inaccurate:

* First, that the answer to (2) is Yes.
* Second, that that goes hand in hand with the answer to (1) being Yes.

This is evidenced, for instance, by this comment of his: "My question was whether or not a blitz game is less strategic than a game with longer time controls. **Since it probably does rely on memorization to a greater degree, I think the answer is yes.**" Thus when I suggested that the answer to (2) might be No, from Sonny's point of view that would seem like I'm also claiming that the answer to (1) is No. But I don't think that at all. So now, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to say my piece about each of these questions separately.

(1) Yes, absolutely, there is less strategy in blitz chess than in slow games. There's less time for strategizing, and so there's less of it. But there's also less time for calculation, and so there's lower quality tactical play than in slower games too. Really, blitz is just going to be lower quality chess in general since we require time to think through anything at all in life. This question can be answered that simply.

(2) Despite that, I maintain that the answer here is No, and that this matter has little bearing on (1). I don't have anything new to say on this that hasn't already been said in comments earlier. However much time you may have allotted for your chess game, a point is quickly (in terms of number of moves) going to come when you're in a brave new world and canned responses can't help. This is true in a 5-minute game or a 5-day game. Though this isn't a fair rhetorical move at all, I'll just end by saying that while you don't think so now, I believe you'll come to agree with this point as you accrue more chess playing experience.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I'm not convinced that better blitz players have memorized more of the game. While chess (and life in general) favors people who know more, there's a considerable diminishing return on memorization.

Faster time controls favor players with more talent for calculating. A faster time control will also favor a more dynamic, attacking style of play. Not many people have time for a 60 move positional game in blitz.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Here's my problem with your question - You are somewhat new to the study of chess rather than just the playing of chess, and you have a host of experienced players that you are continually telling "you're wrong". What answer are you looking for?

As alluded to already, yes, there is less tactical and strategic play the shorter the time control gets. What does come into play is NOT rote memorization, but the pattern matching through lots and lots of play and study.

For instance, when a certain pawn structure arises, you know some of the better ways to attack it, not because you've memorized it, but because you've seen and studied it in various games (regardless of opening).

Also, some people simply do better in blitz because it suits their style of play. Blitz does not lend itself readily to closed, complicated positions with minute positional changes. You simply don't have the time, and getting bogged down in that is a killer in a 2 or 5 minute game.

I know that when I first started studying chess, I sat there with a board in one hand and the MCO book in the other and tried to pick 6 or 7 openings to flat out memorize, and it is not as productive as you think. As soon as you deviate from the memorized line, you're lost. As you become more familiar with the INTENT of the openings, then you I suspect you will become more comfortable with the clock, and with faster play, because you will know what they are trying to accomplish. You can then play to block that objective while advancing your own.

Finally, I really do advise you to make peace with the clock. Very rarely in tournament play (40/2, 20/1 typically) have I ever gotten into time trouble. Blitz is just fun, but if you obsess over the clock in any type of structure, then already your concentration is not on the game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Programming chess engine

text:
# Question
Title: Programming chess engine
I'm a Java programmer, particularly an Android developer. I'm also a good chess player. My question is where do I start if I want to program a chess engine, may or may not be from scratch. Later I want to integrate it into my Android app. Thank you for your answers!

# Answer
> 7 votes
The Chess Programming Wiki is a good place to start . As you will quickly find out, it's a rather large and complex problem space, with many challenges (conceptual as well as actual programming).

There are plenty of open source engines out there which you could look at, to learn, or even to integrate into your engine. I think you'll generally find that these are released under the GPL, which means you are going to have trouble making using them commercially (you would have to release your own code under GPL, if you made use of a GPL engine).

If you're aiming to have a chess engine that plays at a decent level (say, 1500+), my advice would be to try to find an existing engine to use; unless you have large amounts of free time, and you are expert in programming (preferably with some background in AI). This question on StackOverflow lists several chess engines which are released under more permissive licenses.

---
Tags: engines, software, programming, open-source
---


# Question
Title: Should a beginner move from fundamentals to opening theory?
After learning the fundamentals, should one start learning openings or should there be something else in between?

# Answer
Moving from fundamentals to memorization of openings is probably not recommended. I would instead recommend learning the fundamentals of openings (controlling the center, developing minor pieces, don't bring out the queen too early (usually), pawn structure), and then, as you say in your comment, focusing on tactics practice.

If your goal is to play fast games, then studying openings is certainly going to help you increase the speed out of the gates.

If your goal is to improve your slow game, which is probably a good idea for most beginners: my recommendation is to consider each opening move as carefully as you would a move later in the game. Many openings are as tactically tricky as the middle game, so it pays to be careful.

Just my opinion. Obviously, there is a point where learning some openings will be helpful.
> 14 votes

# Answer
I don't believe in 'learn this, then learn that.' Instead, you should be working on improving in general. Tactics are always good; you'll be learning them your whole life. In the meantime, learn a few openings. Not the just the memorization, but the reasons the openings are the way they are.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Once you have learnt the moves of the game, in my opinion it's time to have some fun and start playing lots of games, gain some experience and catch the chess 'bug'!

A good way to do this would be to search online for your local chess club and go along a few times.

Once you have the 'bug', then you have more motivation for serious study later. In my opinion, in the early days, the best way to learn is to play lots of games, preferably against stronger players.

Try to be ego-less, you are likely to lose a lot of the time!

Keep a chess notebook with the score of the game and another page for notes where you record a single thing that you can learn from the played game. If there isn't anything obvious to you, see if you can get a stronger player to go through your game with you and suggest things that you could work on.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I believe studying the openings is a good way to go. Now, you don't want to memorize it. Instead find a book or some site that thoroughly analyzes the openings. Why?

1. You will learn of a way to approach a game with the type of style you prefer. Experimenting with different openings you get to learn more.
2. The opening is thoroughly studied and understood. Therefore, when you learn about each move, you will have in-depth knowledge where the 'whys' are completely explained. That way, you learn how much thought goes into each move, what is considered, how strategy is created and executed. When you play games with these openings yourself, you'll get the feel for its strengths and weaknesses.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Traditionally speaking, yes, after the fundamentals rules of chess have been learned, moving onto openings makes the most sense.
> 1 votes

# Answer
After learning fundamentals, learning "book" openings is a good way to add structure to your game. You have to start somewhere, and the opening is a good place to start.

