# Question
Title: What is the theoretical maximal material difference of a dead draw which is not a stalemate?
I have noticed the following example, which should be a dead draw:

I am wondering what is the theoretical material difference of a dead draw which is not a stalemate? (I am not asking about agreed draws.) Apparently we could not add more rooks to the diagram as all white pawns have not been promoted.

By the way, the game above is not drawn by the insufficient material rule, as white can theoretically win the game if black makes a blunder such as capturing the rook.

# Answer
With white to move the following position is a draw with the maximum possible material difference. The position is not currently stalemate but will be with correct play from white. If white plays Kh1 any move from black will result in stalemate.

```
8/7b/8/3n4/q3k3/8/qqqq1rKn/qqq1qrb1 w KQkq - 0 1

```

(Another possibility would be a position utilizing a forced draw due to the 50 move rule)
> 6 votes

# Answer
```
[fen ""]

1. a4 b5 2. b4 bxa4 3. c4 c5 4. d4 cxb4 5. e4 d5 6. f4 dxc4 7. g4 e5
8. h4 exd4 9. Ba3 g5 10. Nc3 gxh4 11. Qb3 f5 12. Kf2 h3 13. Kg3 h2
14. Bd3 Qa5 15. Kh4 dxc3 16. Kg5 h5 17. Kg6 cxb3 18. g5 Rh7 19. Ra2 Rc7
20. Bc4 Rxc4 21. Kh7 Bd6 22. g6 fxe4 23. Kg7 hxg1=Q 24. Kh7 h4 25. Kg7 h3
26. Kh7 h2
27. Kg7 bxa3 28. Kh7 bxa2 29. Kg7 Qgb6 30. Rg1 hxg1=Q 31. Kh7 Nc6
32. Kg7 Nd8 33. Kh7 Nf6+ 34. Kg7 Nd7 35. Kh7 a1=Q 36. Kg7 c2+ 37. Kh7 Qab1
38. Kg7 Qb8 39. Kh7 Q1b7 40. Kg7 c1=Q 41. Kh7 a2 42. Kg7 a1=Q+
43. Kh7 Qab1 44. Kg7 Qb1b6 45. Kh7 a3 46. Kg7 a2 47. Kh7 a1=Q 48. Kg8 Qab1
49. Kg7 Q1b5 50. Kh7 Nf6+ 51. Kh8 Bd7 52. Kg7 Nc6 53. Kh8 Be7 54. Kg7 Bd8
55. Kh8 e3 56. g7 Ne4 57. Kh7 Qab4 58. Kh8 a5 59. Kh7 a4 60. Kh8 a3
61. Kh7 a2 62. Kh8 Qxf4 63. Kh7 a1=Q 64. Kg8 e2 65. Kh8 Nc5 66. Kh7 Re4
67. Kh8 Re6 68. Kh7 Qf4b8 69. Kh8 Ra6 70. Kh7 Qb6a7 71. Kh8 Nd4
72. Kh7 Rad6 73. Kh8 e1=Q 74. Kh7 Qg1e3

```

White can force a draw from this position with 75. g8=Q+ and perpetually check the black king. The end position given above (before the pawn promotes) is the moment of maximum material difference in this forced draw.
> 22 votes

# Answer
With white to move, the following position is a draw:

I *think* it's reachable from the original position, although it would be difficult. I'll let you know if I can.
> 12 votes

# Answer
How about this?

```
1q3r1k/2b1Nn1r/5K2/qqn5/qqb5/qq6/q7/8 w - - 0 1

```

The knight gives a perpetual. I think this position is possible, but I have not verified it.
> 8 votes

# Answer
This position, with a material difference of 1 queen, 2 rooks, a bishop and a knight, is (quite easily) reachable from the starting position:

```
7k/8/8/1n6/1p1p1p1p/pPpPpPpP/P1P1P1P1/RQNKNB1R w - - 0 1

```

You could add a white bishop on g1 and a black knight on f5, but the material difference remains the same.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: theory, problems, draw
---


# Question
Title: Searching for a "where is the black king" problem
Sometime ago, a friend showed me a position where he had the Black king removed. The goal was to find where is the Black king using some pretty weird reasoning.

There were only a few pieces on the board and they were quite close to each other in the bottom left corner of the board. Mostly likely, each side has two pawns each, and, maybe two pieces. I'm almost sure that the White king was in double check.

**Here are more details that in a spoiler due to hinting at the solution)**

> The solution (very approximately) is first to find who's move it is. It is obviously White's because of the check, and then from that deduce what Black's last move was. From that, you deduce the king's position. The reasoning was more complicated than the, as it required to go two or three moves backward. This is the gist of the problem.

I have tried to remember the problem, but I can't. Does anyone know a "where is the black king" problem?

# Answer
What leaps to mind is Raymond Smullyan's problem, and it's to find the White king but possibly it. A retro classic (and one of the few good ones he made.)

```
8/8/8/1r1b4/B7/8/8/3k4 w - - 0 1

```

(1+3) Where is the white king?

(Raymond Smullyan, *Manchester Guardian*, 1957)
> 7 votes

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


# Question
Title: Does the winner of the women's Oceania Zonal qualify to play in a world championship match?
The brochure for the upcoming Oceania Zonal in Guam states:

> The winners of the 2019 Guam Zonal qualify and are entitled to advance to play in the World Cup and the World Chess Championship.

I'm unclear on what exactly this means for women's chess. (Men go into the World Cup, which seems clear enough.)

Last year, WFM Kathryn Hardegen represented Australia in the November 2018 Women's World Chess Championship, and came second in the 2017 Oceania Zonal (crosstable) but the winner WFM Layla Timergazi didn't play in the Women's World Chess Championship, so Kathryn Hardegen played instead.

However, this was a knockout tournament; WFM Hardegen was knocked out by GM Ju Wenjun (who went on to win this tournament) in round 1.

However, as I understand correctly, FIDE is changing the format to no longer be a knockout tournament. Wikipedia writes:

> The match marks the return to **a match only format for the title with qualifying Candidates Tournament**, after new FIDE president Arkady Dvorkovich expressed his dissatisfaction for the knock-out tournaments and its frequent different world champions. ... The newly established candidates tournament starts on 29 May 2019 in Kazan, Russia. The format is an **eight player double round-robin tournament**.
> Women's World Chess Championship 2019, Wikipedia

So if the candidates tournament is an 8-player round robin, it can't have all the zonal winners.

**Question**: Does the winner of the women's Oceania Zonal qualify to play in a world championship match?

# Answer
> 2 votes
It would seem not. According to this document from FIDE:

> 3. Qualification for the 2019 Women’s Candidates Tournament
> 3.1. Players who qualify for the Women’s Candidates Tournament are determined according to the following criteria, in order of priority:
> **Women’s World Championship KO 2018;**
> Three (3) players who reach the semi-finals of the 2018 Women’s World Championship (excluding the Women’s World Champion 2018 who qualifies directly to the World Championship Match).
> **Winner of the Women’s World Championship Match 2018 (GM Ju Wenjun);**
> **Average FIDE Rating of the 12 monthly lists starting from 1st January 2018 to 1st December 2018.**
> Four (4) players will qualify by their average rating.

Zonal qualifiers are nowhere on this list.

My best guess is that the brochure you linked was created before the changes to the championship were made. The brochure says that countries may nominate players for free entry before October 31 2018 (implying the brochure was created before that date), and this article from FIDE announcing the Women's Candidates Tournament is dated November 21 2018.

---
Tags: tournament, women
---


# Question
Title: Reason why Kasparov resigned in the "Enrage the Beast" game
```
    [White "Garry Kasparov"]
    [Black " Vassily Ivanchuk"]
[fen ""]
[StartPly "62"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 b6 5. a3 Bf8 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. h4 h6 8. h5 a5 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Ba4 Nd7 11. Ne2 b5 12. Bb3 c5 13. c3 Nc6 14. O-O Qc7 15. Re1 c4 16. Bc2 Nb6 17. Bf4 Be7 18. Bg3 Rb8 19. Nh2 Qd8 20. Ng4 b4 21. axb4 axb4 22. cxb4 Nxb4 23. Bb1 Bd7 24. b3 Ra8 25. Rxa8 Qxa8 26. bxc4 Nxc4 27. Nc1 Ba4 28. Qe2 Qa7 29. Ne3 Qxd4 30. Nxc4 dxc4 31. Qf1 O-O 0-1

```

This is a game from Horgen 1995, well-known because of Ivanchuk's 5th move ("enrage the beast"). As a fairly limited player, it is not obvious to me why Kasparov resigned at this stage. Is it obvious that the c-pawn cannot be stopped without losing material? Is there another reason to resign?

# Answer
> 4 votes
White's position is just bad overall. The main reasons:

* The passed c-pawn is a huge asset. It's likely it will eventually cost White a piece, but in the meantime it cramps White's forces.
* All Black's pieces are far more active than their White counterparts, with the sole exception of the rooks (which are roughly equal in activity).
* Knowing Kasparov, he was probably disgusted with his play at this point and fed up with the game. White's position is already objectively resignable in any case due to the two points above.

---
Tags: analysis, famous-players, kasparov, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: Chuzhakin's System Hazardous Elements and Rules
A short time ago, I ran across some short texts and a short video about Chuzhakin's system to spot tactics and avoid blunders.

What little I've seen seems really to help me. And so I'm looking for the complete list of hazardous elements and rules or the complete text. Everywhere is mentioned a pdf.

Also, there are a lot of links to Chuzhakin's pdf (at neoneuro.com...) in the net, but all of them lead to 404 Page not found... Some hours of searching the net for the text lead to no result.

Could somebody please post the pdf or the maybe list of hazardous elements and the counting rules?

# Answer
I googled the name of the file, chuzhakinssystem.pdf, and found a copy here: https://docplayer.net/22332201-Chuzhakin-s-system-version-2-14.html

Better yet, it can be found using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20180219185540/https://neoneuro.com/downloads/chuzhakinssystem.pdf . I think this link is more likely to be stable.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: tactics, blunder
---


# Question
Title: How does one know if a position is not reachable from a series of legal moves from the starting position?
If one of the following is true, a position is **not** reachable from the starting position by a series of legal moves:

1. One side has two or more kings or one side has no kings;
2. One side has a total of 10 or more queens and pawns, or a total of 11 or more rooks and pawns, or a total of 11 or more knights and pawns, or a total of 10 or more bishops of the same colour and pawns;
3. One side has a total number of more than 16 pieces;
4. At least one pawn is in the first rank or eighth rank;
5. Both kings are being checked;
6. The kings can capture each other in the next move;
7. At least one bishop is in an "impossible square" blocked by pawns in their starting positions, such as the following:

8. One king is being "impossibly" checked or checkmated such as the following (this should also include the case where a king is being checked by three or more pieces): (I am not sure how to define this more precisely);

9. One side is checking and it is his turn.

I am sure that this list is not exhaustive. Does one know a complete list? Is there an algorithm determing whether a position is reachable from the starting position by a series of legal moves?

