title: What can I play against 1.d4?

text:
# Question
Title: What can I play against 1.d4?
I've been playing chess for some time and I've studied lots of theory, but I don't know what to play against `1. d4`. I'm searching for something with good chances for black but without much theory.

Note: If someone has some videos or theory on Chigorin that would work really fine.

# Answer
Unfortunately for you, there is no such opening.

You see, the problem with `1.d4` is that `d` pawn is **protected from the very start**, unlike his "colleague" `e` pawn. While it is possible to cut down on theory learning against `1.e4` by simply attacking the `e` pawn ( *Alekhine's defense*, *Scandinavian defense*, *Petroff defense* in a way ) thus **forcing White's response**, you can not use the same method against `1.d4` since the pawn is protected as I mentioned earlier.

So your only chance is to find an opening that has the least amount of theory to learn, but be warned--all good defenses against `1.d4` have lots of theory worked out to move 30 and sometimes beyond. Just because the number of branches is small does not mean that the sub-variations are short.

Yet another problem with `1.d4` and **an important one**--I use this all the time to quickly demolish opponents with weak opening knowledge--**most of the good defenses to `1.d4` can be dodged by careful move order transposition!**

Your problem is far more complex because of this. Currently `Nimzo-Indian` scores very well against `1.d4` but can be dodged if White plays `3.Nf3` instead of `3.Nc3`. Then you are forced to adopt `Queen's gambit declined` or `Queen's Indian defense` and both of those openings give slight advantage to White, which severely reduces your chances to win.

`King's Indian defense` still holds but is prone to become "refuted" from time to time, only to be revived again with some great novelty. Still this defense, along with `Queen's gambit declined` does offer you one benefit other defenses do not:

**White can not use transpositional tricks to kick you out of your opening!**

You can play both openings against **anything** White throws at you, whether it is `1.c4`/`1.Nf3` or `1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3/g3` or whatever. Still, if White is a weaker player he can exploit the `King's Indian defense` to exchange early and try to draw--he has good chances to fulfill this goal as things currently stand.

`Queen's gambit declined` is also immune to transpositions and has that benefit that its exchange variation is everything **but a draw!** It leads to some exciting positions and **both opponents** must know what they are doing. It is **highly theoretical** but the number of lines is fairly low. They are **not razor-sharp** but you need to know them or else you will be **"smothered to death"**. Black usually **parries White's threats first, and "shoots" later.** Most of the time you get the king side attack **but it usually draws.** `Queen's gambit declined` lines without the exchange variation are also theoretical, but the number of lines is relatively small there as well.

If we compare `King's Indian defense` and `Queen's gambit declined` then *KID* gives you better winning chances compared to *QGD*, but **you will benefit more as a player** from playing *QGD* since its pawn structure can arise in many other openings ( *Nimzo-Indian*, *Caro-Kann* to name just a few ). Also, *QGD* lines have **withstood the test of time** while *KID* is always in some kind of crisis from time to time.

To make the choice between these two, you should see what type of pawn structures you play against `1.e4` and base your choice on that:

If you play *Caro-Kann/French defense/Alekhine's defense...* then go with the *QGD*, but if you play the *Sicilian/Ruy Lopez/1...e5 in general* then go for *KID* since the pawn structure is similar. That way you will shorten the amount of time you need to learn the opening and its middle-game.

*A SMALL NOTE REGARDING YOUR EDIT:*

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6!? 3.g3!

```

and "bye bye" Chigorin! You will enter a *Catalan* **if you are lucky** or will get smashed by the pressure White's light squared bishop will exert on your center.

If you still need something on *Chigorin defense* seek games of *A.Morozevich*. I think he also wrote a book on the *Chigorin defense* as well-Google and you shall find it!

Still, **be prepared to learn another opening as well** just in case wHite "kicks you out" of Chigorin with the move order I posted above.

*END OF NOTE*

This is my *Achilles heel* as well, and this is what I did to solve it.

If you have questions leave a comment and I will reply.

Hopefully this answer will help you to solve your complex problem.
> 19 votes

# Answer
If you want a variation that is rarely seen but still offers decent positions (depending on the strength of your opponent of course) you can try

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6

```

Yet, if you want good attacking chances, then you can try the Dutch system

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 f5

```

or

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5

```

The Dutch system does contain some theory. At the same time, it can help you land some nice knock-out blows to anyone who does not have a clue what is going on. For example

```
[FEN ""]
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 c6 4.c4 Qa5+ 5.Nc3 g5 6.Bg3 f4

```

Notice how c7-c6 looks passive, yet Qa5+ has the point of vacating the d8-square for the black King, thus enabling g7-g5 without any Qd1-h5 checkmate tricks!
> 5 votes

# Answer
Problem with d-pawn openings is that you won't get away without learning substantial amount of theory.This goes true for every single line from systems like Stonewall and Colle to Queen's Indian Defense. I don't really know of a system which doesn't require the enormous amount theory generally associated with d-pawn openings. Chigorin has very little theory associated with it because it is a an unusual opening and its theory is not very well developed. Here are some suggestions:

> Against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 you can try Albin Counter Gambit (ECO:D08–D09). This is an attempt get out of well developed theoretical lines of Queen's Gambit.(Morozevich is the only one who regularly this variation at Master level.)

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4  e5

```

> If you like tactical positions and imbalances,you could try Modern Benoni(ECO:A60–A79)

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6*

```

> If you are looking for solid positional play,you could try Modern Defense(ECO:B06).(I would recommend this since you can use it against King pawn openings as well)

Note: It is actually categorised Under King Pawn openings.

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7

```

> My personal favorite against Queen's Gambit is Tarrasch Defense(ECO:D32–D34).