JR Capablanca based his game on "fundamentals" and was ignorant of opening variations (for a Grandmaster), but he was a world champion.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


title: The theory of pawn breaks

text:
# Question
Title: The theory of pawn breaks
Does there exist a theory of pawn breaks?

Of course, there exists a theory of static pawn structure and good bishops; but I was thinking of rooks rather than bishops, and of aggressive pawns that open files rather than positional pawns that control squares.

Are rules or principles taught that guide the chess student in placing rooks early, choosing the right pawn to push, and otherwise preparing pawn breaks?

Details follow, if helpful.

**THE DILEMMA**

The question of pawn breaks seems to torment me whenever I have the black chessmen and my opponent opens 1. d4. Opportunities seem to arise for my black pawns to force files open in such games, but when should one exercise the opportunity? Under what conditions is a pawn break likely to help? When is it unwise? Is a standard tactic known to punish my opponent by advancing my knight during a thwarted break? If either of two, connected pawns can lead the break, which should lead? What position should the rook take before the break? *Which* rook?

When no pawn break is advisable, what should one do with one's rooks? What should one do, period? What kind of play is possible without open files, anyway? Pawn-storm play on the wing? But, if so, then how does one prepare the pawn storm? -- or, in other words, we are back to the original question regarding pawn breaks, except that this time my pawn structure is trashed before I even ask the question. The pawn storm (done not because it's a wise plan but because I cannot think of any other plan) leaves me an out-of-position king and a losing endgame. I don't get it.

So, there are a dozen or so ways of asking more or less the same question: I have the black chessmen, you open 1. d4 and start to build a pawn center, I thrust a pawn in to break up your center -- yet, early or late, whether backed by a rook or not, whichever pawn I choose to thrust in, it always seems to be the wrong pawn. Why?

Leaving aside the question of wing play to skirt a closed center, a big trouble my *central* pawn breaks are repeatedly causing me is that, when I push the pawn, it tends to leave you not me the choice of which of the two files in question to open -- or the choice of locking pawns, opening no file at all. If you are a strong opponent, then you choose well for yourself and ill for me. Thus, my pawn breaks usually do not work.

**HOW SUCH GAMES CONFUSE ME**

Moreover, such closed games broadly confuse me, because tempo seems less important in such games. Using *scarce* tempos wisely is a relative strong point of my game; so, when tempos are not scarce, I don't really know what to do with the extra time. Shuffling rooks around aimlessly does not seem to help much.

**REQUEST FOR ADVICE RE PAWN BREAKS**

If you want an easy game, open 1. d4 against me, present a pawn center, and watch my play degenerate into purposeless futility. I do not understand how to play these games, I keep losing them, and I should very much like to learn why.

(If relevant, I am officially unrated, put play at about USCF Class C, or FIDE Elo 1500.)

A related question, with answers, regarding the meaning of the term *pawn break,* is found here.

# Answer
It seems like there are really 3 parts to your question:

1. When and how should pawn breaks be made?
2. How should rooks be placed to support pawn pushes?
3. How should plans be made around pawn breaks?

As a disclaimer, these questions are incredibly complicated, so take this answer as a starting point. Entire books have been written about pawn play. Furthermore, every position is different. While there are general ideas, the features of a specific position must be the main consideration.

So to begin - pawn breaks should be made for one of two reasons - to improve your own position or to deprive your opponent of good squares. This seems a little silly, but consider *how* your position can be improved - either your pieces can get better squares and lines, or you can create a passed pawn. A space advantage falls into the category of depriving your opponent of squares.

Bearing that in mind, pawn breaks should only be made when you can guarantee that your position will improve:

* If a pawn break will leave an outpost for an enemy knight, it's probably premature. (ex. don't play d4 if there are pawns on e4 and e5 but white's f pawn is missing because e5 will be a permanent outpost).
* Pawn breaks are useful if you can create an outpost for your own pieces. (ex. black pawns on d6 and e6, pushing c5 will create an outpost)
* The last major consideration is space - in a closed or semi-closed position gaining space is incredibly useful because your pieces will have an extra rank on which to operate. In these cases, push your pawns when you can do so safely while still keeping enough tension to favorably open the position later.

Moving on to part 2... Simply, rooks should be posted on the files that will be opened after a pawn break. While it frequently takes some calculation to figure out how everything will work out, once done, good squares for both rooks can be found. Usually this is behind the pawn that you will push, but frequently it is on an adjacent file.

Finally, the crux of the matter - how to plan for and utilize pawn breaks effectively. Generally speaking, you should only open the position in a part of the board that you already control. That means that if you have a preponderance of force on the kingside, for example, f2-f4 immediately should become a candidate pawn break.

When you prepare a pawn break, frequently you will want to recapture the pawn with another pawn. In this diagram, white has a space advantage but will eventually have to break the position open in order to win:
`1. f4` immediately would be premature because black would gain the e5 square as an outpost for the knight. Instead, white should prepare the break with moves like `g3` and `Rg1`. Only then should the break be seriously considered tactically. With that said, f4 should also be the only pawn break considered. Black owns the queenside, so a pawn break there would only serve black. The center is locked, so a move like `d4` would only lose a pawn. Finally, `g4` and `h4` don't serve any purpose other than creating holes in the white position that black might later be able to utilize.

Hopefully that gives you a reasonable starting point, but again, every position is different and must be considered based on its own merits.
> 14 votes

# Answer
To address this issue:

> "A big trouble my central pawn breaks are repeatedly causing me is that, when I push the pawn, it tends to leave you not me the choice of which of the two files in question to open."

A player that is in a position to push for a pawn break is often stronger on BOTH files, leaving his opponent with a choice of evils.