**Edit**: I would also add the following:

* One side has more than 8 pawns.

# Answer
This is part of a whole genre of chess problem, retrograde analysis. People keep coming up with new tricks in positions that make it impossible to reach them, possibly in surprising ways.

I'm copying a diagram here from the question Searching for a "where is the black king" puzzle?:

```
8/8/8/1r1b4/B7/8/8/3k4 w - - 0 1

```

Problem: place a white king on the board to make the position legal

**Spoiler:**

> It's on c3. The reasoning is that it's black to move, so white's king can't be on b3 as it would be in check. So black is in check by the Ba4. But then the king must have just left b3, and it was in double check there. But how can it be in double check by a rook on b5 and a bishop on d5? Only by an en passant capture. There was a black pawn on b4, a white pawn on c2, and the last moves were 1.c2-c4 b4xc3e.p.++ 2.Kb3xc3.

This means that *the position with the white king placed on that square is reachable, but with the king anywhere else it's unreachable*. That's not easy to spot just by checking items from a list!

That's an easy retrograde analysis problem. Some of them need quite deep analysis, like several pieces have left the bottom rank, they could each have left it over some square, but only in the order they're in on the back row, and they must have left in some other order -- but I can't find a problem like that now.

I believe your list can be made arbitrarily long.

As for algorithms, there are better ways than the brute force approach I described in my comment on the question: there has been work on *finding proof games* in retrograde analysis. These take it a step further: they find a game that reaches the given position *in a set number of moves*. That should also be enough to find whether the position can be reached at all.

I found the software **Natch** that can do this.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Here is a retro which needs deep analysis:

```
[Title "Thierry le Gleuher; Economy Records in Add Unit(s) Problems, 5A"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "B5bn/5PrR/5prN/6pk/7p/5P2/PPPPPP2/KR1Q2N1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

The stipulation is "Add the missing unit(s)". A solution may be found in entry P1227636 in PDB. In brief:

> To disentangle Black's kingside, White must retract most pieces back home so that White can retract g2xf3. Interleaved with these White moves are 19 Black moves. But, all this time, Black has no retrotempi with units in the diagram, so they must be provided by the added units. The only way is to add black pawns on a3, b3, c3, d3, e3. Each provides 4 retrotempi, except that the b and d pawns can't both retract home, because the bishop on g8 will need to retract to c8 eventually.

Thus the position would be illegal if

> 5 black pawns were added but any of them were nearer rank 7, because Black would run out of retrotempi, but it would take deep analysis to show that this is the case.

This might be the sort of situation RemcoGerlich was thinking of, seeing that

> Some White pieces need to leave the back rank and move back in a different order.

In case you thought that there's a simpler way to add units:

> A Black piece captured White's c1 bishop on c1. White is not missing anything else, so no Black pawn ever left its file. Thus White's 3 captures g2xf3 and hxgxf were of Black's 3 missing pieces: the f8 bishop, the queen and a knight. So we may add Black pawns but not a piece.
> 4 votes

# Answer
First of all, **if you can't find a way to reach a position from an opening board, then it's likely illegal.** I say *likely* only because you may have missed something.

Here is a fairly nice collection of illegal positions that I ran across a while ago on a chess.com forum. Some of the positions are extremely subtle. One common theme I noticed that isn't on your list is **doubled pawns** when there cannot be doubled pawns (for example, doubled pawns with no pieces captured, doubled pawns on the 2nd and third rows when the only piece of the opponent's captured is a bishop of the color of the unmoved pawn on the second row, etc, etc.)

Another one is **impossible move order** \- something that usually happens with knights. For example, it is impossible for it to be black's turn with all of the pieces in their starting position - this is because of the white-black, white-black, white-black pattern of the knight's moves.

There are **many** more good examples, I'm sure. If anyone thinks of any, leave a comment and I'll add it in!

It is probable that neither our posts nor the link I gave will ever provide a comprehensive list of all the *categories* of illegal positions, but again - if it can't be reached from the beginning of the game, it's illegal.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theory
---


# Question
Title: For white's next move, should it be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 as there is only one knight which can legally move to e2?
```
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/1bPP4/2NBP3/PP3PPP/R1BQK1NR w KQ - 0 6"]

```

If white move his king knight to e2 in the next move, should this move be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 in the algebraic notation?

After all, the other knight cannot legally move to e2 in this move.

# Answer
> 5 votes
It doesn't matter. The purpose of algebraic notation is to produce an unambiguous record of the game, not a canonical representation that you could compare character by character.

This is not spelled out on the official rules, but I believe it is the inescapable conclusion considering that some parts of the notation are explicitly optional (here I'm talking about the FIDE Laws of Chess); for example:

> \[...\] each player is free to use the name which is commonly used in his country \[...\]
>
> A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable.
>
> \[...\] an x may be inserted \[...\]
>
> \[...\] ‘e.p.’ may be appended.
>
> \[...\] The last four \[capture, check, checkmate, and *en passant*\] are optional.

That said, the rules are clear that disambiguation is only needed when two identical pieces *can* move to the same square, so the "correct" notation would be Ne2.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It should be Ne2 because, as you correctly say, only that knight may move to e2.

By contrast, if, say, each of two knights could move to e2, but one would discover check and the other would not give check, then the move must be disambiguated in both cases. The presence or absence of a `+` does not disambiguate. Cf, from the PGN reference:

> 8.2.3.5: Check and checkmate indication characters
>
> If the move is a checking move, the plus sign "+" is appended as a suffix to the basic SAN move notation; if the move is a checkmating move, the octothorpe sign "#" is appended instead.
>
> Neither the appearance nor the absence of either a check or checkmating indicator is used for disambiguation purposes. This means that if two (or more) pieces of the same type can move to the same square the differences in checking status of the moves does not allieviate the need for the standard rank and file disabiguation described above. (Note that a difference in checking status for the above may occur only in the case of a discovered check.)

Cf this question.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Both are legal and acceptable.

Appendix C of the FIDE Laws of Chess describes the rules for writing the moves.

The relevant article if the c3 knight had not been pinned is C10 -

> C.10 If two identical pieces can move to the same square, the piece that is moved is indicated as follows:
>
> C.10.1 If both pieces are on the same rank by:
>
> C.10.1.1 the abbreviation of the name of the piece,
>
> C.10.1.2 the file of departure, and
>
> C.10.1.3 the square of arrival.

but note that longer forms are acceptable. As article C8 says -

> A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable. Examples: Bb2e5, Ng1f3, Ra1d1, e7e5, d2d4, a6a5.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Only `Ne2` is correct. There is a FIDE rule that explains what to do "if two identical pieces can move to the same square" (C10), that would lead to the Nge2 notation. But that rule simply doesn't apply here as the c3 knight cannot move to e2.

That said, there is no problem with writing Nge2, as it is still clear what move is meant. I think most software that reads PGN will also accept Nge2 (no guarantees!).

# Answer
> -2 votes
The correct notation stays `Nge2` irrespective of the fact that `Nce2` would be an illegal move in this position.

In such cases, always remember that the notation should be as complete and self-contained as possible, such that everything that happens in the game remains reproducible, even errors such as illegal moves. These things become more relevant when conflicts arise and an arbiter has to resolve it based on the record of the game. So by writing `Nge2` you'll have left no room for uncertainty.

Chess notation serves merely as a way of recording the state and evolution of a game in a fully reproducible manner, it is not an implementation of the rules of the game per se.

---
Tags: fide, notation
---


# Question
Title: Caro-Kann 3.Nd2: is it worthwhile delaying or avoiding 3...dxe4 to exploit the poor position on the d2 knight?
In the Caro-Kann where white plays 3.Nd2, it seems like the d2 knight is misplaced: it's on a worse square than c3, and it blocks the c1 bishop. Black playing 3...dxe4 relieves white of both these problems (along with allowing white to play Bc4). However, 3...dxe4 is by far the most popular move, probably partly because black has probably "booked up" on this line.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2

```

**Question**: Is it worthwhile delaying or avoiding 3...dxe4 to exploit the poor position on the d2 knight?

Judging from LiChess's master games, some players have tried 3...g6 followed by 4...Bg7. For example, some master games follow the following lines (e.g. Smirin vs. Bologan, 1994, 1/2-1/2):

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 g6 4. Ngf3 Bg7
5. c3 Nd7 6. Bd3 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Ngf6 8. Nxf6+ Nxf6
9. O-O O-O

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
Here, g6, transposing to a Modern defense, Gurgenidze variation, isn't quite as good as it is against 3. Nc3. The problem with is that c3, supporting the d4 pawn, is still a possibility after 3. Nd2, vs 3. Nc3. 1. In other words, the slightly poor position of the knight is more than offset by being able to setup a strong pawn chain

According to the chess.com opening explorer, looking at master games only, black scores 26% with g6 against Nd2 (41% for white, 33% draws), as opposed to 30% against Nc3 (39% for white, 31% draws). While black scores about 2% better than the main dxe4, white scores about 5% better against g6.

1) Joe Gallagher, Starting out: The Caro-Kann.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The whole idea behind the caro-kann is to safely push ...d5 and challenge White's e4-pawn. While you can play something like ...g6, it goes against the main principle of the opening.

In the French, a move Black often plays instead of ...dxe4 is ...Nf6. That doesn't work so well here since after 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nd7, the d-file has been closed up and the d2-knight could calmly move to f3. In the French Black usually goes for a ...c5 push soon, but here that's a waste of a tempo (due to the c-pawn already being on c6).

3...dxe4 is the most popular move mainly because it's objectively the best. The reason so many players are booked up on it is due to it being the best and most popular. If you'd like to not take on e4 so early, look into the French. It's a similar opening but gives more options to not liquidate immediately.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm no expert in the Caro-Kann but one of the reasons to play it is to obtain a French defense like position but with your light squared bishop outside of the pawn-chain. The trade-off is you are taking 2 moves to play c5 as opposed to 1.

In this position black cannot develop his light squared bishop and he certainly doesn't want to transpose into a french being a tempo down.

Also in the French white does play Nd2 in certain variations as well. It allows him to play c3 to preserve his pawn structure and he is planning to play Ndf3 to support his d4 pawn.