```

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5

```

> If any of above openings Doesn't seem appealing , you can try Dutch Defense(ECO:A80–A99).Hikaru Nakamura plays this opening a lot by the way.

```

[FEN "put your fen here but it's optional. You can leave this tag out"]

1. d4 f5 *

```

> I do love King's Indian Defense. But I love smashing it as white(Again you will have to learn ridiculous a lot of theory here.)

Have fun.

A little edit: This is all assuming that you don't want to bolster the position up and go for a draw playing Slav Defense(ECO:D10–D19)(This doesn't help because you must learn almost the same amount of theory you have to learn to play Queen's Gambit Declined).
> 5 votes

# Answer
Of course, the answer is "that depends" :)

If you are less than expert strength, then you will unlikely play much theory, anyway. If you are expert strength and asking this question, congratulations, you have a lot of talent. I highly recommend against memorizing much opening theory until you are expert strength.

What you are likely looking for is an opening that is easy to understand the main ideas.

I would not recommend the Indian defenses. Only the old Indian is relatively easy to understand, but it runs out of gas as you get stronger. Only if you play the Philidor against 1.e4 is the old Indian a good choice.

The Rat `1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5` **would** be a good choice, **but** you have to be ready to play the Philidor, Pirc or Modern if your opponent plays 2.e4 (The Pirc and Modern are extremely hard to understand)

One good choice would be to play the Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA). `1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4` White will get a central pawn majority, black will get development while white works to regain the pawn, and counterplay with a c7-c5 strike.

Another good choice would be the Queens Gambit Declined (QGD). `1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 e6` Black will have a bad light square bishop, but after c7-c6 his position is very solid and hard to crack. Black will work to free his game with an eventual c6-c5 or e6-e5 break. White may free black's light squared bishop with the exchange varation (cxd5 exd5) in order to have more options.

I recommend the Slav with ...Bf5. The Slav threatens to turn the Queen's gambit into a real gambit, by supporting the d5xc4 capture with b7-b5. Black will use the time white spends in regaining the pawn by developing his pieces. A good starting book is "The Slav move by move" by Lakdawala

```

[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4

```

White has to play 5.a4 to prevent b7-b5 holding on to the pawn. If white plays 3.Nc3 you should eventually consider transposing to the QGA with 3...dxc4, as this is a line in which white has a lot of problems.

```

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/8/P1pP4/2N2N2/1P2PPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq a3 0 5"]

5...Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4

```

Black can either castle or play Nbd7 here. One needs to look out for white sacrificing his e-pawn for a kingside attack, but e3-e4 is usually diffused by Bg6 and declining the sacrifice. White has a central pawn majority and the space that goes with it, but black's light square bishop is in the game, and c6-c5 or e6-e5 pawn breaks can strike back at that center.

Playing the Slav will get you interesting games with chances for black, while providing you with lots of good learning experiences.
> 3 votes

# Answer
What is your rating? If it is 1800-2000 FIDE/ 1900-2100 USCF then the Chigorin is a great choice. The best book in my opinion is the misleadingly titled Play 1...Nc6 by Christoph Wisnewski (Scheerer) which recommends the Chigorin and 1...Nc6 against 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 dealing with transpositional play from white (and 1.e4 Nc6). Quite a short book and should be easy to get hold of from Amazon. Good luck! For more info see this thread http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1183569483/165
> 2 votes

# Answer
Actually, what has been written is incredibly misleading. There is a defense to 1. d4 that is forcing. It is 1...e5, The Englund Gambit. Mostly, this defense is played in blitz chess. However, if you know it backwards and forwards as Black, you will give White fits because White barely studies this defense and it can be quite sharp. The only book I've seen written in English is The Englund Gambit by Ken Smith (2360) and John Hall (2456). Just remember, you have to study this defense for it to be effective. If you don't, you'll find yourself trying to find complicated moves on your own, OTB.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Honestly I am surprised that after so many users comments that only KID,QGD,Catalan,Dutch and other defences have been mentioned but few have realised the Power of Semi Slav/Slav Defences .

Slav/Exchange Variation and Semi Slav (Botvinnik/Meran ) are the best counter attacking defences against d4 . Ok true they have huge lengths of theory but if you study them carefully you will find that Black has an mind boggling initiative and White has a hard task to keep Black at bay . You can study Kramnik/Kasparov/Anand games where you would find interesting games and you find yourself getting attracted to these Variations .

One more thing : You might need to learn some side-lines too as you cannot force them to limit in these openings .
> 2 votes

# Answer
My initial reply to d4 is Nf6, because it is "non-committal." (It prevents an immediate e4).

If White plays c4 next, you have several choices. You can play e6, opening a diagonal for the Black squared bishop, and preparing a Queen's Indian or Nimzo-Indian defense without committing to an early d5.

My favorite variation is g6 (Grünfeld), followed by the fianchetto on the third move. I can castle as early as the fourth move. This, plus the advantage of holding my pawns back, may cause White to overextend.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I am a confirmed 1.e4 fan and have also found playing against 1.d4 as black somewhat of a challenge, probably because I so rarely ever play 1,d4 myself (though I do plan to learn the Colle at least and try and play more with 1.d4. I firmly believe it helps in your chess play if you can play openings with both colours!).

Anyway as I usually play 1....e6 against 1.e4 and play the French as Black, I usually play 1.....e6 against 1.d4. If I get lucky white may transpose to a French with 2.d4 but more likely he will play something else and most commonly 2.c4 and head to a Queeen's Gambit of some such!

So after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 I have been playing the English defence with 2...b6. This is quite rare I think and the English defence more usually occurs after 1.c4 (English opening), yet there is scope for transpositions here. I would recommend you try 1.....e6 against 1.d4 and try the English defence. There are lines you need to know in the English defence ie it can be played with or without f5 and you need to be aware of the English defence gambit (this can arise by transposition:1 d4 e6 2 c4 b6 3 e4 Bb7 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 f3 f5 6 ef Nh6!?).

Again after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Black can play 2...f5 and go for a Dutch opening (I'd recommend the Stonewall Dutch which I've recently looked at but not yet played a game with!).

Another interesting try after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 is the Keres defence with 2....Bb4+. I have dabbled with this and it is eminently playable as black (drawback maybe losing your good bishop as black early on).

However you go after 1.d4 e6 2.c4, you should be aware of the classic black defences against 1.d4 especially the Nimzo and BogoIndians (these positions can arise very easily from the Keres defence).

Really I doubt there is one "cure" for black playing against 1.d4. Classically the Kings Indian defence or the NimzoIndian defence have done well for black and you should at least be aware of them. My son (used to be a very strong as a junior player) played the Benko gambit when allowed to and I'd really like to try this myself as it leads to exciting games. I have also played the vonHennigSchara gambit and that is a great way to try bamboozle your opponents. I have also played the Budapest gambit and that is another fun way to play against 1.d4 but maybe these gambits are best in blitz play!

So to summarise: Playing against 1.d4 there are many choices but if you like playing the French defence as black, I'd recommend you play 1.d4 e6 and if the opponent 2.c4 then play 2...b6 and try the English defence but be prepared to be very flexible with it!

I hope that helps a little..and wish you good results against 1.d4. Enjoy :-)
> 1 votes

# Answer
If you like the French as Black against e4, play the Queen's Gambit Declined against d4. It'll lead to similar pawn structures and the closed/semi-closed structures you like against the French.

One thing: watch out for the Exchange QGD. Unlike the French version, it is not the "boring" variation; in fact, the QGD Exchange is probably the critical line for White!
> 1 votes

# Answer
Guh. Theory - theory - theory - you throw that word around like it is a light blanket in a blizzard.

Play something you are comfortable with. If 'theory' you are trying to avoid, run away from the Nimzo-indian, Catalan, Slav, King's Indian.

What is your rating? Do you even know what opening 'theory' is? If you are not 2200+ then it's a moot discussion.
> -3 votes

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


title: Black's 6 move in open Sicilian

text:
# Question
Title: Black's 6 move in open Sicilian
Is moving the Knight to c6 considered a stronger move than the Najdorf pawn to a6?

# Answer
a6 is the Najdorf which is most commonly played and Nc6 is the Richter Rauzer which is not as popular like the Najdorf .

With experience I have seen Players below 2000 ELo level do not play the Richter Rauzer variation and they are unfamiliar with this line . So if you are playing some one below that level you can give a jolt if you play the Richter line .

The common strategy for both lines is that Black will do the minority attack on the Queen side and try playing a d5 break in the Centre in most cases .

There is nothing technically stronger as which one to choose b/w a6 & Nc6 but it depends upon your opponents knowledge and preparation .
> 0 votes

# Answer
You probably mean Najdorf vs Classical variation in Sicilian defense:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 (5... Nc6)