Another time to push for a pawn break is when a tactical advantage (e.g. a pin) forces the pawn break to go one way.

If the pawn break leaves your opponent with some advantageous choices, it is probably best avoided.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, closed-position
---


# Question
Title: Is use of the gambit the main way for black to win?
I always used to hate playing as black. But recently, I have used gambits more, and I feel it's so powerful, e.g. the `1... d5` response to `1. e4`. Most of us know that white has a statistical advantage (about 10% more), so it seems that only through gambits can black have a chance.

But what is the best gambit to white starting with `1. d4`? A gambit by black here seems iffy.

# Answer
> 11 votes
You ask whether gambit play is the main way for black to play for a win, but instead of gambit play specifically, the issue is more generally one of *unbalancing the position* (and this is true regardless of which color one has). Sacrificing material for some other type of compensation is certainly one way to do this, but it is only one of many. Generally speaking, the more unbalanced a position is, the more easily either side can end up playing for a win.

Consider the following two somewhat extreme positions. Position A arises in the Exchange Variation of the Slav Defense after the following moves:

```
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bf4 Bf5 7. e3 e6 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 Bd6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. O-O O-O

```

Position B arises in the Sicilian Dragon:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. Qd2 Nc6 8. f3 O-O 9. O-O-O

```

Note that material is entirely level in both positions, yet Position A is **much** more drawish than is Position B. In my database, 1264 out of the 1285 games which reached position A ended in a draw, or 98.4% of them! At the same time, only 2829 out of 10788 games reaching Position B ended in a draw, a mere 26.2%.

The reason is that in Position A *everything* is level: equal material, identical pawn structures and piece development, same-side castling, etc. In Position B, despite the material equality, the position is more unbalanced, in particular via the opposite-side castling, the differing pawn structures, and the fact that each side will need to develop pieces for defensive purposes near its own king and offensive purposes on the other side of the board.

In sum, I think it's a mistake to think that gambits are necessary in order to play for a win with black, any more than it's necessary with white, and instead one should strive to unbalance the position in order to create greater winning chances. But as with gambits, while unbalancing the position can decrease the likelihood of drawing, this is usually by increasing *both* of the individual likelihoods of your winning or your losing. So by upping your chance of winning the full point, you are also taking on greater risk yourself.

---

With that in mind, one should always take one's particular opposition into account. For instance, if one player is significantly stronger than another, he or she might even aim for something like Position A (maybe not quite that, but something like it) with every intention of playing for a win, and counting simply on greater skill and the opponent's inevitable mistakes in order to have very high winning chances without taking on any of the the risk of Position B, wherein the stronger player could have a bad day and make a mistake that, in that position, could be serious enough that even the significantly weaker player could then carry the day from the point when the mistake was made.

Even more to the point: despite what I wrote above, it's important to be aware that at the amateur level, absolutely any result can come out of absolutely any opening, no matter how crazy or how lifeless it may seem (or even objectively be). Almost every game at lower levels will involve swings back-and-forth throughout the game, in terms of where the objective advantage lies, as both players make mistakes. So whatever the outcome of the opening phase may be, the game is still there to be had in the middlegame, and then again in the endgame if it gets to there. Thus what is most useful in opening play at the amateur level is aiming for positions that you understand, and that you are comfortable with, as this makes it more likely that you will do better in the middlegame.

# Answer
> 6 votes
No, the best way to win as black is to play better moves that white does. Know your openings, be reasonably booked up, and follow established principles. There's no reason to take unnecessary risks in the opening.

Now if you *like* taking risks, that's a different story. But you don't have to in order to have a decent chance of winning with the black pieces.

# Answer
> 3 votes
When playing Black, you should mainly "take what White gives you," to quote Vince Lombardi the football coach. That is, you should wait for White to make a mistake, then try to take advantage of it.

It is when you are White that you can try to "force" errors, which of the leeway your first move gives you. But if you are Black and undertake a failed initiative, you've really put yourself at a disadvantage.

---
Tags: opening, gambits
---


# Question
Title: What is the best automatic chess playing app for a beginning level player?
I play chess very infrequently. Whenever I restart, I take a bit of time to get up to speed. Which chess playing apps are best for a beginner? I would prefer apps that scale up in diifficulty according to a player's skill.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Back in the day, I found Chessmaster to be very beginner friendly, with a variety of AIs to choose from. It also had some instructional segments included, which were good at the time.

Now I lose against Stockfish whenever I'm looking for a good beating. I don't think it's very good for beginners, even if you constrain its skill quite a bit.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Shredder is an awesome Chess Program. If you have an IPhone or Android Shredder is present and if you want for Computer along with Shredder you can use Fritz also. I personally like both of them.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If you have a Microsoft Windows-based PC or laptop then there is no problem. They provide a very good chess game with different skill levels and appearances.

# Answer
> 3 votes
If you want to improve your skills, maybe gamezer.com is useful. It's not an app, but a website you can visit with an iphone, ipod, or whatever smartphone. It also provides skill levels.

---
Tags: engines, learning
---


# Question
Title: How many such positions are there? (chess/math checkmate puzzle)
I'm interested in this kind of position:

There are only 4 pieces on the board. If Whites goes first, they can checkmate in one move. If Blacks goes first, they can checkmate in one move. For example:

> The question is: How many such positions are there?

I find 3 main positions:

Each of them gives us another 6 positions. We can move the start position of the black Queen to 6 other 6 squares. So we have 21 basic positions.

> Are there other basic positions?

For each basic position we can :

1) switch color x2

2) rotate the board x4

3) mirror position x2

So one basic position generate 2x4x2=16 positions. And the final answer is: There are 16x21=336 such positions.

> Is this right?

# Answer
Your second basic position allows for 4 more variants beyond those you already gave, indicated by the following diagram:

```
[FEN "1q6/1q6/1q6/1q6/Q7/K7/8/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

```

That brings the tally for "basic positions" to 25. Whether that addition makes the list exhaustive or not I'm not completely sure (though I think it does).

In any case, whatever the number of basic positions is, your extrapolation of the total number of positions from there (x2 for the color switch and x8 for transformations of the board) is correct since the symmetry group of the chessboard does indeed have order 8, as confirmed on p.334 of this chapter from the *Handbook of Constraint Programming*, for instance. (One does need to be careful about overcounting here, though; see below.) So at the moment I'd conjecture that the answer is 25 x 16 = 400.

---

I'm adding this mathematical digression because I see from your profile that you're interested in pursuing a further study of math. I may not be saying anything here that you aren't already aware of, but here goes anyway.

Note that there are some chess positions which will come out identical under different symmetries of the board. For instance, consider the act of reflecting across the a1-h8 diagonal. That symmetry of the board will generally change a given position, e.g.

becomes

But of course some positions (namely those that only have pieces on the a1-h8 diagonal) don't change under that symmetry, e.g. the position

remains unchanged when we reflect across that diagonal.

Because of this sort of behavior, one generally needs to be careful not to overcount in this kind of counting problem. For your problem, that means being sure that none of your basic positions repeats itself under any of the (non-identity) symmetries, so that our "x 16" when obtaining the total number of positions from the number of basic positions isn't overcounting. In the present case, your basic positions are complicated/asymmetric enough that it's intuitively clear none of them will get repeated under these symmetries, so there's nothing to worry about, but in math it's often when things are "intuitively clear" that one needs to be most worried about mistakes. (In fact, there's a saying that if you want to find errors in a mathematical proof, start with anywhere it says, "It is clear that ...")
> 10 votes

---
Tags: puzzles, checkmate, mathematics
---


# Question
Title: Elements to take into account when evaluating 'board strength'
As part of a demo for a rules engine I'm dreaming up, I'd like to do an evaluation of a chess board that communicates each side's general strength at that point in time. Advanced things like predicting moves or establishing mate patterns are way beyond the scope of this idea; I only need to think about what's in front of me for now!

I also do not need to establish precisely how to reduce board strength to a number; that will be a lot of tinkering, this way and that, to find something that seems reasonable. For now I just need to figure out the top, say, 3 elements to deciding how strong or weak someone's position is on the board.

My current thought is, in general order of importance:

* Material (in pawns, so rook = 5, knight = 3 etc)
* Open attack paths on the center of the board (critical area, goes to development)
* Total attackable squares (development)

Am I missing a particularly important element in this evaluation? Am I attempting to measure it wrong?

# Answer
It depends on how much accuracy you want to put in, but to have a precise strength, it needs to be able to build a tree of possibilities and look for moves ahead.

Just imagine a hypothetical case where one have tons of material, already developed everything, castled, some pawns close to be promoted BUT without being able to do anything to prevent getting mated. There is no way to give a correct read no matter how much elements you take into account without some alpha-beta searches.

More information can be found in this article.

---

But I suppose that is too difficult to implement, some easier starting points to do are:

* Some things that chess engines do is to recognize end/middle game patterns and also get help from opening databases.
* You can also look for poorly placed pieces like bishops trapped by own pieces or the king being too exposed.
* Check for castling ability and how easy is to perform that (e.g pieces in the way or attacked squares)
* At the very endgame, be familiar with the terms "wrong bishop", "opposition" and "rook pawn", etc. (those are often decisive and should be easy to determine wins, loses and draws)
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, engines, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Recent research, or analysis sites, about some chess variants?
I would appreciate some links to recent (within the last 8 years) chess variant analyses and research. As to standard chess it seems like the source code for a lot of the computer chess programs usually contains a new tidbit gleaned from various pruning and optimization techniques. What's extremely difficult to find is new insight into games such as Glinskis Hexagonal Chess or Capablanca Chess or even Millenium 3d Chess.

\[Cameron Browne has done a lot of work on connection games and of course there are the small short games of no chance in the "Games of No Chance" books containing various papers on games; but, I'm really looking for some heavy information w.r.t. the above 3 chess variants.\]

# Answer
I'm not sure if this is the sort of item you might be interested in, but Dave McCooey generated complete (pawnless) 4-man tablebases for hexagonal chess on the 91-"square" board, and has a full tabulation of the results; since there are no pawns involved, the analysis there is applicable both to Glinski's hexagonal chess that you mention, as well as McCooey's own version (which differs from Glinski's where pawn movement is concerned). McCooey went beyond providing tablebases for the usual chess pieces, and also included a great variety of fairy pieces, including the Chancellor and Archbishop (called there the Pegasus) of Capablanca chess.

Beyond the hexagonal chess board, he also created some 4-man and 5-man tablebases involving fairy pieces on the standard 8x8 chessboard. Those results involving only standard chess pieces along with Chancellors and Archbishops/Pegasi are somewhat relevant to endgames for Capablanca chess. Since Capablanca chess is played on a 10x8 board, the results aren't directly applicable to that game, but they are suggestive of how things would play out on the 10x8 board, and in any case they are directly applicable to Seirawan chess, which uses the same piece set as Capablanca chess -- with yet different names: Chancellor = Elephant, Archbishop = Hawk -- but is played on the standard board.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, chess-variants, capablanca-chess, hexagonal-chess
---


# Question
Title: What was the first chess-playing automaton?
One well-known automaton is The Turk. What is the first one and when was it constructed, including fake ones? \[1\]:

# Answer
The first chess machine:

"In 1769 the Hungarian engineer Baron Wolfgang von Kempelen built a chess playing machine for the amusement of the Austrian Queen Maria Theresia. It was a purely mechanical device, shaped like a Turk. Naturally its outstanding playing strength was supplied by a chess master cleverly hidden inside the device. The machine was a fake."!

From: A short history of computer chess, by Frederic Friedel

So "the Turk" that you mentioned was the first one.
> 12 votes

# Answer
In 1910 Leonardo Torres developed a machine he called "El Ajedrecista". It was capable of automatically playing K+R vs K endgames without human intervention. It was publicly demonstrated for the first time in 1914.
> 14 votes

---
Tags: history, engines
---


# Question
Title: Wedge pawn formation with slight differences
In the Nimzo-Indian Rubenstein, there's a solid line for Black that begins thus:

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. Nf3 Ne4 7. O-O f5

```

Since I am Class A rated, I normally look for lines that class amateurs would tend to play against me and not IMs/GMs, etc. I think a lot of class amateurs would be really tempted to chop here with:

```
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pbpp2pp/1p2p3/5p2/1bPPn3/2NBPN2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 8"]

1. Bxe4 fxe4 2. Nd2 Bxc3 3. bxc3 Qg5!?