---
Tags: caro-kann
---


title: Sicilian Najdorf, Sozin Variation

text:
# Question
Title: Sicilian Najdorf, Sozin Variation
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6

1) For 6. Bc4 Black can play immediately b5 and attack it. But almost all Grandmasters reply with 6....e6. Theory also stresses to 6....e6. Why not 6.... b5 to attack Bishop immediately as 5....a6 is already done? Is it not giving Black a strong attack against White? Hence, why Grandmasters are not playing early 6....b5 in their games? Expecting good answer. Thanks in advance.

# Answer
> 1 votes
6...b5 7.Bd5! Nxd5 8.exd5 leaves Black in trouble. The e-file has been opened and Black has to figure out how to castle before things get really heated. The c6-square is also a major weakness that White's d4-knight is ready to jump to at the right moment.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Black only has pawns: Mate in what?

text:
# Question
Title: Black only has pawns: Mate in what?
In a standard opening position in chess, imagine that all Black pieces are removed except for the king and pawns.

```
[FEN "4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

```

What is the shortest forced mate, assuming White starts?

I don't know the answer to this but it seems like a fun piece of chess trivia if it is solvable.

# Answer
Having run stockfish for a couple of days, I can confirm there is at least a mate in 15.
> 5 votes

# Answer
Stockfish took a long time with this one, but with some help it eventually got to here.

Looks like it's *approximately* checkmate in 15 from your position. By move 9 (following Stockfish recommendations) it finds a checkmate in 6. Here's what Stockfish says is the best line:

```
[FEN "4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

1. c3 b5 2. Qb3 c6 3. Qa3 a5 4. Qxa5 e5 5. Qc7 f6 6. Qc8+ Ke7 7. Qg8 e4 8. Qxg7+ Ke6 9. g3 f5 10. d4 e3 11. Bh3 b4 12. Bxf5+ Kxf5 13. Qf7+ Kg5 14. Bxe3+ Kg4 15. f3#

```

Here's a sample game, me vs Stockfish. Took me 18 moves: https://lichess.org/AJFXfWmCQB5I

And another, also 18 moves: https://lichess.org/Ibno7F6cdfhT

I missed some sequences both times.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: problems, checkmate
---


# Question
Title: What are the shogi equivalents of Fool's and Scholar's mate?
In western chess, the Fool's mate and Scholar's Mate are two well-known mates that take very few moves from the starting position. What would be the shogi equivalents to these, or, more generally, what are the fastest checkmates in shogi?

# Answer
> 11 votes
A very fast checkmate (6 moves) is described here:

```
1. P-7f P-8d 2. P-5f P-5d 3. R-5h S-4b 4. P-5e Px5e 5. Bx5e P-8e 6. Bx7c+ mate

```

apologies in advance for everyone who feels insulted because of the use of figurines instead of real Shogi pieces - I couldn't find another analysis board

# Answer
> 7 votes
1. P-2f 2. K-4b 3. P-2e 4. K-3b 5. P-2d 6. R-4b 7. Px2c+ Checkmate

The King is trapped by his own Rook on 4b. It's a bad idea to have the King and Rook close together or an early mate like this could happen in the worst case

---
Tags: opening, checkmate, chess-variants, shogi, fools-mate
---


# Question
Title: Would studying the games of old players hurt my progress?
I was watching a video last night by Ben Finegold on Paul Morphy and some of his games. He mentioned that some current GMs would discount Morphy's ability since all of his opponents were "terrible". However, Ben countered by observing that ok even if that's true, almost all of Morphy's moves were the best move.

I went back and looked through more of his games and like his style - extremely aggressive, and always gets his pieces out and working together, something I have a tough time doing. So the question is as in the title: for someone at my level (still very much a beginner, probably sub-1200 once my rating stabilizes), does it make sense to study older players like this, or stick with newer games? The problem I have studying newer games is that they are completely inscrutable. I can almost never figure out why certain moves are begin made once they're outside theory, so I'm not sure how much mileage I actually get out of it.

# Answer
The answer from SmallChess is good. There's also an illustrative tweet from Garry Kasparov on the subject:

> For beginning chess players, studying a Carlsen game is like wanting to be an electrical engineer & beginning with studying an iPhone.
> 22 votes

# Answer
Paul Morphy's games are better resources for learning at your level. There's no use for you to get into deep positional understanding typically in modern GM games.

You should get a book on Amazon. Don't try to analyze the games yourself.
> 16 votes

# Answer
If you're a beginner then studying games from the old masters does more good, especially players like Morphy who emphasized the basics (quick development, attacking an uncastled king, etc). Once you get to the 1500 range, you'd do best looking at games from the GMs of the 20th century up until the 1990s. That was when classical chess theory "matured", so to speak, without being so absorbed in theory.

You noted it's tough to follow the top players currently. That's no accident, as it's not uncommon for them to spend the first 15-20 moves completely in theory generated by engines and hours of preparation.
> 10 votes

# Answer
Pretty much all great players studied the games of the best players of the past, and it is repeatedly recommended that studying them is a great way to improve. Marin's book Learn from the Legends is pretty much based around his journey of doing that.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Definitely study classic Morphy's games. The fact that Morphy was so far ahead of his peers is a good thing. His opponents often missed Morphy's plan and the plan came out clearly, and it shows you what you should strive to do.

In modern chess so much depends on opening preparation, where moves are often not intuitive and depend on engine backed calculations, that it is very difficult to see what the plan is.
> 7 votes

# Answer
It absolutely makes sense to study Morphy. Sure, most of his opponents were "terrible" but so are most of your opponents. And, let's be honest, so are you, at the moment. Studying Morphy's games – and tactics in general – will teach you how to beat "terrible" opponents. At your level, nearly all games are decided by exactly the sort of tactical blunders that Morphy will quickly teach you how to avoid and exploit.

Once you're beating all the "terrible" players, you'll have moved up the ladder to "bad". Then you can look at the games of people like Lasker and Capablanca, who'll help you learn to think strategically too. Then you'll be a "so-so" player and maybe even a "good" one.

The modern games are, as you say, pretty inscrutable. Modern players know so much about chess that most of what they do is basically micro-optimization in an attempt to play something that's 99.5% perfect instead of 99%. It is possible to learn from modern games, as long as they're very well annotated, explaining why alternative moves would be mistakes. But don't fall into the trap of thinking "Carlsen played Bb4 and I was thinking that Nc4 looks like a decent move. Why is it wrong?" Usually, there are two or three good moves in any position. Carlsen needs to play the absolutely best move because his opponent is a genius; you can play any of the good moves and be fine, because your opponent isn't a genius. Mostly, though, people who play chess for a hobby will learn much more from older games than modern ones.
> 6 votes

# Answer
I just wanted to add - for one to say that to say "not all Morphy's opponents were terrible" is really understating the case.

The fact is that Morphy consistently beat all the best chess players in the world. For example, Akavall mentioned Adolf Anderssen. Anderssen was estimated by Arpad Elo ( who invented the ELO rating system ) as being over 2600.

Morphys record against him was +12 -3 = 2.

Etcetera.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: analysis, learning, master-games, morphy
---


title: Multi (N>3) dimensional chess designs

text:
# Question
Title: Multi (N>3) dimensional chess designs
I was wondering whether anyone has ever designed chess rules for more than 3 dimensions. At that point you wouldn't be able to visualize the play using one board. And you'd instead need to to use 8 3-D boards (in the case of 4-D). When searching for multidimensional chess, the only thing I can find is 3-D chess. So has anyone ever designed a multidimensional chess game where (N \> 3)?

If you think this question should be posted elsewhere, please inform me.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Yes, there are a few four-dimensional chess variants: https://www.chessvariants.com/index/mainquery.php?type=Any&category=4d&usethisheading=Four+(or+more)+Dimensions

Sphinx Chess, by V.R. Parton, is probably the first, c.1970. Timeline is also described there (it's actually a full 4 spatial dimensions, being 4x4x4x4, plus the "timelines"), as well as my own variant TessChess.

Most 3D chess (at least online) is played by splaying the levels out next to each other, since seeing and reaching between levels may be difficult. Once you get used to that, it's not so unnatural to put the levels in a grid, and you've got four dimensions.

Also, most 3D chess is on a smaller board than 8x8x8 (8x8x3 or 5x5x5 are common), and higher dimensions similarly shrink the edge length. This, together with appropriately extending piece movements, get around NoseKnowsAll's density argument. But, of course they are also right that the game becomes rather different from chess.

V.R. Parton also created a 6-dimensional game, Ecila. I and others have toyed around with even more dimensions, but it obviously becomes more difficult for the "array of array of arrays" board simulation to work out.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There's a vaguely chess-based game called "Timeline" that was described as 4-dimensional chess. The pieces left 'trails' as they move over a 4x4x4 grid, and you could capture a piece "before" it reached its current square.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Not sure if this qualifies for exactly what you're asking, but I have an idea that could fulfil your requiruments

In the "doubles" varient of normal chess, where two players play on a team with two 2d boards, that can be considered three dimensional.

If such a game were played with 3d boards, I guess that could be considered 4d, albeit the 4th dimension has a cardinality of only 2

---
Tags: rules, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: A list of chess variants and their popularity
How many chess variant are there? (Apparently a lot.) If possible could you include the popularity of each variant and its major event. For example, I know that there's a US bughouse chess championship. The list doesn't have to be comprehensive.

# Answer
> 6 votes
To simply name a few of the variants here would need a huge amount of space, because there are many. However, you have a list of variations in the Wikipedia entry:

This entry is not comprehensive, and a few variations that cannot be found there appear in the webpage:

These sites do not come with popularity rankings, and the same way chess itself probably does not have a "major" event (one could consider the World Chess Championship to be it, but as only two players play and the number of games and funds has been so drastically reduced, I'm not sure anymore), probably there is not a single "major" event for these variants too. However, to a certain extent, the length of the Wikipedia article on a certain variation can measure its popularity, so I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia category:

# Answer
> 2 votes
The Chess Variant Pages actually does have a couple of rankings (at least one is new since Pablo's answer):

I'd also point out that variants that can be played at other sites, like those at lichess.org and greenchess.net, are presumably fairly popular.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: In online chess with long time controls, does having a title encourage opponents to cheat against you?
I was looking through the top classical players list on LiChess, and I'm gradually improving. I noticed I'm catching up with IM Eric Rosen, which I found surprising (I'm nowhere near that strong).

So I went through his rated losses: his opponent cheated (,  (probably), , ) in all but one game (which seems to involve a mouse slip). They don't just win---they crush him without problems.