```

Since they're both normal opening lines, you can't say which one is better. This is mostly matter of taste.

On the other hand on the highest level Najdorf is more played (I can't even remember a top game in the Classical variation). That means Najdorf is more trendy now.

It's true that Classical variation is not so attractive any more, because it is deeply analyzed. Najdorf has still a lot to offer...
> 0 votes

# Answer
**"Is moving the Knight to c6 considered a stronger move than the Najdorf pawn to a6"**

You are talking about 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6, instead of 5. ... a6. ...?

If so , as stated, it is a matter of preference and style.

**"It's true that Classical variation is not so attractive any more, because it is deeply analyzed."**

This might be true to a professional, but hardly true to the general chess-playing public patzer you meet in OTB tourneys.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: sicilian-defense, najdorf
---


title: Open Sicilian Defense

text:
# Question
Title: Open Sicilian Defense
Has the dragon variation of the Sicilian defense lost favor to the Najdorf variation? I rarely see a fianchettoed bishop in the Najdorf defense.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The Dragon Variation of Sicilian is complex and difficult to defend sometimes against White's ferocious King side attack. I will recommend Dragon to those Players only who are not timid enough to sacrifice material against activity. Since in Dragon normal theory Black does a Castling with his fianchettoed Bishop & the g6 pawn is hooked to White's h5 pawn sacrifice.

Unlike Najdorf where White also attacks mostly on K-side but Black has equally good chances to attack White on the Q-side since with a6 on move 5th b5 from Black comes faster and dislodges the Knight on c3. In Dragon the attack from Black is somewhat slow compared to Najdorf.

In Najdorf there is one variation where Black does a Fianchetto also. Below is the variation:

```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 g6

```

and with any other move from White like Qf3 or Be2 Black puts his Bishop on g7 .

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: In Nakamura v. Friedel in 2009, (22. Bc1) why did Friedel resign?
After White's 22. Bc1, it seems like responding with Rd2 would keep the game alive for Black. I assume Friedel's a more insightful player than I am. What am I missing? That is, from an experienced player's viewpoint, why do we assume that staying alive with Rd2 is not worth the effort, and how would White be sure to win regardless?

```
[fen ""]
[White "Nakamura"]
[Black "Friedel"]
[Event "US Championship 2009"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Bd3 Be7 9. Nc3 O-O 10. O-O Rb8 11. h3 c5 12. b3 Rb4 13. Re1 Bb7 14. Ba3 Rf4 15. g3 Rd4 16. Nf3 Rd3 17. cxd3 Qd3 18. Ne5 Qf5 19. g4 Qf4 20. d4 Rd8 21. Qe2 Rd4 22. Bc1

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
> After White's 22. Bc1, it seems like responding with Rd2 would keep the game alive for Black.

This is an entirely wrong assumption. Black has no counterplay whatsoever, while White holds the initiative. Being down material, Black has no resources/time to repel the coming attack, nor to organize a defense/counterplay. Because his queen is trapped he will be forced to lose even more material, which will only make things easier for White.

> I assume Friedel's a more insightful player than I am. What am I missing?