```

Thus preventing the freeing break `f3`.

The question is: If we just look at the position here structurally, this is basically sort of a Wedge formation but with the difference being that my pawns are doubled and I don't have a traditional Wedge structure outpost on d5.

Since the opponent usually faces the more difficult time in the endgame vs. a Wedge formation, should I in general play this position like a traditional Wedge formation position with a possible kingside attack and generally trading down into a favorable endgame, or are there other nuances that make this type of position deviate from a traditional Wedge formation?

# Answer
> 7 votes
While it's true that your `10. ... Qg5` prevents the freeing break `11. f3??` (due to `11. ... Qxe3+` followed by `... Qxc3`), White could get away with `11. f4` in response if so inclined. If you respond by moving the queen, then white is no longer so cramped on the kingside and doesn't have to worry too much about an onslaught on that wing. If you respond with `11. ... exf3 12. Nxf3`, your bishop has improved scope, but White has in effect achieved the freeing f3 break your tenth move was meant to prevent.

Maybe more problematic than `11. f4`, though, is that White can play `11. Ba3!` in reply.

```
[FEN "rn2k2r/pbpp2pp/1p2p3/6q1/2PPp3/2P1P3/P2N1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 11"]

1. Ba3!

```

This temporarily prevents castling, and things like `11. ... d6 12. c5` are in the air, when White can have further ideas of play on the b-file (and against your bishop on b7) with `Rb1` and/or `Qb3`. It's not as though Black is in big trouble here, but I think there's no reason to speed up this queenside play with your `10. ... Qg5`, especially since your move doesn't prevent a freeing f-pawn move after all. Better to wait a bit, perhaps, for a more opportune time to bring the queen into play.

I think you're absolutely right that Black should aim toward an attack on the kingside, but for the reasons just stated I think you should start off with the straightforward `10. ... O-O` instead. It seems that White should still aim for the same kind of queenside play described above, but now you won't have any awkwardness involving castling (or needing `... d6` to achieve it and helping White to start opening up the queenside with `c5`). Now you'll try to get something going on the kingside while White does the same on the queenside, and unlike above it seems like the two armies are on a pretty even footing. After, say, `11. Ba3 Rf5 12. c5 Qh4`,

```
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pbpp2pp/1p2p3/8/2PPp3/2P1P3/P2N1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 10"]

1... O-O
2. Ba3 Rf5
3. c5 Qh4

```

each side is doing its thing, and I do think that Black should have a comfortable endgame -- though I don't know that I'd use your word "favorable" for it -- if White should arrange for a queen trade to relieve pressure on the kingside.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Here's my two cents' worth (from a Class C player).

Players of a given level, at least below master, come in different "shapes and sizes." That is, one "Class A" player may be a 2000+ player in the middle game, and a Class B player in the endgame, while another one would be the reverse.

Perhaps you fit one or the other of those profiles. In that case, play to your stronger part of your game. Even if you don't, try to figure out if your opponent fits one of those profiles, and play to the WEAKER part of HIS game.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, strategy, nimzo-indian
---


# Question
Title: What are techniques to improve the number of moves thought through in advance?
I read somewhere that on average a GM can think up to 10-15 moves ahead in tactical positions.

Is there any specific technique to improve this depth?

Please do not provide a generic answer on how to improve one's game, I am only interested in understanding how to increase depth.

# Answer
A very common approach is to work backwards. Instead of studying openings first, followed by the middlegame and the endgame, you study endgames first. Once you know some endgame positions, it may be sufficient to calculate only three moves deep in a late middlegame position, because you know that the resulting endgame is won for you.

Let's consider a position were you have a pawn, king and queen vs. your opponent's king and queen. You have the option to exchange queens and leave black's king too far away to stop your passed pawn. It takes you three more moves to promote that pawn and now you know that K + Q vs. K is easily winning, although it may take another 10 moves. Thus, you just saw 14 moves in advance by going from one position (K + Q + P vs. K + Q) to another (K + P vs. K) and then to a won K + Q vs. K endgame.

This is of course a very basic example, but the point is that grandmasters do not really calculate 30 moves ahead. They just know that the given position transforms into another, which leads to a won endgame. The more positions and the more patterns you know, the better you get at calculating. This might help you to improve that skill:

* Learn the most basic endgames
* Learn essential checkmate patterns
* Learn tactical motifs and patterns
* Play games and go over them afterwards

Those "shortcuts" should lead to fast improvement. After you did the above things (or while doing so) it might also be a good idea to practice your visualization. Try to say whether a given square is black or white, whether a given position is checkmate or whether a knight can reach some squares within one move. Furthermore, you should always imagine a combination in your head after a game. Try to move the pieces without touching them in reality and try to picture the position after some moves. A nice program to practice visualization is the freeware "Chess Training Tools". You might want to check that out. An interesting website to learn tactics is http://www.chesstactics.org/. It offers many examples and great explanations.
> 8 votes

# Answer
A good place to start for improving calculation is a famous book called *Think Like a Grandmaster* by Alexander Kotov. There is some debate as to whether Kotov's Tree of Analysis is effective in improving calculating ability (such as from the first reviewer to the book on Amazon in the link above), but that discussion will lead you to other areas like pattern recognition.

Another book that discusses Kotov's ideas in depth is *Improve Your Chess NOW* by Jon Tisdall. In this book Tisdall suggests a more human-friendly selective approach to Kotov's Tree of Analysis, rather than the brute force computer-like approach of Kotov.
> 7 votes

# Answer
This is going to vary wildly based on the individual and what works for each person.

One common teaching technique is to study endgames. Since endgames have fewer pieces, there is less focus on finding the best move and more focus on calculating long variations accurately. King and pawn endgames are especially good for this - you must be able to accurately count pawn moves in order to achieve the best result.