I speculate that he encounters more cheating than I do because he has his title on display---his opponents want an IM scalp, and cheat to obtain it. However, maybe this is not accurate.

**Question**: In online chess with long time controls, does having a title encourage opponents to cheat against you?

I'm hoping a titled player will describe their experiences with and without their titled displayed online.

# Answer
I've displayed an FM title and never noticed a problem with cheating once. Your question is the first time I've ever thought about the concept of someone wanting to cheat *more* against a titled player.

If anything, most players would want the opportunity to get to play a titled player, and wouldn't waste it by cheating with an engine. How do you know that his opponents were cheating in most of his losses?
> 4 votes

# Answer
A title sometimes attracts cheating, but those cheating against a titled player (or generally a strong player) are easily identifiable. Usually they are below average players having played a small number of games (to climb to that rating of a titled player) on an account used particularly for cheating.

However, I don't see any point of doing this. The more common intention for an amateur is to test their skills against a titled player, when they get the chance. So, as a titled player, it is more likely to get an opponent wanting to test themselves against you rather than a noob trying to cheat and score an illegal win.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: online-chess, cheating, titles
---


title: General advice for middlegame

text:
# Question
Title: General advice for middlegame
This is a very basic and general question (and my first on this website), so feel free to tell me if this is inappropriate.

Besides specific strategies and opening sequences, there are some fairly general things about openings that are quite intuitive and, on the whole, not too difficult to follow: try to get out as many pieces as soon as possible and to position them on their most effective squares, try to get control of the center, try to castle when appropriate, put pressure on this square, do not move that pawn and so on. But when all the pieces are out, well placed, and I have castled, I have no idea about what I should do next. It might sound silly, but I feel that everything would compromise the balance I have just created. Are there any general pieces of advice, any general principles that one should try to apply? Or just any standard lines of thought that one could roughly follow? I feel like there is a huge gap between opening and endgame that I have no idea how to fill, and that I usually start out well in the opening and end being in disadvantage in the endgame because I did some silly moves in the middlegame because I did not know what to do.

For instance: I was playing a match against a computer opponent. I managed to get out all my pieces (horses on c3 and f3, pawns on d4 and e4, bishops on the sides, putting pressure on the f7 square and so on, all very classical) and to castle and the opponent had only been moving his horses around aimlessly by that time! He had not even moved a pawn! A good player would be sure to win, starting from such a situation. But in my case, whatever I tried turned out to be a bad idea and the counter actions of the opponent where always effective and in the end he won.

I should mention that I am reading "Logical chess move by move" by Irving Chernev. I haven't got vey far yet, but even the few pages I've read were very illuminating as far as positional play in the opening is concerned. But somehow I did not manage to take away any general advice on how to proceed in the middlegame: as I said, once everything is well placed, whatever I do seems to destroy its balance...

# Answer
I feel you should **choose an opening repertoire** so you enter middlegames where you (a) **know where the pieces belong ordinarily**, and (b) **understand the plans in those openings**. At a certain point, you need to do more than "just develop".

If you've ever watched a GM give a video lecture on some opening, you'll see them repeatedly avoid certain lines not because they're "bad", but because there is no clear plan for what to do. And I can't tell you how many games I've lost simply because I got to a position with my pieces all on their seemingly best squares, but without a plan for how to continue. I make random moves that don't immediately lose, but it makes things incrementally worse.

For example, a straightforward plan arising from an opening (that works from beginner to super GM level) is the minority attack. Here's one of many examples:

```
[FEN ""]
[Date "1994"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Karpov (2780)"]
[Black "Campora (2560)"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Nf3 c6 9. Qc2 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Be6 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. b4 Rc8 14. Na4 Rc7 15. Rac1 Be7 16. Qb1 Bd6 17. b5 Qf6 18. bxc6 bxc6 19. Nh2 Qh4 20. Bf5 Qh5 21. Bxe6 Nxe6 22. Nf3 f5 23. Rc3 Nd8 24. Nc5 Bxc5 25. Rxc5 Ne6 26. Rc3 f4 27. e4 h6 28. Re1 Rce7 29. Rxc6 dxe4 30. Rxe4 Qd5 31. Rc3 Qf5 32. Qe1 Qd5 33. Kh1 Qd6 34. Qd2 Ng5 35. Rxe7 Qxe7 36. Qxf4 Qb4 37. Nxg5 hxg5 38. Qd2 g4 39. hxg4 1-0

```

In this game, white's plan after development is a minority attack: to push the queenside pawns, and give black a pawn weakness, which should give white an edge in the endgame. We see on move 18, black ends up with a backwards pawn. White heads for an endgame by swapping off pieces, while black tries to stir up trouble with the f-pawn push. On move 28, black gave up defending it (rather than waste a rook defending a pawn), and let white capture it.

The moral of the story: choose openings so that your plan is clear.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: How to notify check when a player leaves himself in check
I'm learning to play chess.

Twice we had a situation where the white player moved a piece that was blocking the black Queen from checking the white King. There was no move available to announce "Check".

What is the proper procedure here?

# Answer
> 8 votes
It's not technically a check since Black wasn't making a move to check White's king. White made an *illegal move* that placed his King under attack.

Black should mention that White made an illegal move, getting White to take the move back and play something else. If you're playing in a tournament, you could call the arbiter over and say White made an illegal move (often 3 illegal moves = forfeit).

# Answer
> 6 votes
The player of the white pieces has made an illegal move. Touch-move applies so he must take back his illegal move and make a legal move. If it is possible to make a legal move with the piece he touched then he must make a legal move with the touched piece. If there are no legal moves with the piece he touched then he may make any legal move. This is important because often making a legal move with the touched piece loses the game immediately.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Leaving the king exposed to check is an illegal move. Simply ask the player to make another legal move.

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


title: Pawn tension in the Caro-Kann

text:
# Question
Title: Pawn tension in the Caro-Kann
Very often, I find myself playing the Caro-Kann and encountering positions like this below (especially note the pawns on the columns c and d):

I do have read that knowing what to do (capturing or mantaining the tension) boils down to calculation but in cases like this, where capturing with a pawn does not imply hanging a specific piece (defended by this pawn), I am not sure what to make of this position.

Could you please tell me what do in these situations and what to do in this particular situation and why?

# Answer
That kind of tension in the center is very double-edged.

On the long term, the pawn exchanges in the center should favor Black: he will get a stronghold on d5 for a knight and the e5-pawn might turn into a weakness in the endgame. Also, exchanges of major pieces down the newly opened c- and d-files will reduce White's attacking chances on the kingside.

In the short term however, pawn exchanges open lines that will favor the better developed side, which is undoubtedly White. All kind of nasty threats may follow, especially because the black King is still far from castled: checks on the a4-e8 diagonal, kinght jumps to d6, threats against the un-protected Pb7, intrusions on the 7th rank before Black can connect his rooks, etc.

That's why what you have read ("*knowing what to do (capturing or mantaining the tension) boils down to calculation*") is absolutely correct. Most often it will boil down to one tempo whether Black can safely castle or if he get caught beforehand.

In the precise given position, for instance, I would be reluctant to play 1...cxd4?! 2.Na3!? a6 3.Bg5, when it is hard to untangle the knights and white rooks will put huge pressure on the central files. 2...Nc5 3.Qd4 Nf5 is more active, but 4.Qf4 Be7 can be met by either 5.g4 or 5.Rd1, so Black will play longer with the king in the center.

On the other hand, 1...dc4!? is tempting, 2.Qxc4 Nd5 and that kinght stabilizes the position, e.g. 3.Nc3 N7b6 4.Qb5 Qd7 5.Qxd7 Kxd7 and Black has nothing to complain about, or 3.Rd1 Be7 followed by 0-0.

If it was White's move, however, 1.Nc3 would already put strong pressure on Black.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: pawns
---


title: App Mis-calculated Checkmate?

text:
# Question
Title: App Mis-calculated Checkmate?
How is this checkmate? The King isn't even in check! Am I missing something, or did the chess app goof up?

# Answer
If the app first displayed checkmate in that position, then it miscalculated.

But as Phonon noted, the app could have displayed checkmate in a previous (future) position, and then you went back a few moves. In that case it's not a miscalculation per se, but just a bug in the UI.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: checkmate
---


# Question
Title: How do FIDE rated players perform on lichess?
I have been playing on lichess for a while and it strikes me how low ratings are compared to other rating systems. This is not to say that players are weaker, I have quite the opposite feeling, but ratings are Glicko, rather than Elo, and this the number of players is reasonably low, so this prevents inflation but still...

I am wondering what a typical low-2000s FIDE player's rating is on lichess. (I assume that higher rated players don't play online chess?) Thanks!

# Answer
I went through the list of LiChess classical top 200 players and collected the FIDE ratings of LiChess classical ratings of anyone who I could verify on FIDE's website as actually having a FIDE rating:

```
LiChess FIDE    LiChess username    Name

2585    2265    ClassyPlays         Thibault Dudognon [FM]
2389    1869    nikkon2006          Nikita Konstantinov
2373    2274    PchelkinVK          Andrey Ermolaev [CM]
2357    1780    LeProfessionnel     Xavier Bohaer
2329    1963    Callmoon            Lina Nassr [WIM]
2299    2249    Peristeria          Marcus Schmuecker
2290    2214    Crocodilu1976       Adrian Stanca
2278    1899    TonoyanRob7         Robert Tonoyan
2271    1900    CamelClutcher       Daniel Herman
2269    1985    Chess-For-All       Alexey Pugach
2242    2242    weichi              Eugeny Pankin
2241    2208    kirillgenius        Kirill Shcherbinin [CM]
2241    2247    Cizar               Srboljub Zaric
2236    2065    pepellou            Jose Doval Gonzalez
2235    2093    Suleymanov_Marat    Marat M. Suleimanov
2232    2155    Son_Of_Caissa       Hrvoje Vlahov
2228    2358    VadimCernov         Vadim Chernov [IM]
2221    2010    emiliooo            Emilio Profili
2219    2274    Josip_buje          Josip Bulic [FM]
2214    1455    diarbovi            Diego Armando Bonilla Viamonte
2206    1878    hebertvr            Hebert Valera
2199    1958    MrsBlunderqueen     Jan Oltmanns
2193    2215    aconeni             Ondrej Toman
2193    2187    teddyhh             Julio Fernandes
2187    2190    yichen              Yichen Han
2181    2298    jolle23             Johan Hultin [FM]
2171    2270    Konnov_Oleg         Oleg Konnov [FM]
2164    2138    FrankDischinger     Dischinger Frank [FM]
2162    1754    moldscaien1357      Dimitrios Makridis
2145    1898    shayanaghaie        Shahram Aghaei

```

(I use the current FIDE rating, not the one listed on the LiChess profile; this affects 6 players. One player had a FIDE profile page, but no rating: LiChess (2174); FIDE.)