```
[Title "Easiest way to win this position as White"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/pb2bppp/5n2/n1p1N3/3r1qP1/1PN4P/P3QP2/R1B1R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Rd2 $8 2.Bxd2 Qb4 $8 3.Nd5! $18 Qa3 ( 3...Qd4 4.Nxe7+ $18 ) 4.Nxe7+ $18

```

With two rooks up, White has an easy task of continuing the mating attack.

> That is, from an experienced player's viewpoint, why do we assume that staying alive with Rd2 is not worth the effort, and how would White be sure to win regardless?

He probably saw the line from the above diagram and decided to resign. Even though you are an inexperienced player, I doubt you would lose that position against the strongest engine on Earth, since Black has no counterplay and will be forced to exchange pieces to prolong the game after which extra rooks will decide. I will give you just one sample line that shows how I would continue as White:

```
[Title "Easiest way to win this position as White"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/pb2bppp/5n2/n1p1N3/3r1qP1/1PN4P/P3QP2/R1B1R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Rd2 $8 2.Bxd2 Qb4 $8 3.Nd5! $18 Qa3 ( 3...Qd4 4.Nxe7+ $18 ) 4.Nxe7+ Kf8 $8 ( 4...Kh8 5.Nxf7# ) 5.Nd7+ Ke8 ( 5...Nxd7 6.Ng6+ Kg8 ( 6...fxg6 7.Qe8# ) ( 6...hxg6 7.Qe8# ) 7.Qe8+ Nf8 8.Qxf8# ) 6.Nxf6+ gxf6 ( 6...Kd8 7.Bxa5+ Qxa5 8.Qd3+ Kc7 9.Qg3+ Kb6 ( 9...Kd8 10.Qd6# ) 10.Qd6+ Kb5 ( 10...Bc6 11.Qxc6# ) 11.a4+ Kb4 ( 11...Qxa4 12.bxa4+ Kb4 ( 12...Ka5 13.Qxc5+ Ka6 14.Qb5# ) 13.Qd2+ Kc4 ( 13...Kb3 14.Re3+ Kc4 15.Qc3# ) 14.Rec1+ Kb3 15.Qc3# ) 12.Qd2+ Kxb3 13.Qd3+ Qc3 ( 13...Kb2 14.Reb1# ) ( 13...Kb4 14.Reb1# ) 14.Reb1# ) ( 6...Kf8 7.Ng6+ fxg6 ( 7...hxg6 8.Qe8# ) 8.Qe8# ) 7.Nd5+ Kd7 ( 7...Kd8 8.Qe8# ) ( 7...Kf8 8.Bh6+ Kg8 9.Qe8# ) 8.Qe8+ Kd6 9.Bf4+ Kxd5 10.Qe4#

```

As you can see, although the number of lines is vast, the attack is straightforward. The only "problem" I had with analyzing this for White was to find **the best check with the queen** so I can keep the lines forcing. I had to spend half an hour calculating all the lines but am sure a player of *Nakamura's* strength would find these in a matter of seconds...

The above lines very instructively illustrate the hopelessness of Black's position, so there is no need for me to add anything else. If you need further help or clarification leave a comment.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 12 votes
22...Rd2 saves the queen, but black is still down a massive amount of material. After white takes the rook on d2, he has two rooks for just a bishop. With such a huge material deficit, there is no possible hope of defending with normal play. The only chance for black would be to have an immediate attack on the king or other very strong compensation, which is not the case in the game. White's king is slightly open, but black has no way to take advantage of it and white can easily cover any threats to his king. Since black has no meaningful way to generate any play to make up for the material, he resigned.

# Answer
> 6 votes
"That is, from an experienced player's viewpoint, why do we assume that staying alive with Rd2 is not worth the effort, and how would White be sure to win regardless?"

I don't want to speak for you but it seems you're getting more at a philosophical question about whether or not to resign than asking about the position.

For an under 1200 section, this position may well be playable. As you get better, though, there are two factors which make you resign more frequently.

The first is that the amount of energy you expend when playing chess goes up as your ability increases. It is very draining to play a slow game as a strong player, particularly when you have a bad position and it may be affecting your mood. In a tournament like the US Championship, the expected points you gain from the time to rest and prepare for your next game following a quick resignation dwarfs the expectation from dragging out a dead lost game. This ties into the second reason:

Anybody decent, and especially not (in 2009) world top-20 GM Hikaru Nakamura, is going to let you get away with anything more than a loss in this position. Black staked everything on an attack which white easily rejected and won a ton of material besides. Playing this game out is just going to make people dislike you.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Rd2 (giggling) is just a move like a computer which will not lose until it has been programmed to resign. There is nothing Black can do except run like a mouse here & there. White is in an extreme dominating position with his Beautiful Knight on e5 making him supreme in the Game. Question is after sacrificing the rook what black can do?

The point of this game is the exchange sacrifice on 16th move Rd3 which does not seem to be correct because white sacrificed his pawns and did not keep his weaknesses intact. He just opened up the position and Black made a tactical mistake and White trapped the queen.

Thanks for bringing this game into concern . A lot of things to learn here .

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, two-knights, italian-game, famous-games
---


# Question
Title: How do chess engines manage time when they play real games?
I was just watching a video on YouTube that analysed a game in between two chess engines. So, chess engines do find good moves but how do they manage their time when they're playing a game ? Is there any algorithm that tells them how much longer they must continue thinking till they make a move, keeping the amount of time left for them in the game in mind ?

# Answer
Possibilities:

* Number of nodes
* Fixed depth
* Fixed time
* Divide a fixed percentage of remaining time
* By the complexity of the position

Let's take a quick look at Stockfish. Briefly, the file timemann.cpp calculates the minimum time allowed for a move. The default minimum time allowed is about 20 seconds.

Later, during the search it does:

```
 // Stop the search if only one legal move is available, or if all
 // of the available time has been used, or if we matched an easyMove
 // from the previous search and just did a fast verification.

 ...

 if (   rootMoves.size() == 1
              || Time.elapsed() > Time.optimum() * unstablePvFactor * improvingFactor / 628
              || (mainThread->easyMovePlayed = doEasyMove, doEasyMove))

```

If the position requires longer thinking (unstable position - `unstablePvFactor`), the engine would extend the search. How long it extend depend on calibrated parameters.

If there is an obvious move (`doEasyMove`), Stockfish plays it immediately.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Tom Kerrigan's simple chess program uses a scheme to just check every 1024 nodes if a certain amount of time has passed

basically there is a function called think that has the following lines which we jump back to when the time is up...stop\_search is set by a function called checkup()

```
/* some code that lets us longjmp back here and return
    from think() when our time is up */
    stop_search = FALSE;
    setjmp(env);
    if (stop_search) {

        /* make sure to take back the line we were searching */
        while (ply)
            takeback();
        return;
    }
    start_time = get_ms();
    stop_time = start_time + max_time;
    ply = 0;
    nodes = 0;

```

the following lines are part of the search function that gets called by think()

```
/* do some housekeeping every 1024 nodes */
if ((nodes & 1023) == 0)
    checkup();

```

You can see that search() calls checkup() every 1024 nodes. In a more complex scheme the think function could dynamically set the amount of time for the searches.

```
void checkup()
{
    /* is the engine's time up? if so, longjmp back to the
       beginning of think() */
    if (get_ms() >= stop_time) {
        stop_search = TRUE;
        longjmp(env, 0);
    }
}

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


# Question
Title: Can anyone explain why Re7 is one of the lines suggested by the computer?
I was analyzing a game and got stuck in this position by Re7 move. I do not want to mention the player's name. As seen in the diagram Bc5 is misleading, but Bd6 is one of the lines. Bd6 is OK, but Re7 seems inexplicable to me. Please anyone can explain??

# Answer
> 4 votes
Protecting bishop for case Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 and having f7 covered is also useful. Calm position, no need to hurry.

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Kasparov's Immortal Game. Flawed? 24...Kb6! Suggest an improvement for White
Kasparov's immortal game vs Topalov is often regarded as one of the best games in chess history.

However, after analyzing it, I find that objectively speaking, Kasparov played some bad moves and got into a slightly worse position. Here, in this position below, Kasparov sacrificed his rook on d4 and Topalov made a mistake by capturing it.

```
    [White "Garry Kasparov"]
    [Black "Veselin Topalov"]
    [FEN "b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3p1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K1RR3 w - - 0 24"]

    1. Rxd4 cxd4 2. Re7+ Kb6 3. Qxd4+ Kxa5 4. b4+ Ka4 5. Qc3 Qxd5 6. Ra7 Bb7
    7. Rxb7 Qc4 8. Qxf6 Kxa3 9. Qxa6+ Kxb4 10. c3+ Kxc3 11. Qa1+ Kd2 12. Qb2+ Kd1
    13. Bf1 Rd2 14. Rd7 Rxd7 15. Bxc4 bxc4 16. Qxh8 Rd3 17. Qa8 c3 18. Qa4+ Ke1
    19. f4 f5 20. Kc1 Rd2 21. Qa7 1-0

```

However, if Topalov had played 24...Kb6! then Kasparov's initiative would have come to nothing.

```
    [White "Garry Kasparov"]
    [Black "Veselin Topalov"]
    [FEN "b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/NppP4/3p1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K1RR3 w - - 0 24"]

    1. Rxd4 Kb6! 2. b4 Qxf4 3. Rxf4 Nxd5 4. Rxf7 cxb4 5. axb4 Nxb4 6. Nb3 Bd5 7. Rf6+
    Nc6 8. f4 Rhf8 9. Rxf8 Rxf8

```

and Black is slightly better.

If we compare this position to the position after move 16, White does seem slightly better.

```
   [White "Garry Kasparov"]
   [Black "Veselin Topalov"]
   [FEN "r3k2r/1b1nqp1p/p1pp1npQ/1p2p3/3PP3/P1N2P2/1PP1N1PP/1K1R1B1R w kq - 0 13"]

```

The question therefore is, where did Kasparov misplay the position? How did he lose his small positional advantage. Where is the improvement for White? Or is White's positional advantage an illusion? Is the position objectively equal or even better for Black?

# Answer
> The question therefore is, where did Kasparov misplay the position?

No, he did not. All the lines give Black equal chances, no matter what move White chose to play.

> How did he lose his small positional advantage.

He did not lose advantage because there was none in the first place. White position just looks "prettier". He **can not** stop the freeing `d5` break, which means that Black will **eventually equalize**.

> Where is the improvement for White?

At this point I see no improvement, but maybe some super computer or creative GM can find one. Time will tell.

> Or is White's positional advantage an illusion?