A simple example:

And a very complicated position:

Both examples are white to move and win.

For more generic thoughts on calculating and visualization, you can see this question.
> 5 votes

# Answer
My understanding is that masters can look 10-15 moves ahead in *some* positions (ones they know well). An experiment once showed that they didn't do so well with "random" positions (ones where pieces were placed randomly on the chess board without regard to chess "sense.")

The way to this kind of understanding is to learn some (particularly complicated) positions five, then ten moves ahead, in the main variations. Then learn another position like this. Eventually, you'll have a repertoire of positions that you know 5-10 moves in advance. Then use them as a basis for comparison to other positions you might encounter.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, analysis, calculation, board-vision, best-practice
---


# Question
Title: Why can't I place the rook in front of the queen?
I was playing chess this afternoon on my mac, as human vs computer. In the position below:

```
[FEN "6k1/5pp1/2p3bp/pqP1P3/2R3P1/PPQ5/4K3/8 w - - 0 24"]

```

I tried to place the Rook in front of Black's Queen (b4), but this action was blocked and the Rook remained in the same place. Later I completed the game by making another move.

Why is this so? Why can't I place the Rook in front of Black's Queen? Please explain this.

# Answer
The Rook on c4 is pinned against the your King by the black Queen. Thus you can't move it without exposing your King to the Queen's wrath.
> 17 votes

# Answer
You wouldn't *want* to place the rook in front of the queen at b4. Because it can be captured by the pawn on a5.

Even if you do want to, you *can't* move the rook in front of the queen (or anywhere else), because it is pinned to your king by the queen.

It's fortunate that `Rb4` was an illegal move, because it would have been a big mistake.

You should, instead, move the king to e3, unpinning it, and bringing it closer to your pawns.
> 11 votes

---
Tags: rules, queens, rooks
---


# Question
Title: When was the term 'Super Grandmaster' first used?
According to the following wiki link,

> The unofficial title, "Super Grandmaster", is often used by players to refer to those with a 2700+ rating to distinguish the most serious world champion contenders

When was this term first used and by whom?

# Answer
As pointed out in the comments, it's nigh impossible to pin down the very first usage, but since you're after a rough idea, I'll get the ball rolling with an initial answer of the oldest definite use I'm aware of; it's from within the last 25 years, so maybe others can improve on this with better answers.

In 1990, there was a tournament held in New Delhi called the *Triveni Super Grandmasters Tournament*. The joint winners were Kamsky (#8 with a 2650 rating on the July 1990 rating list) and Anand (#19 with a 2610 rating on the same list). I tried to find a full crosstable or participant list for the tournament, but have so far come up empty on such details.

I do know that Judit Polgar (then "only" #108 in the world, though she would crack the top 20 three years later, and the top 10 three years after that) and former champion Mikhail Tal both played. Additionally, it seems this wasn't a tournament exclusively for GMs, but rather one offering lesser lights the chance to play with some "super grandmasters," as Kamsky mentioned in an interview after the tournament that no participants had achieved any grandmaster norms.

## Games
> 7 votes

---
Tags: rating, history, grandmaster, terminology, super-grandmaster
---


title: A chess story about three sailors

text:
# Question
Title: A chess story about three sailors
There was a book of chess stories that I had read some time ago. In one, there were 3 sailors who had made a deal with Devil for a crystal because of which they were unbeatable at chess. They saw the move that they were to make in the crystal after each move of the opponent.

Any ideas as to the story title?

# Answer
The story is "The Three Sailors' Gambit" (1916) by Lord Dunsany, who was an interesting character. Besides being a prolific writer, he was a winner of the Irish chess championship, and he managed a draw during a simul by Capablanca. Dunsany was also a problem composer, some of them fairly typical chess problems and some of them more offbeat:

## White to Mate in 4

This is very much a tricky problem.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: identify-this, fiction
---


# Question
Title: What is the theoretical consensus on the Roscher Gambit?
**Edit:** My mind played a trick on me after the fact. As Akavall notes in a comment, the Chadaev-Carlsen blitz game that I mention below actually proceeded `1. e4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3`, a different gambit than the one my question asks about. So please ignore the references to Chadaev-Carlsen in reference to the Roscher Gambit here. (Incidentally, this means that Carlsen didn't buck the trend of highly-rated players avoiding `3. ... Nxe4` in the Roscher Gambit; see below.)