We see some major differences in several cases, so we cannot expect a simple relationship between the two. However, perhaps it's fair to conclude that a typical low-2000s FIDE player could likely reach a 2100+ LiChess classical rating. However, I feel like it depends heavily on how seriously they play on LiChess.

Here's a plot of the above data, with a linear regression. It's an incredibly weak correlation.
> 26 votes

# Answer
I am 2300-2450 on lichess blitz, while my FIDE rating is 2300-2350.

There is a correlation but there is a large body of players on lichess that are not FIDE rated.
> 11 votes

# Answer
The rating system used by Lichess is called Glicko and is different from the FIDE one, called Elo system.

This post on Lichess forum gives some insights about the topic:

https://lichess.org/qa/6/how-does-the-rating-system-work-on-here

The most important thing in the answer, in my point of view is this last paragraph:

> It's best to think of ratings as "relative" figures (as opposed to "absolute" figures). By this I mean: within a pool of players, their relative differences in ratings will help you estimate who will win/draw/loss, and how often. Saying "I have X rating" means nothing unless there are other players to compare that rating to.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I do agree that ratings seem a bit lower on lichess than on other websites, and actually I find this system much more stable. I am just over 2000 on FIDE elo and about the same on lichess (~2100 classical, ~2000 bullet). I have to say that it is the only place where I got a ranking reasonably near to my real ranking.
> 7 votes

# Answer
IMO, Lichess ratings are a little bit inflated. My rating at lichess topped at ~1750 while my FIDE rating is ~1500. In comparison , chess.com is a little bit less inflated. My Standard (30 min) there is ~1600 which is about the same for the top player I could beat at my level.
> 6 votes

# Answer
They are roughly the same, but different per type (speed v correspondence). This article from chess.com was really informative. I'm guessing the two sites are relatively comparable: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-ratings-vs-chesscom-ratings-explored
> 3 votes

# Answer
Of course, lichess is extremely inflated. Just look at Penguingim1's bullet rating; it is like 3100. In fact, it was almost 3200 at one point. Yet, in real life, Penguingim1 is only rated 2450 or so USCF (which is higher than FIDE).

There isn't really a good or direct translation, but perhaps you can estimate. I would say a rough conversion factor between lichess and FIDE would be like 1 FIDE unit = 1.19 classical lichess units. For example, I know one guy who is 1800 FIDE but 2150 on lichess classical. If you multiply 1800 by 1.2, you get 2160; very darn close!

P.s. I agree that higher rated chess players don't play much chess online. Just look at the player leaderboards on lichess; there isn't 1 single GM in the top 10s for lichess, but every single player top 100 FIDE is GM titled.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: rating, elo, glicko
---


# Question
Title: Capture the c-pawn, so the opponent has an IQP but improved development, or let them push the c-pawn and form a queenside majority?
This dilemma occurs in a variety of positions.

```
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp1nbpp1/5n1p/2pp4/3P3B/2NBPN2/PP3PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 10"]

```

Here, it's white to move, and white has to choose between:

1. capturing black's c5 pawn, giving black an isolated queen's pawn, but we improve black's development with tempo,
2. make a developing move, thereby allowing black to play c4 on the next move, which creates a queenside majority of pawns, and can be dangerous later in the game.

This position is from Vasile vs. Voiculescu, where white chose to play a developing move (Rc1), and subsequently resigned after black eventually promoted the c-pawn.

Examples of famous players facing similar dilemmas: Short; Dreev; Giri. They have different positions and make different decisions.

**Question**: How do we decide whether we should do 1. or 2.?

Here, I don't simply mean in this specific position. I'm seeking general guidelines (or rules) as to when it is better to take, and when it is better to not take.

# Answer
A few general guidelines:

* Take if your opponent has to waste a move to recapture. Normally this happens once your opponent has moved the f8/f1 bishop. In the position you posted, Black can take back with the knight and continue developing.
* Don't take if you've got a powerful position and are planning some aggressive attack. An attack often requires a good structural foundation in the centre, so taking on c5/c4 would compromise that.
* Take if there are a few pieces exchanged off, since your opponent's extra activity from the IQP will be less dangerous without many pieces. Take especially if the queens are off, or if your opponent is missing their dark-squared bishop (assuming your opponent is playing Black).
* Take if your opponent is behind in their queenside development. Undeveloped pieces ==\> less activity ==\> less danger from an IQP.
* Don't take if your king's position is compromised. The last thing you want with a vulnerable king is to have your opponent get more activity for attacking.

These rules don't always work, but it's useful to take them all into account before making a decision.
> 5 votes

# Answer
If you don't take on c5, your opponent can get in the move b7-b6. If b7-b6 is played, then you'll most likely be playing against hanging pawns if you take on c5. Those positions may or may not be suited for your style, which would affect your decision.

The pawns pushing to c4 would not be a threat, as you can easily get in b3 and e4 to chip away at his center.

Taking on c5 immediately would result in a classic IQP position where your goal would be to exchange minor pieces in order to stifle his attack and to keep the "heavy" pieces on the board in order to make it easier to take attack his pawn.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Here taking the pawn does a number of bad things -

1. It gives up the centre
2. It resolves the tension
3. It gives the opponent a good freeing, developing move, Nxc5. This develops the knight and opens up a diagonal for the c8 bishop.

In short, it is just bad. You should just continue with development. That Vasile chose Rc1 suggests that he wants to reply to c4 with Bb1. I think an immediate c4 by black is also bad because it resolves the tension unnecessarily so I would probably just castle here as white.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: isolated-pawn
---


# Question
Title: Can you claim a draw, after the position has changed, if threefold repetition occurred earlier?
I understand that when the same board position occurs three times in a game, with the same player to move, and having all the same possible moves, the game may be claimed as a draw by threefold repetition of positions.

If neither player makes a claim, and the game continues, and the position changes, is it legal for a (losing) player to thereafter claim a draw because threefold repetition had occurred earlier in the game? Or is a threefold repetition claim only valid when it involves the immediately current position?

# Answer
> 10 votes
(I consider the FIDE rules to be the "the rules of chess" and this answer is only about them)

No, you cannot claim. In fact your right to claim ends as soon as you *touch* a piece.

Here's what the rules say, emphasis in bold mine:

> 9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
>
> 9.2.1.1 **is about to appear**, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
>
> 9.2.1.2 **has just appeared**, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

So either it is about to appear, or it has just appeared, and not at any other time.

Then 9.4 ends the debate:

> 9.4 If the player **touches a piece** as in Article 4.3, he **loses the right** to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move.

That's related to the touch move rule -- once you touch a piece that can legally move with the intention to move it, you have to do so. It's too late for claims.

If it were possible to claim at any later time, there would never be any reason to continue: as soon as it was clear one of the players was going to lose, they'd claim the draw.

But in the case of *five* fold repetition, it's different:

> 9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game **is drawn**:
>
> 9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

If a position repeats five times, then that's just an automatic draw, no claim needed. If it is found out later during the "game" that a position was repeated five times some time ago, then that means that you just weren't playing the game anymore after that as it was already finished. You were moving pieces about.

---
Tags: rules, threefold-repetition, claim-draw
---


# Question
Title: How does Stockfish ensure an incremental change made is beneficial?
Does Stockfish's testing framework get the new engine to play the old engine many times in a match? Since Stockfish thinks on each move according to a time limit (and not a depth limit, which gives a deterministic amount of calculation), randomness in the OS' speed affects the engine's performance. This means that the match result could be more determined by randomness in the OS than by the incremental change made to Stockfish, causing the new engine to lose.

I'm working on my own engine with this testing framework, and I've found this to be a problem. Are there any other testing frameworks for engines that aren't subject to how the OS is performing? I also run matches with a depth limit for the engines, but these matches aren't ideal because in some positions an engine needs to calculate more or can get away with calculating less.

# Answer
Disclaimer: not an expert.

As I understand the so-called "Fishtesting", you write a patch and submit it to the queue. The system then plays your patch against the previous engine at short time controls. Very many games are played (this is why computing power is needed to improve your engine). If the patch proves to be stronger at short time controls, another test is performed and longer time controls, and if the patch passes again then it's promoted to become the main version.

Example: this patch. You can see the user submitting the patch is "protonspring", and he was trying to simplify the passed pawns code. Fishtesting played the new patch against the old version 5451 times, with a result of 20.1% wins, 23.3% losses, and 56.5% draws. The new patch is inferior, so it's rejected. As you can see from the Fishtest main page, most patches fail.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: engines, stockfish
---


# Question
Title: What does "TPR" mean in chess tournament reports?
I usually find in reports like this (and many others) something like:

> ... with a **TPR** of 2551 ...

I would like to know its meaning, and also what it stands for.

# Answer
It means Tournament Performance Rating.

Very roughly a TPR of 2551 means that the results this player has achieved in this tournament would have been expected of a player rated 2551.

That's always a bit problematic. Say you scored 100% against a group of 1500 players, what kind of player would have expected to score that? Well, a 1900 player probably, but also a 2800 player. And many methods make your TPR go down if you win against a much lower rated player, because they are based on the average rating of your opponents. But it's a rough measure of how well a player did.

There exist various methods to calculate it that I don't have time now to go into now.
> 23 votes

# Answer
"Tournament performance rating". An approximate measure of the strength that a player performed/played at in the tournament.

The calculation of such a performance rating varies, but one method is as follows:

* If you beat someone at rating X, your performance for that game is X + 400.
* If you lose to this person, your performance for that game is X - 400.
* If you draw this game, your performance for that game is X.

Then the tournament performance rating is calculated by taking the average performance out of all your games.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament
---


title: Why does lichess ban players?

text:
# Question
Title: Why does lichess ban players?
Few days ago I was watching a game review on lichess and found out one of the player's account was banned. Any idea why lichess does that?

# Answer
First of all, lichess rarely *bans* players. What they usually do is flag their profile (usually for using chess computer assistance), remove their rating, and prevent them from p laying in tournaments and/or rating games. This is not a full ban.

To answer your question:

Lichess flags players for a variety of reasons, but (as mentioned above) they usually flag players for using chess computer assistance. They may also be flagged for sandbagging - artificially increasing or decreasing their rating.