White has healthier pawn structure, but you do not consider Black's dynamic resources such as **development advantage and active piece placement**. They counterbalance White's healthier pawn structure.

After Black gets `d5` break it all depends if White can punish Black for pushing too many pawns forward. To do that, he need an endgame with better pieces but that will never happen with proper play because Black has better posted and more active pieces.

White does not have an advantage, but his position is "prettier" due to the healthier pawn structure. Again I point out that black has better piece placement, and can liquidate the `d6` backward pawn after which things are unclear.

> Is the position objectively equal or even better for Black?

I will quote Mr.Kasparov himself from *Chess Informant 74* :

```
[fen "2kr3r/1b2qp1p/pn1p1npQ/1pp5/4P3/PNN2P2/1PP3PP/1K1R1B1R w - - 2 16"]

1.Na5 ( 1.a4?! b4 2.a5 bxc3 3.axb6 Nd7=/+ ) 1...d5 2.Nxb7 ( 2.g3 b4∞ ) 2...Kxb7 3.exd5 Nbxd5 4.Nxd5 Nxd5 5.Bd3 f5 6.Rhe1 Qc7 7.Bf1 c4∞

```

Here is the `zip` file that holds **almost every published** analysis of this game, including Kasparov's comments after the game. It was also instructive to go through the comments of top GMs as well as other "lesser players" who used engines for the analysis. Just click on the spinning red box:

## SUMMARY:

Although White has better pawn structure, he is behind in development and his queen is misplaced.

Black does have a backward pawn on `d6` and has compromised his pawn structure on both wings but that is not so bad for him since his pawns **restrict the opposing light pieces**. He has more space on the queenside and a chance to obtain initiative on that part of the board, while his holes on dark squares on the kingside can not be effectively exploited. He has wonderful piece coordination and activity and will achieve the freeing `d5` break, eliminating the weakest piece in his setup, thus achieving full equality.

I evaluate this position as sharp/unclear with equal chances for both sides.

As for Topalov losing this one, you must be aware that Kasparov tried `a3` as a novelty, which probably threw Topalov out of balance a little, so he misplayed it in the end. He was probably in time pressure, or simply lost focus due to calculating all the possibilities in a new position which is always a difficult task. Up until `cxd4?` he played well, even Kasparov had to award exclamation points for some of his moves.

Hopefully this helps. If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.
> 7 votes

# Answer
He didn't play a bad move, as Topalov could have declined the sacrifice, as Kasparov said himself and maybe the game would have ended up a draw. Topalov spent over an hour on the move and reasoned he would be well up on material, so basically he bought it. To borrow from Football Kasparov dropped his shoulder, sold a dummy....
> 0 votes

# Answer
There is some discussion of this position with Kasparov from the Chess24 website:

Kasparov taps So to challenge Carlsen
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: Is there a misuse of the word flanking in My System by Nimzowitch?
Has anyone read the new translation of *My System* by Aaron Nimzowitch published by New in Chess? In it, the word flanking seems to be used to describe both the attack of a piece from the side and from the behind. Up to this point (page 44) Nimzowitch's use of the word flanking is as the attack from the side. When the queen to the 8th rank check skewers the queen he calls it the flanking maneuver. (Page 34) However, here is a case where it means from behind (page 44): "For example, a rook on the 7th rank is attacking the b7 pawn. If now b7-b5 then the move Rb7...the flanking maneuver (this is what Rb7 was) is the strongest form of attack (these are in rising order of importance 1. Frontal, 2. From the side, 3 flanking )..." Am I missing something? Or is this just a problem by the translator?

Also it would be cool if someone could explain how it's better to attack a pawn from the side Rather than from the front. I believe this evaluation is given by Nimzowitch to be true even if the rook isn't on the 7th rank. I mean I would think it's worse to attack from the side since the defense can put a rook behind the pawn and start pushing it. Whereas you can blockade the pawn If you were in front of it.

# Answer
The terms *flanking* and *flanking maneuver* are distinguishably (by a word) different.

The latter refers to *outflanking*, i.e. enveloping the target (a square, an opponent's pawn, or an opponent's piece) so it cannot escape from being controlled or captured.

The maneuver is analogous to a policeman trapping a perpetrator in an alleyway.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, books
---


title: how much time is a pawn worth

text:
# Question
Title: how much time is a pawn worth
In bullet, blitz, and rapid chess having more time than your opponent is an advantage. I'm wondering if there have been any efforts to determine how much of a time advantage a pawn is worth. Or say a knight. Has anyone tried playing machine matches to figure this out? Since I frequently play speed chess this could be good to know. For Example: 1 pawn = 1 minute advantage in 5 min chess; 1 knight = 30 second advantage in bullet; etc.

# Answer
> 6 votes
This is a well known quote about pawns and tempi:

> A pawn is worth three tempi

So a pawn is worth 3 good, developing moves. Given that most games are 40 moves long then for bullet and blitz we have:

* **Bullet**: 1 minute for all moves per side implies 1/40 minute per move, implying a pawn is worth 3/40' = 0.075' = 4.5''
* **Blitz**: 5 minutes for all moves per side implies 5/40 minute per move, implying a pawn is worth 3\*5/40' = 0.375' = 22.5''

This is a rough guide and the value of a pawn varies by position.

# Answer
> 3 votes
**You can't say that generally.** Apart from the fact that your pawn might be of different quality and your opponent might have some compensation for it, there is one other thing that influences the judgement.

I think **the level of players matters most**. One pawn is a different advantage for a club player and for a grandmaster. For example: if two grandmasters are playing a 5-minute blitz, one is pawn up and the other is a minute up (let's say the first player has 3 minutes and the second player 4 minutes), it hasn't such a big significance (extreme case is when the first player is very low on time e. g. 1 minute vs 2 minutes, that is of course something different). At the club level your estimate might be true.