---

The Roscher Gambit goes as follows:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3

```

I just saw Nikolai Chadaev convincingly defeat Magnus Carlsen at the World Blitz Championship using this line (where Carlsen accepted the gambit with `3. ... Nxe4`). I realized I've basically never seen this gambit, and that I know nothing about it. (I even had to look up a name for it to ask this question.)

It is very seldom played, and especially so among highly-rated players: my database of 5.2M games contains a mere 99 games reaching the position after `3. Nf3`, with the average White (respectively, Black) rating in the games being 1953 (1976). But there are 7 games in which 2400+ players tried the gambit as White against equally strong competition (and 2 games with 2500+ players). The most popular response over all games is indeed the obvious `3. ... Nxe4`, being chosen in 46 of the 99 games. (Second most popular is continuing in Pirc Defense fashion with `3. ... g6`; these two moves account for almost all the games, 83 of 99.)

All of that is about what I would expect. But, interestingly, in the games I have in this line with the highest-rated players, Black consistently avoids `3. ... Nxe4`, preferring the `3. ... g6` Pirc approach, or instead aiming for the Philidor with `3. ... e5` (or `3. ... Nbd7` followed by `4. ... e5`), Czech Defense with `3. ... c6`, or even the Nimzowitsch Defense with `3. ... Nc6`. The highest rated player I find playing `3. ... Nxe4` has Elo 2245 (until this Carlsen blitz game of course).

The sample size here is quite small, and maybe the highly-rated players have avoided `3. ... Nxe4` just because they are worried about stepping in to a well-prepared trap, instead preferring to head for more familiar ground. Nevertheless, the fact that the strongest players consistently avoid accepting the gambit - except for Carlsen, who got stomped, though it's just a blitz game - has made me curious:

> What is the the theoretical status of the Roscher Gambit? Or is it too seldom played to even have a theoretical status?
>
> And if it's the case that `3. ... Nxe4` isn't simply good for Black, then why doesn't the Roscher appear more often, or at least have the same popularity among amateurs as something like, say, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit?

I had no luck finding any prose account of the gambit by a strong player, and would appreciate any pointers to such.

# Answer
I've taken a look at this gambit before as I play it frequently in blitz games, and I don't have very much faith in it for white. (Usually my games are from a different move order with `c4` included for white).

The biggest problem with the gambit is that it can be quite simply declined with `3... g6` and what has white really accomplished? There's nothing better than transposing into either a Pirc with `4. Nc3` or a King's Indian Defense with `4. c4` (incidentally allowing black another chance to accept the gambit in an even better way).

Obviously declining the gambit isn't the critical path, however. Black's most challenging move is `3... Nxe4` when white more or less must play `4. Bd3`. Any other move is inconsistent although there are a few move order tricks like `4. Bb5+` which I will return to later.

Now we see the biggest issue with the gambit - white doesn't get a "real" lead in development or force any concessions in the black position. Black plays `4... Nf6` (entire line so far `1. e4 d6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 Nf6`) and now both players can finish development naturally. Black will play `g6`, `Bg7`, `O-O` and `Nc6` with a perfectly acceptable Dragon formation. On the other hand, white cannot mount a standard kingside attack with `g4` and `h4` because the knight on f3 will allow the black bishop to come unmolested to g4.

White doesn't have any targets to attack in the black position and will be completely unable to stop black from castling. These are the two goals of a gambit - force a concession and attack with the lead in development. While the pawn sac is probably not bad in and of itself because white keeps a normal edge as in so many Pirc and KID positions along with the open e file for future use, after black castles kingside, the e pawn is quite immune from capture due to moves like `Re8`, `Kf8`, and `Nc6`.

So at last we return to white's tricky attempt `4. Bb5+`. If black plays `4... c6` now white has something since the knight is deprived of the c6 square. However, black simply plays `4... Bd7` and there are no problems because the d7 square is not reserved for other pieces in the Dragon formation. Both sides "waste" a tempo so nothing is gainer or lost.
In fact, even after `4... c6`, black can still claim barely equality, although this is a real concession in the position (Nb8 cannot develop naturally). If I were to play white, I think that `4. Bb5+` is the best attempt simply because many players will play the natural looking `4... c6` to drive the bishop back.

```
[FEN ""]
[White "Roscher Gambit"]
[Black "Analysis"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 (3... g6!? {White has gained nothing over the usual Pirc move order}) 4. Bd3 (4. Bb5+!? c6?! {Black's knight is deprived of the c6 square} (4... Bd7!)) Nf6 {Both players will continue to develop normally and black doesn't have any weaknesses}

```
> 8 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, gambits
---


title: Is there a USCF API?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there a USCF API?
A while ago there was a site made by NM Jonathan Hilton's father that did some analytics on player's USCF rating histories.

I thought it was a pretty good site, but it disappeared. There are still some tools like that floating around. I was wondering if there was some sort of USCF API, or how that sort of data might be grabbed.

# Answer
I'm not aware of an API, but they way they have it set up it's pretty easy to gather data via a technique called screen/web scraping.

For example, a search on your name gives a link to a specific page with your member id in the URL. Then if you have a programming language/library that is DOM-aware, you can simply figure out where certain things will be, based on the design of the page. Using jquery selectors, and a couple of traversals, that page can be parsed to get the rating as such:

```
> $("td td td:contains(Regular Rating)").next().find("nobr").text();
"2072
2012-03(Current floor is 1800)"

```

Nice rating, by the way.

It's a bit painful, and even more painful if they ever decide to change the design of the pages, but eventually you'll be able to parse out all the data you want, and then build a way of collecting data for each member and storing it in your own database for analytics. It wouldn't be that hard to do, just iterate through member ids, and you can get their names, states, ratings, etc.--as much is available on their screens.

Hope that helps.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I don't think that the USCF has a full API, but there are a few special url's that you can use for simplified screen scraping/data parsing:

In each of those "thin" pages, you can pass a member ID as a url parameter (for example `thin3.php?11111111`).

The server response is very very lightweight - no extraneous markup.

These pages were designed for cell phone browser use by TD's the day of the tournament if I remember correctly, but they're also useful for extracting data.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: programming, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Can a set of moves be a transposition and a variation?
I am confused about the differences between a transposition and variation. I know that a transposition is when you start of with one opening and a set of moves after that leads to another opening and a variation is a deviation from the main line of an opening. They seem really close to me, so can a set of moves be a transposition and a variation? What/Who determines if a set of moves is a transposition or variation?

# Answer
A *transposition* usually has to do with openings. Basically, it's all about move order, so while you might say that this is the modern defense (A40):

```
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3

```

If black follows with:

```
3. ... c5

```

It effectively *transposes* the opening into one of the Sicilian lines (B27):

```
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7

```

Note that both positions are the same, only the move order changed.

A *variation* can be at any part of the game, and the notation is usually used while showing a "what if" scenario, to show why an alternative line is either better or worse than the main line of a finished game. Variations, in the context of openings, are alternative moves to the main line. Often, variations in openings have their own name appended onto the main opening name.

Continuing the line in the transposition above, a *variation* on B27 is the: Sicilian Defense/ Hyperaccelerated Pterodactyl/ Exchange Variation