If you want to know why are particular player was flagged, check their profile. There should be a large red banner informing you what has happened.

If you are wondering how the process of reporting/flagging players works, that would be a separate question.
> 11 votes

# Answer
The two main reasons:

* Lichess detected that the player was very likely cheating.
* The player used profanity or broke some rule of conduct.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: lichess
---


# Question
Title: Making the giuoco piano interesting as white
Does anyone have advice to give against the giuoco piano ? I find this opening boring for white after 3... Bc5 and I'd like to find a way to keep playing the italian without risking to play a boring game. I know the Evan's gambit, but I'd rather develop a repertoire on openings I can comprehend instead of relying on preparation. I'm looking for sharper lines that don't require sacrifices a computer or theorician would consider unsound. Would you recommend, 4. O-O, d3, c3, Nc3, or do I have to avoid the italian game completely ? That would be a shame because I enjoy playing against all other replies.

# Answer
> 2 votes
What about slow plan (1.e4, Nf3, Bc4, d3, c3, 0-0, Nd2), then depending on what the opponent does, you can play d4 or move the knight on d2 -\> f1 -\> g3 (and potentially f5) and make something happen on the king side.

# Answer
> 0 votes
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4

First: Giuoco piano translates to "quiet game" so you have an odd expectation. There are plenty of ways to make it sharp however. You mentioned the Evan's gambit, but there is also the 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 gambit (which I played a ton of as a kid, but the name escapes me).

---
Tags: italian-game
---


title: Knight to h5 in the london system

text:
# Question
Title: Knight to h5 in the london system
In the London system, white wants to keep their dark squared bishop, Therefore after say `1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4`, black can play `3...Nh5`, doesn't it break white's position?

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Nh5

```

# Answer
The bishop is pretty decent on g5 as well.

So after 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Nh5 4.Bg5 and now black would have to create serious weaknesses on the kingside to hunt down the bishop. But if he just returns the knight, he has lost a tempo.

```
[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Nh5 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Nxg3 7.hxg3

```
> 10 votes

# Answer
An alternative is to play the move order 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3, preventing Nh5. Next, you can play 4.Nf3 or 4.c4.
> 1 votes

# Answer
That's funny, White's position is broken after only 3 moves.

3...Nh5? Costs a tempo. I can play 5.Qd2 **overprotecting** the *strong* points d4 and f4, e.g. 4.e3 Nxf4 5.exf4.

Broken means injured...

And injured means weak.

A position is not broken if there's no weakness.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, london-system
---


# Question
Title: A digital tree (with annotations) of all chess opening moves discovered by theoreticians
I am looking for a tree of sorts, like the one of Chessmaster XI, but with deeper analysis, like why is this move good.

For example, e4 gets the center, with the idea of opening the bishop. e5 comss.with the same idea, and go as far as 30 moves in theoretical lines such as the Najdorf with ideas behind them.

So a compilation of opening theory in digital format, of everything, including new developements.

For MCO, I am looking for a digital software that can fully explore it, like a ChessBase Tree.

# Answer
> 8 votes
Did you ever find a tree like this? I have a Chessmaster file that I have created that documents every move of every named opening line recognized by the program. Yes, it took me ten years and spanned 4 computers and probably 5 versions of ChessMaster to complete...and yes, I do account for transitions...its very awkward to use sometimes when stepping through successive transistions because its sort of a manual process. Here are some screen shots...oh, and at the end of every opening line, I analyzed the final position, scored it, and walked the score back to the previous branch...I did this for every position where there are several candidate moves, all the way back to the starting position of the game...the first screenshot shows that result. The second screen shot shows a position a few moves in (Note the references to possible transitions). The third screen shot shows one of hundreds of thousand of ending positions I had chessmaster analyse

The .CMG file is 30 megabytes and I continue to expand it by adding in all the non-book moves I've encounted and explored as well...Sadly, I believe the file is actually reaching the limits set by the program and lately I've been losing work because the latest file I save frequently becomes corrupted and unusable (I back it up every few edits however, then back up the backup every few days). But still there have been times where I have lost weeks of analysis and added chesslines.

Therefore, I'm looking for a new platform to migrate all this work to and to continue this project on a modern platform. the .CMG format is probably 30+ years old now! Definitely could be improved!

# Answer
> 7 votes
The tree you describe here is the dream of every chess player. Unfortunately, there are only such trees (with moves explained, if the moves are not explained what you are asking for is the Opening Encyclopedia) on very concrete openings and with very little depth, and they almost never contain annotations explaining the moves, as they are used only for reference. The reason of the little depth is that opening theory is evolving at every top game, as discussed on this question. Thus, making such compilation including new developments is something that I can assure you, it does not exist.

What you can do is have a look at the book series "Move by move" by Everyman. You can find some of the books here, with a little description and what the aim of the series is. These series **do** present a compilation of certain lines (not all, as this would occupy several Chess Informant monographs) with every move explained. This is not the usual approach to opening theory, and one of the reasons that these series are popular.

Despite not being an opening book, the title "Logical chess: move by move" by Irving Chernev features the exact same comments that you made about the two opening moves. Here he covers several (full) games, from opening to endgame, and every single move has annotations of the same style that you ask for. It is a classic and an outstanding book, both for amateur and to club player.

---
Tags: opening, software, theory
---


# Question
Title: What are the similarities and differences in pawn Structure from the Scandinavian and the Caro-Kann?
It seems both openings have the Capablanca Pawn Structure with c6 and e6

I'm curious about where the similarities stop and what are the optimal pawn breaks.

# Answer
The pawn structure in the Caro-Kann Classical Variation and the Scandinavian can be the exact same. The optimal pawn breaks are either pushing the c6 pawn to c5 or pushing the e6 pawn to e5. The differences are in the positions of the pieces, which is why far more people play the Caro-Kann than the Scandinavian. In the Scandinavian, black spends many tempi moving their Queen around, giving white time clamp down on these possible pawn breaks.
> 6 votes

# Answer
The pawn structures are the same, which means the typical pawn breaks are also the same. Black often tries for ...c5 and sometimes ...e5, while White always has a thematic d5 break in mind.

However, in the Scandinavian Black must waste a few tempi moving his queen. This means that White's plan more often involves early attacks as opposed to the Caro-kann.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, pawn-structure, caro-kann, scandinavian-defense
---


title: Why do top GM's "retire" from chess?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do top GM's "retire" from chess?
After Kramnik's recent announcement, Nakamura also said in a chess.com interview that he will retire from chess at age 40.

I am curious why a super GM feels the need to "officially retire" from chess (or a format of chess). Why not just stop playing but keep the door open for future events? Who knows, maybe you'll feel different after a break.

To be clear, I am not asking for speculations specific to Kramnik or Naka's mindset. I want to know what concrete, practical reasons there may be for a top GM to announce retirement, like sponsorship or contractual reasons as an example.

Update based on comments and whoever voted to close: I'm specifically *not* asking for guesses or opinions, but for insight from someone who have knowledge of a super GM's unique situation (be it legal, social, practical or otherwise) to elaborate why it is beneficial to announce retirement rather than simply stop playing.

# Answer
I don't know about the practical reasons that you suggest, but I imagine retirement is a way to tell your fans and the world "stop bugging me!". :-) Super-GMs probably retire when they feel they are past their peak and would rather retire at the top of their game than have the world see them decline.

That said, retirement is not irreversible! For example look at Kasparov, who "retired" in 2005 and yet has reappeared in tournaments from time to time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry\_Kasparov#Retirement\_from\_chess.
> 5 votes

# Answer
It's like any other profession. For example, just because someone retires from working as a software developer doesn't mean they can't do programming anymore. It's just that their official line of work won't involve software development anymore.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: super-grandmaster, careers
---


title: Chess GUI recommendation for linux

text:
# Question
Title: Chess GUI recommendation for linux
Which chess GUI will be good for Linux. I have tried a lot of GUI's, but as I am new at computer chess, I have no idea about pros and cons of chess GUI's.

Which is chess GUI will you recommend? Is that free? Is that opensource?

# Answer
I used http://www.pychess.org/download/ and https://sourceforge.net/projects/scidvspc/.

Linux chess applications are generally free and open source.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: software, online-chess, computer-chess, online, linux
---


# Question
Title: Which is the most popular and crowded chess server?
Which is the most popular and crowded chess server? I'm new at computer chess, and want to start playing at servers, but I do not understand where I have to play.

I am hearing about freechess, chessclub, lichess, chess.com.

How do I play in chess servers? Will I use a GUI or will I play directly in the browser. How do the professionals play?

Mention that, I like free and open-source things.

# Answer
Lichess has everything you need. Free and open source. It's the second or third popular website after chess.com (possibly chess24 not sure). Many strong players. No installation as it’s a web app.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Fide is the federation site for international chess and their Arena site allows you to play online and even win titles like Arena Grand Master (AGM). It has resources and links to sites. It has statistics and world position lists of all rated players and is responsible for the chess Olympiad held every 2 years where countries compete. You can't become a Grandmaster unless fide rates you above a threshold
> 0 votes

---
Tags: software, online-chess, computer-chess, online
---


# Question
Title: In the middlegame, can one avoid compromising the balance one's opening has achieved?
A polite duplicate asked last week by @57Jimmy mentions an incidental matter I find interesting:

> But when all the pieces are out, well placed, and I have castled, I have no idea about what I should do next. It might sound silly, but I feel that everything would compromise the balance I have just created.

Here, @57Jimmy does not refer to a particular game of chess but speaks of the transition from the opening to the middlegame in chess generally. I, too, have sometimes felt the same way. Perhaps some chess masters, maybe including the late world champion Petrosian, have felt this way, too.

Admittedly, it is not easy to distill a focused *question* out of @57Jimmy's interesting observation but the observation is sufficiently interesting (at least to me) that I shall try.

Question: how does chess reward or punish players who, going from the opening into the middlegame, seek to maintain the balance to which @57Jimmy refers?

I will give my own answer below but am more interested in answers others might give.

# Answer
From an objective/theoretical standpoint, a player is "allowed" to disrupt the balance if he already has some kind of advantage (material, more development, etc). Such a disruption allows him to transform his existing advantage into another type of advantage. For example, if you have a development advantage, it's often beneficial to aggressively break through in the centre as a means of creating an attack.

But if the game is equal, one does not have the means to disrupt the balance (again, purely from an objective standpoint), and maintaining the balance is recommended.

However, trying to play idly is *not* equivalent to maintaining the balance. Playing idly is punished by chess, unless one's position is so rock solid that such passive play is permitted. The term "balance" means both players' advantages and disadvantages cancel out nicely to yield an equal game. Carrying out a plan and even changing the structure of the game is recommended, *since it doesn't necessarily try to unbalance the game*.

**TL;DR**: Chess usually punishes players who passively try to keep the game from changing. But chess also punishes players who try to disrupt the balance without just cause (i.e., some advantage). Going with the natural flow of the game will change things, but also keep the game in balance.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The first chapter of Axel Smith's *Pump Up Your Rating* is named **No Pawn Lever, No Plan**, and he hit the bull's eye with that title. Plans come out of pawn structure and are usually about implementing one of the possible pawn levers in the position (it's when you move a pawn to square where it can be captured by an opposing pawn; also called a pawn break).

> But when all the pieces are out, well placed, and I have castled, I have no idea about what I should do next.

Says nothing about the pawns. Or about any of the opponent's pieces, for that matter.

That "balance" is a red herring. If you have no plan, then how do you know your pieces are well placed. First decide what you should be trying to achieve, then see where to place your pieces. Including in the early opening.

Most classical openings try to achieve the e4/d4 pawn center, so 1.e4 and 1.d4 are the most important first moves. After 1.e4 e5, the most important plans are about pawn breaks -- achieving a favourable d2-d4 (with or without playing c2-c3 first) or f2-f4. Often the pieces are moved out first because of all sorts of details, but the goal is always to attack pawn e5 with a white pawn.

Similarly 1.d4 d5 2.c4 has always been the most important reply to the Queen's Gambit (2.e4 is less good because of tactical reasons, it can't be easily recaptured, but the *idea* logical), while 1.d4 d5 openings without either have a stodgy reputation as it takes so long for the action to really start.

The beginner advice about developing your pieces, castling early etc is important, but they should have been told at the same time to try to achieve pawn breaks.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Yes! While openings tend to be positional play for both sides such as following basics for eg developing pieces and controlling the centre, the middle game is tactically played with much more room for making detrimental errors though usually not with one move. Balance is not about how the pieces look on the 64 squares after the opening has ended but how each player commands it's army thereafter. Aggressive play on one side and safe play on the other can mean the difference between a match ending in the middle game or reaching the end.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Chess is a finely balanced game. During the early opening, one can seldom deploy sufficient force to stop one's opponent from building a balanced position of defense and attack. Nevertheless, tension gradually builds into the middlegame. In most games, eventually, the tension will overbear a defense's ability to resist.

However, the balance is subtle. Defense does indeed often prosper for a while, which is why players tend to prefer early moves that both defend and attack. Nevertheless, middlegames can suddenly explode defenses and, even when middlegames do not explode, they do tend to erode defenses bit by bit.

Consider: pieces are exchanged, leaving defensive squares one can no longer cover. Pawns too are exchanged, exposing both positions to attacks that are more direct. Opening balance can be a good feeling but you can't hold it. Not quite.

And this is part of the mystique of chess, isn't it?

Therefore, you want a slightly different feeling in chess. Defend, surely. Seek opening balance to a point, but, as the middlegame emerges, recognize when the time has come to discharge one's own balance via an attack that disrupts the opponent's balance. Experience suggests that this is the sort of approach that chess most often rewards.

Much of chess is in knowing when to commit to the attack. Not too late.

**EXCEPTION**

A fairly rare exception exists. Occasionally, diagonal chains of pawns will interlock in the center, particularly in games that begin 1. d4. The interlock can force play out onto the wings. If the interlock forces both players out onto the same wing, then a type of position can arise in which some or all of the heavy pieces have been exchanged and in which the knights and bishops, which remain, are more effective in defense than attack.

But you won't see many games like this.

**EXAMPLE**

Here is an example of the more common kind of game, a game in which, recognizing that defense cannot indefinitely hold, the opponents discharge the tension and commit to the attack. (Black is a strong grandmaster. White is a onetime world champion.)