Another important concept is that the ***ratio*** of both times is more important than the ***difference*** between the two times (see the extreme case in the last brackets).

---

If you tried that with computers, you would find out that it almost doesn't matter, because the machines can move almost instantly (again you probably can find some extreme corner cases).

# Answer
> 1 votes
It entirely depends upon the Position that you are playing . Let's assume that it is an end game and your Pawn is on the 7th Rank and about to Queen next move & you have 1 min of time left in the clock . Your Opponent is unable to stop it from Queening and trying to find safe squares . Then your Pawn and time are equally important .

In the initial position you may play gambits such as a Pawn to make your opponent think and gain time on clock . So there is no simple equation which will lead to a concrete evaluation . There can be many different examples where time and piece are directly & indirectly proportional to each other .

# Answer
> 0 votes
Well, at least we know that relinquishing your ability to draw counts as 16% of the opponent's time.

---
Tags: time-control, time-management
---


# Question
Title: What is covered in "Grunfeld Defense: Russian Variations" (1988) by Eric Schiller?
I'm interested in the Russian system of the :

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "10"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d54. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3

```

I'd like to buy a book on this line alone (I'm not interested in books offering other mainlines, as I much prefer the Russian).

That's when I came across *Grunfeld Defense: Russian Variations* (1988) by Eric Schiller for sale on Amazon.

My problem is that I don't know what I'm buying, as there are no reviews, previews, blurb, contents or even number of pages for me to weigh up the benefits of purchasing.

So, my questions are:

1. **What does the book cover?**
2. **Can you provide a review of the book?**
3. **Would you recommend any other resources specifically for the Russian system?**

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is D96/D97 classification - ECO D would be your best bet. It would be comprehensive in variations but in Chess Informant style.

I would add this: Even though Eric Schiller is somewhat known for his error-prone books, this book *is* in it's second edition. I would venture to say that, as far as Schiller books go, it might not be all that bad. It really depends on your playing level. If you are a relatively weak player (say, 1400 rating or less), I'm sure it is fine to get your feet wet using this book. It is important to know how not to play an opening as well as know how to play it. It might be a good jumping off point for the opening. Of course, get an inexpensive used copy if possible.

Good luck!

# Answer
> 0 votes
While I'm unfamiliar with the book, it was published in 1988. A 29 year old opening book it obsolete and shouldn't be studied. There are more recent books on the Grunfeld that cover the Russian variation, albeit from the black side. You could also search for chess videos on that variation.

---
Tags: opening, books, grunfeld-defense
---


# Question
Title: What can you deduce from my performance in different types of chess tactics?
So each day I practice a different tactic. So my tactics training regimen is like this (Chess Tempo)

Day 1:

5 problems - (standard) specific tactical motif (i.e. discovered attack, sacrifice, fork/double attack, etc)

5 problems - blitz

5 problems - mixed

Day 2:

5 problems - (standard) specific mate type

5 problems - "problems I've gotten wrong at least once"

5 problems - standard

And I alternate everyday doing that. I keep a log to record how well I am doing. If over three consecutive runs of the same tactic, I end up scoring a 13 (out of 15) or better, I will up the difficulty by 200 points (right now I have all the specific tactic-type sets limited to 1400-1700). My Chess Tempo standard tactics rating is around 1600.

Right now, I am not even done with one round, but so far I have this:

Advanced Pawn 5

Attraction 3 Avoiding Perpetual 2

Avoiding Stalemate 3

Back Rank Mate 3

Blocking 4

Capturing Defender 2

Clearance 2

Coercion 3

Counting 3

Defensive Move 1

Desperado 3

Discovered Attack 3

Distraction 4

Double Check 2

Exposed King 4

Mate - Anastasia's 3

Mate - Balestra's 1

Mate - Arabian 5

Mate - Backburne's 5

Mate - Boden's 4

Mate - Damiano's 5

Mate - Damiano's Bishop 4

Mate - Double Bishop 5

Mate - Dovetail 4

Mate - Dovetail - Bishop 4

Mate - Epaulette 3

Mate - Escalator 3

Mate - Greco's 3

What can you deduce from my performance in various tactics types, in terms of my strengths and weaknesses as a player (tactically)?

# Answer
Chess tactics frame different positions which we sometimes come across the Board . It may be Double attack , fork , Pin and many others . Just solving the Chess tactics lone is never the measurement because when you solve a tactic you know already that there is a sacrificial or a combinational move which will make you win or help to solve the tactic . In real games sometimes you even get an easy position but you fail to find the best move OTB .

Solving tactics just make you at ease that you are doing something and practicing Chess but it is never the complete homework to make the best judgement .

A different way to find the performance measurement is that how good you are making a calculation or even finding your own weaknesses in specific patterns . like for an example you have a habit of leaving your piece hanging in your own games . So you must solve tactics relating to Hanging pieces which will help to improve your weak point . They say in whichever tactic you find it difficult to solve you have a weakness in that area .
> 2 votes

---
Tags: tactics
---


# Question
Title: King's Indian defense: When is Nh5 the better option to prepare f5
In the position given by the moves below, checking the DB, I can see that Nh5 is far more common than Ne8. When is generally Nh5 the better idea compared to Ne8, given the weaknesses of the knight on h5, namely the fact that after black pushes f5, if white the takes exf5 and black recaptures (typically) with the g pawn, there is tactics in the air due to the fact that the black knight on h5 is now unprotected?

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[StartPly "7"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.h3 e5 7.d5 *

```

# Answer
> 7 votes
The reason for playing ...Nh5 is to have the option of playing ...Nf4, where ...exf4 would unleash his usually bad KID bishop. Case in point is the Bayonet Attack:

```
[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4

```

The main move is 9...Nh5, where in some lines black plays for ...Nf4, where a move like Bxf4 would be made worse by the fact that the absence of the b2 pawn gives even more potential to black's dark-squared bishop.