```
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.dxc5 Qa5+ 5.Nc3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qxc3+

```

**Update**: I think I failed to answer the "title" question explicitly. Yes, a set of moves can be both a variation and a transposition. In fact, there are often many names for a given opening sequence, depending on the move order, some of which will be variations, and some will be transpositions.
> 8 votes

# Answer
While I don't disagree with the spirit of Wes' answer, I want to answer your question in a somewhat stronger way, one that I think goes further toward relieving any possible confusion about this issue. Your question is:

> Can a set of moves be a transposition and a variation?

My answer would be that **neither transpositions nor variations should be thought of as sets of moves**, and that doing so in the first place is what creates confusion here.

While particular chess openings (e.g. the Sicilian Defense, the French Defense) are often thought of as consisting of a multitude of *opening lines* (sequences of moves), for the purpose of making the distinction that you're after it is most useful to think of an opening as a multitude of *positions* (which happen to be linked together by moves). If I show you the following diagram,

and ask you what opening we're in, you know that it's the Scotch Game, even though I only gave you the position and not the exact moves we used to get there. That's because the Scotch Game can be characterized by the positions that belong to it, whatever the move-orders involved might be.

Similarly, a *variation* can be seen as just a particular subset of positions from one opening, ones that we've decided to give their own special additional name. We recognize each of these positions,

as being part of the Sicilian Defense. Going into more detail, we say that the first one belongs to the Najdorf Variation, while the latter belongs to the Dragon Variation. Again, we didn't need to specify move-orders at all in order to make this classification, because a variation can be characterized by a set of positions rather than sequences of moves.

A nice thing about thinking of particular opening variations as sets of positions is that it is now clearer how transpositions differ from (and relate to) variations. A transposition is an *event*; namely, it is what happens when a move is made that takes us from a position that is labeled as being part of one opening/variation to a position that is labeled as being part of another. Simple as that. After the moves `1. e4 d5` we're in the earliest position that belongs to the Scandinavian Defense. If White continues `2. exd5` then we're in another position that still goes by that name. But if White plays `2. d4`, a transposition has occurred, because this new position is part of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit family instead of the Scandinavian family.

In sum, an opening/variation can be seen as a family of *positions* that are linked together by moves, and then a transposition is just when a move leads us out of one such family and into another.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: opening, transpositions
---


# Question
Title: Are the board positions of the 4 players of each country determined by Elo rating in chess olympiads?
Are the board positions of the 4 players of each country determined by Elo rating in chess olympiads? Or is this something arbitrarily decided by the countries?

By board positions I mean, 1st seed/board, 2nd seed/board, 3rd seed/board and 4th seed/board. I do remember seeing some players with higher Elo ratings sitting on lower boards, hence I am wondering what the regulations are.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Look for `fixed board order` in the FIDE handbook's Regulations for the Chess Olympiad. The essence is that the board order cannot be changed between rounds for the purpose of getting a strategic advantage.

---
Tags: rules, chess-olympiad
---


title: What does ELO stand for?

text:
# Question
Title: What does ELO stand for?
What does the acronym ELO stand for in the context of chess, as in the ELO rating system?

# Answer
It doesn't stand for anything at all, because **it's not an acronym**. It should be "Elo" rather than "ELO." The Elo rating system is named after the Hungarian-American physics professor (and 8-time state champion chess master) Arpad Elo, who originally devised his rating system around 1960.
> 47 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


# Question
Title: Is there chess software that allows storage and replay of media annotations?
I would like to annotate my game not only with textual comments like `6. Be5 "This move brings the bishop to a long diagonal"`, but also record such comments with voice. Is there any software package that supports this? I can't find this feature in SCID.

# Answer
I haven't worked with it in a while, but I remember Fritz letting you do that.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Is there a chess software that allows to generate and store engine evaluation graph for a chess game?
A software like Fritz or Arena typically shows a graph for a game that is currently being analyzed/played. Fritz 5.32 also generates those graphs as it does automated analysis of several games in DB. But I want to keep those graphs available after I close a window, so that each game has a graph associated with it that I can easily retrieve. These are now getting available for live broadcasts like this one http://superfinal2012.live.whychess.com/, but I now want to do the same with my own games...

# Answer
> 2 votes
In the case of recent versions of Fritz, I quote the following from the Fritz 12 Quick Guide:

> If you perform a ‘Blunder Check’ on a game and store the ‘Evaluation’, then that will be used to populate the‘Evaluation Profile’ window whenever you open that game from the database.

# Answer
> 3 votes
It turns out that SCID does this - http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/gui-to-make-analysis-graph

---
Tags: analysis, software
---


# Question
Title: Is there a common list of steps to analyse/annotate one's game?
What is the best way to annotate one's game to derive the most instructive value out of it? In the search for critical positions - do you start from the beginning, or from the end (last move)? When do you consult a computer engine or computer database? Has any coach ever come up with a comprehensive guideline describing how to do this?

# Answer
> 3 votes
As Andrew points out in a comment, the subject of your post overlaps substantially with an earlier one, whose answers address the general mechanics of analyzing one's own games, and would probably be of use to you. I'd like to address just one small part of your question that doesn't overlap:

> In the search for critical positions - do you start from the beginning, or from the end (last move)?

Now whether a position in a game is "critical" or not isn't some objective feature of the position itself, but is rather a function of the position *and the player* who faces it. What I mean is: many a position in which you or I would say that we have a critical decision to make, Capablanca or Fischer might recognize it as trivial, and in other positions where we might blindly think there's nothing important to consider, players like them might say instead that there are deep considerations to be made.

So I don't think you need to be going through your game after the fact (forward, backward or any other way) trying to identify what the critical junctures were. You know what positions *you* considered critical when you were playing the game (when you agonized over choosing between two moves, when you spent a looooong time thinking, etc.), and those are critical points where self-analysis can be especially beneficial.

One habit you could get into is making a note of such moments on your scoresheet while you're playing (circle the move, make an X, whatever). Then not too long after the game, try to record as much of what your thought process was at those points. Later on you can look at what you were thinking during the game in a fresh light, and try to find improvements to your in-game mental analysis. Speaking to another part of your question: checking yourself with an engine is a good idea, but you should try to catch your own mistakes first, and only then let Stockfish or whatever show you all kinds of things you never considered or noticed.

---
Tags: analysis
---