```
[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "14"]
[title "V. Kramnik v. M. V. Krasenkow, Corus 2003"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 a6 6. Bb3 O-O 7. O-O d5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. h3 Nb6 10. Re1 h6 11. Nbd2 Qxd3 12. Nxe5 Qg3 13. Qf3 Qxf3 14. Ndxf3 Ne7 15. Nd3 Bd6 16. Bf4 Ng6 17. Bxd6 cxd6 18. Re4 a5 19. Rd4 Rd8 20. Rd1 d5 21. Nc5 Ne7 22. a4 Re8 23. R4d2 Nd7 24. Nxd7 Bxd7 25. c4 dxc4 26. Rxd7 cxb3 27. Rxb7 Rab8 28. Rdd7 Nc6 29. Rxf7 Rxb7 30. Rxb7 Re4 31. Rxb3 Rxa4 32. Rb6 Rc4 33. g3 a4 34. h4 Nd4 35. Ne5 Rc5 36. Rb8+ Kh7 37. Nd7 Rb5 38. Ra8 Ne2+ 39. Kg2 Rxb2 40. h5 Nc3 41. Ne5 Rb5 42. f4 Ne4 43. g4 Nf6 44. Ng6 Ng8 45. Nf8+ Kh8 46. Ng6+ Kh7 47. Kf3 Rb3+ 48. Ke4 a3 49. Nf8+ Kh8 50. Ng6+ Kh7 51. g5 hxg5 52. fxg5 Rb4+ 53. Kf5 Rb5+ 54. Kg4 Rb4+ 55. Kf5 Rb5+ 56. Kg4 Rb4+ 57. Nf4 a2 58. Rxa2 Ne7 59. Ra8 Ng8 60. Ra7 Kh8 61. Ra8 Kh7 62. Rf8 Kh8 63. Kf3 Rb3+ 64. Ke4 Rb4+ 65. Ke5 Rb5+ 66. Nd5 Ra5 67. Rd8 Kh7 68. g6+ Kh8 69. h6 Ra7 70. Ne3 gxh6 71. Nf5 Ra5+ 72. Kf4 Ra4+ 73. Kf3 Ra3+ 74. Kg4 Ra4+ 75. Kh5 Ra7 76. Rf8 Rb7 77. Kh4 Rb4+ 78. Kg3 Rb6 79. Ne7 Kg7 80. Rf7+ 1-0

```

(Source: chessgames.com.)
> 0 votes

---
Tags: strategy, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: What was the first chess engine that could beat the world champion on a standard desktop?
What was the first chess engine that could beat the world chess champion when running on a standard desktop playing at standard speeds (i.e. not blitz chess)? For concreteness, say a $1000 PC.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy.

> In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18 plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics; it won 4–2.\[31\]\[32\]

<sup>(source)</sup>

# Answer
> 8 votes
A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question.

Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, *could* have beat Kasparov. But we never saw such a match happen so it's just speculation to say any earlier engine than Deep Blue.

---
Tags: engines, human-versus-machine
---


title: Master blindfold chess in 6 months

text:
# Question
Title: Master blindfold chess in 6 months
I want to be able to play entire games blindfolded, atleast at the strength that I can win against beginner players. My current ELO is around 1800. I usually manage to play ok moves up to move 20, after that I struggle to see the position clearly, and have a hard time finding moves at all.

Is 6 months a reasonably timeline to expect substantial improvements? What would a good strategy be to achieve this goal?

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you spent roughly an hour a day for 6 months, then it's absolutely reasonable at your playing strength. The only chess-related thing you have to do is just practice playing blindfolded. Gradually it'll become more natural.

You could also do exercises for improving your overall memory (so not just related to chess). Such exercises are outside the scope of this community, but I'm sure you can find many online.

---
Tags: blindfold-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why might this supervised engine make mistakes based on an example game?
I am developing in my free time a python-based supervised chess engine. It is trained on past games to detect who wins (only games without draw), then it proceeds as follows:

1) find the top 4 moves based on static evaluation

2) search until depth four with minimax-algorithm

3) evaluation = 1/2 \*( probability of white winning the game + probability based on the material difference)

The first probability is based on supervised learning. I play occasionally chess and when I played on Xboard against this engine, then me and the engine make mistakes. I wanted to ask you, based on your experience if you could look at one game (me=white, engine = black) and maybe find some explanation for the mistakes the engine makes or even maybe suggest an approximate elo of the engine, if this is possible with only one game?

Thanks for your help.(I am not sure how to correctly tag this question)

```
[fen ""]
1. d4 Nc6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bb5 Nxe4 6. Qd3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Bd6 8. Bxc6 dxc6 9. O-O f5 10. Bg5 Be7 11. h4 Qd6 12. Bxe7 Kxe7 13. Ng5 h6 14. Nf3 Bd7 15. c4 c5 16. Rab1 Bc6 17. Ne5 cxd4 18. Ng6+ Kf7 19. Nxh8+ Rxh8 20. Rb4 Be4 21. Qa3 a5 22. Qxa5 b6 23. Qa3 Ra8 24. Qb3 Bxc2 25. Qb2 Be4 26. c5 Qxc5 27. Rb5 Qc4 28. Qb3 Qxb3 29. axb3 Ke7 30. Rc1 c6 31. Rxb6 f4 32. f3 Bd5 33. Rb7+ Kf8 34. b4 Kg8 35. Rd1 c5 36. Rc7 Bb3 37. Rd2 Ra1+ 38. Kh2 cxb4 39. Rxd4 Bd5 40. Rxb4 Bxf3 41. gxf3 Ra2+ 42. Kh3 Rd2 43. Rc8+ Kh7 44. Rbc4 Kg6 45. Rxf4 e5 46. Re4 Kf6 47. Re8 Rd4 48. R4xe5 Kg6 49. R5e6+ Kh7 50. R6e7 Kg6 51. Rg8 Kf5 52. Rexg7 Ke5 53. Rh7 Rd2 54. Rxh6 Kf4 55. Rf8+ Ke3 56. Re6+ Kd4 57. Rd8+ Kc3 58. Rc8+ Kb3 59. Rb6+ Ka3 60. Ra8# *

```

# Answer
Well done for your engine. I think a positional mistake was `9...f5`. It weakened the king position, and without any compensation in return. The move also seriously made the e5 square weak.

Why your engine didn't make a simpler `9...h6`? Probably, your engine put too much focus onto material differences into your NN network? You'll have to spend some time on debugging. Your engine needed better understanding of king's safety. Your search depth was also too low.

I estimate `FIDE 1600` for your engine.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone recommend a Chess platform that, well, you better read further
I thought I might take a minute to share a project I started about 20 years ago.

Essentially, I used my ChessMaster program to make a "Chess Explorer".

In 1998, I noticed I could add notes into the annotation window for each chess position displayed in the game. After toying around with several ideas for a few months, I decided I wanted to document every variation of the Ruy Lopez, score each variation with the Chessmaster analysis engine, then record each score at the end of the line using the player annotation window.

Then, I'd take that score, bring it forward however many moves to the previous point in the opening where a particular line branched off and compare that score with the scores of all the other candidate branches stemming from that position for which I'd also analysed and recorded the score.

At each of these positions where the opening could branch to one variation or another, I'd then sort each candidate line based on the score, going from best to worst. Initially, I only did this for "White to move", and ignored the windows displayed for "Black to move".

I soon realized that it'd be cool to be able to use it for Black, as well. Then, some time later (probably a few weeks or more), I discovered that the Caro variation of the Lopez can transpose into the Steinitz at move 6 and this increased the complexity of my endeavor because I knew I'd have to make note of this transposition, record the score from that branch in the window where the transposition was possible - and that I'd need to do this for all transpositions in the Ruy.

Well, to make a long story short, the scope of my task exploded over the years until I finally accepted to fact that I could not analyse just a single opening. I could not ignore the relevant transpositions. Nor could I only consider the game from the perspective of only one color.

Indeed, I had to analyze and compare *every* named opening, note *all* relevant transpositions and do this from the perspective of both Black and White. I'd have to compare all those lines and branches to one another, condense each result into the annotation window and bring the results of each comparison forward to the previous branch in the line. I did this for every named opening until I reached the starting position of the game.

It took 10 years, give or take.

When I was finished and had just hit the "save" button for what I thought would be the last time, I instantly realized that I also needed to include all credible moves, and not just the ones in named openings.

No time to rest!

As to this task, I have not finished and don't expect that I ever will. Not in this life, anyway.

Here's a screenshot of the starting position, so far, comparing every opening move with every other move, and representing what effectively is 20 years of composite computer chess analysis.

Sadly, as the .CMG file containing all this information grows, it appears to be reaching the limits of the Chessmaster program. I started with ChessMaster 7000, upgrading at each new release, and I'm currently using GrandMaster Edition. I save the file every few edits, and backup the backups, but there have been a few times where I have lost weeks of work because of corrupted files probably resulting from broaching the limits of the program or a momentary shortfall of system resources during a save.

Here's a few more screen shots:

This is a position (Move 3, White to move) in the Bogo-Indian comparing three named candidate variations. Note that one is a transposition to the Three Knights Variation of the Nimzo-Indian.

The "\*1" within the name of the line directs you to a note concerning the transposition. The note tells which move order to use to see the continuation. In other words, if I were to simply play Nc3 here, the following screen results:

Playing Nc3 here and transposing directly to the other line shows a blank annotation window. This is because in order to avoid analyzing the same exact position more than once, I use this system of redirects instead and analyze a position only once. Here's a screenshot of the Nimzo at the point just before (White to move) the Bogo can transpose into it:

Note that instead of an asterisk (\*1) in the reference, I use a "#" along with a number to keep the references straight. \*'s I use to *point to* the move sequence where the line continuation is documented, and #'s indicate that another line *transposes into* the current point and that the referenced line *is dependent* upon the following continuation. This is necessary so that when I expand the main line with new analysis, I know where to go and update all the dependent transpositions as well.

And then the Main line continues with 4.Nf3:

Now, I'm looking to migrate my opening "explorer" to something more user friendly. It is pretty awkward to actually use in positions where lines transpose like a game of ping-pong at every other move. This is in addition to the fact that it looks like I am reaching the limits of the ChessMaster platform.

But on the whole, it works surprisingly well for a something I started 20 years ago. Does anyone have any suggestions?

What I'm looking for is as follows:

1.) Position navigation similar to what 365chess.com offers (link based?), showing chessboard position as you step through the moves, ability to add candidate moves, and an editable annotation window for each position.

2.) Recognizes and seamlessly accounts for transitions. For example, when I arrive at the position 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4, it shows the annotations and notes for the same position arrived at by the more common move sequence, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3. When I edit new notes, those notes show up for unique position no matter which move order is used to get there.

3.) Ability to analyze each position with imported chess engines...this is probably standard on most programs, but I'm not too familiar with the process.

4.) I'm not interested in Win/Loss percentages like what is displayed at 365Chess.com, but I have noticed that 365 has recently added the results of engine analysis, displaying chess "score" along with depth of analysis. Obviously, the position score is fundamental to my needs, but also the search depth is necessary. My current platform does indeed record search depth/ply information along with score.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Man, you should have found Bookup way back when. That program is (I think) from about the same time period as when Chessmaster came out, and its development was entirely motivated by the need to solve these transpositions in opening theory. It started the genre of the chess *position* database (as opposed to game or line databases).

And, to my surprise, I see it's still at least somewhat alive and kicking -- its current home page has links to iOS and Android apps (no idea they existed. Edit: they links are broken) and to its old home page which also doesn't look all that old.

But a long time ago Bookup seemed not developed anymore, and someone started Chess Position Trainer. It's not that stable but it's useable. It's not quite as fanatical about finding transpositions as Bookup is, in return for more options for repertoires and spaced repetition training.

Then came the online Chessable which I was hoping to be an online version of Bookup (this sort of endeavour should really be cooperative, shouldn't it?) but they went in the direction of being online chess opening ebooks, focusing their databases on *lines*, not *positions*.

There is also generic chess database software like Chessbase or Scid, but in my experience they are only good at detecting transpositions within the main game, but not if a position has already occurred in an analysis sideline of another game. That means you'd have to store all the analysis as separate games (without sidelines). That becomes infeasable very quickly.

So if those Bookup apps are real modern versions of what Bookup was, then that's exactly what you need. Edit: Or if they aren't, then CPT or the old version of Bookup I guess.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Update - I purchased Chessbase and am currently exploring this program as a candidate on which to continue this work.

---
Tags: opening, engines, theory
---


# Question
Title: Punishing player for indicating moves to other team players
I am arbiter myself, but I don't know how to treat player in team matches who try to indicate other players of their team what move to play in position they are in. If they won their game I might first warn them and at the second time lower their score to 1/2 (to 0 in case of a draw), but if they lose their game, there is no way one can punish them. They have literally nothing to lose. According to FIDE rules, they become a spectator one can only exclude from the room. And even in that case, nothing can stop them just to not care and stay anyway. For the refference, we're talking about low contest, like regional once where most of the time the arbiter is actually a player of one team as well.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is, quite obviously, cheating. I'm going to assume that the teammate isn't asking for help, and the guy is just blurting it out. (Otherwise a forfeit would be a given.) But even if the teammate doesn't want the advice and is doing nothing wrong, it's still extremely unfair to his opponent.

According to the FIDE Anti-Cheating Guidelines:

> In a Team event, the team of the offending player shall be excluded from the final rankings. The results for the opposing teams shall remain unchanged. Each of the offender’s games shall be considered a loss, but the score for the opponent shall remain unchanged. All games shall be reported as unplayed.

The prospect of *all* of the player's games being considered losses and the team being removed from the event ranking is probably enough to deter this behavior. In addition, this counts as a breach of the FIDE Code of Ethics, and the player could be suspended from FIDE events if they are reported to, and found guilty by, the Ethics Committee.

If that still isn't enough to deter them, there's another option. According to the FIDE Laws of Chess 11.3.1, players are forbidden to "use" advice. You could, I believe, inform the teammate that playing the suggested move would be considered "using" the advice and could incur the penalty of a forfeit. Although rule 12.9 does not list forbidding a move as a possible penalty, this restriction is not really intended as a penalty against the teammate (who has not done anything wrong himself at this point) - it's simply an attempt to restore fairness to a game which was interfered with. It's not appropriate in all situations, either.

Prohibiting the suggested move in this situation is specifically contemplated under USCF rule 20E2 regarding unsolicited advice. Other options under this USCF rule include declaring the game a draw, or forfeiting the game on the grounds that advice from a teammate can automatically be presumed solicited.

# Answer
> 5 votes
In a low contest regional type tournament, I'm assuming you don't have to abide by FIDE or USCF rules. Given this, I would suggest the following:

1. Warn them the first time you see this happening. Say that the next time you see this anytime in the rest of the tournament, their team loses whatever current match they're playing. So not only does one player lose a game, but their whole team forfeits the entire match.
2. Enforce your ultimatum from step 1 if you see them cheating again.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Assuming that the player in the ongoing game did nothing wrong (did not speak to team members about the game) and a spectator team mate just shouts a move, there is unfortunately not much you can do in the moment, apart from removing the spectator from the room. The player did nothing wrong, and you are only the arbiter of the current match, not of the whole competition. The situation is similar to a normal spectator shouting advice.

You mention lowering their score in their own finished game, but in my opinion that is not allowed by the rules -- their game is already finished and the result is already set, they are spectators.

What you can do is have the *team leader of the other team* lodge a *formal complaint* with the competition organiser. You as the arbiter can write a factual report of what happened, including the name of the team mate, and send it to the organiser along with the official result forms of the match. *They* can issue warnings, match losses, a ban for the player, match point deductions, fines, you name it -- you can't. If this sort of thing is consistently reported, they can also know if it is just this one incident or a regular occurance.

If the spectator refuses to leave the playing area after being told to do so, you have bigger problems. I would abort the whole match at that point, write a report to the competition organisation and argue for a 8-0 loss (example) for that team.

---
Tags: rules, cheating, team
---


# Question
Title: "The Art of Planning in Chess: Move by Move" by Neil McDonald review?
I am reading the "Move by Move" books and was curious if anyone had read `"The Art of Planning in Chess: Move by Move" by Neil McDonald`? If so, can you write a simple review on it?

I currently have `"Logical Chess: Move By Move: Every Move Explained"` by `Irving Chernev` and `"Understanding Chess Move by Move"` by `John Nunn`. How does `McDonald's` book relate to `Chernev's` and `Nunn's`

# Answer
> 3 votes
I haven't read it, so I can't review it. But since nobody else is replying, I'll just note that

in case you hadn't found those yourself.

# Answer
> 3 votes
McDonald's "Art of Logical Thinking" is similar to the Chernev book since it has verbal explanation of pretty much every move, and is light on long variations.

The "Planning" book is more typical of chess books generally in that McDonald doesn't bother explaining many of the moves, figuring that his higher-rated audience would find the extra verbiage tedious and distracting. Also, long variations are sometimes provided.

Personally, I always prefer more verbal explanations, but those kind of books are relatively rare.

The Nunn book is for higher-rated players and is heavy on long variations, requiring a lot of work on the part of the reader.

---
Tags: learning, books
---