Your suspicion that the Nh5 can be loose is correct; note that in the line you describe, black needs to play ...Qe8 before going for ...f5, but on the other hand, 7...Nh5 disturbs white's position, as immediately developing the f1 bishop runs into 8...Nf4.

Generally, black would prefer ...Nh5 because it's more active; when it's not possible (say in the main line after 9.Ne1), ...Nd7 works to slow down white's c5, and ...Ne8 allows it, but can defend d6 and c7 (which can be important as white often goes for c5, cxd6, Nb5, Nc4 and Rc1).

Anyway, the differences between each choice of knight move are theoretically rather subtle, as you often find the knight moving back into f6; that said, picking the 'wrong' square gives white the option of changing his plan. In other words, one could probably argue, in some sense, that you don't pick the option that is favorable, but rather eliminate those that are not.

For example, back to the Bayonet Attack, after the main move 9...Nh5, white plays 10.Re1 to meet 10...Nf4 with 11.Bf1, and now 11...f5 runs into 12.Bxf4 and 13.e5. So the main line runs 10...f5 11.Ng5, and black can go for 11...Nf4 here, but it's not clearly favorable to 11...Nf6 (which is in fact the main move; ...Nf4 is considered a serious alternative). That said, 9...Nd7 is considered inaccurate, and white can attempt to highlight this with 10.a4, and simply carry on with his queenside attack (10.Nd2, which transposes to positions reached through 9.Nd2, sort of lets black off the hook, as white had no immediate motivation to move his king's knight, as black is not 'threatening' 10...Nh5)

A theoretical note: the immediate 9.Ne1 and 9.Nd2 were the old main lines as white wanted to stop 9...Nh5; the modern Bayonet Attack argues that white can allow it.

---
Tags: kings-indian
---


# Question
Title: Way to make a standard tell at beginning of game in Babas Chess?
I use Babas Chess as a client for FICS.

I would like to have a standard tell be issued to my opponent when a game starts like "Hello from Chicago!" or whatever, but I cannot find out how to do this and FICs itself seems to have no mechanism for this either.

Normally, I would just use the Babas Help to find the answer, but Babas is REALLY complicated and has a lot of options including scripting, so I am hoping somebody who has done it before can tell me how.

# Answer
> 2 votes
This "script" is a command universal to all chess clients that run FICS, because it is a FICS command.

alias

Usage: alias \[word \[string\]\]

The "alias" command sets up a command alias so that 'word' is equivalent to typing 'string'.

PARAMETERS ----------

alias: If no parameter is supplied all of your aliases are displayed. word: The word for the alias. If 'string' is not supplied it lists the command associated with 'word'. string: The command string to use for the alias.

EXTRA INFO ----------

In order for an alias to actually do something, the server has to process each command you type. This is what happens:

1. If your command begins with a $, no alias substitution is done.
2. The first word is compared against your "alias" list, looking for a match.
3. The first word is compared against the server aliases, looking for a match.
4. If no match is found, the word is compared against the server commands. This means you can overwrite server commands with an alias.

SUBSTITUTION ------------ If the first word of your command matches an alias, it is replaced with the alias 'string'. The rest of what you type is substituted into the alias as 'parameters'.

You can access these parameters with special characters. They all start with an $.

$$ Replace with a $ (let's you use a '$' in the new command

$@ Replace with all parameters typed after 'word'

$n Replace with parameter number n

$-n Replace with all parameters 1 through n

$n Replace with all parameters from n onward

$m Replace with my name

$o Replace with my (last) opponent's name

$p Replace with my partner's name

$. Replace with the last person I told to

$, Replace with the last channel I told to

SPECIAL NOTES -------------

* Use the "unalias" command to remove an alias.
* You may not create an alias for the quit command, or for the unalias command.
* A list of system aliases is available from the help system\_alias file.
* You can not put multiple commands with one alias.
* Aliases are not transitional. This sequence of commands alias foo bar alias bar baz Will NOT result in foo being equivalent to baz.

WARNING: Be careful to avoid using an alias that can also stand for another command on the server. For example, "fg" could be a chess move (for f-pawn X g-pawn), so don't have "fg" be an alias. For similar reasons, it would not be best to use "t" as an alias since it is already assigned as an alias for "tell". You could do so, of course; but then you would not be able to use the system alias for tell unless you unalias your alias.

EXAMPLES -------- Some examples for useful aliases.

alias gm say Good move! If you type 'gm' it will say 'Good move!' to your opponent.

alias gg say Good game, $o! If you type 'gg' it will say 'Good game, !'

alias greet it waves at $1. How are you? $2- You can type 'greet playername Enjoy dinner?' and it will shout '--\> yourname waves at playername! How are you? Enjoy dinner?'.

alias afk set busy is away for a bit Sets your busy string to 'is away for a bit' if you type 'afk' alias s1 seek 5 0 blitz f m If you type 's1' it will "seek" a 5 0 blitz game to all those who match your formula and set it to manual verification.

alias sf seek $1 $2 f Typing 'sf 3 0' will seek a 3 0 game and your opponent must fit your formula. 'sf 2 12' will seek a 2 12 game restricted to your formula.

alias 50 xtell 50 $@ You can now chat in channel 50 by typing in '50 whatever you want to say'. By using xtell the ',' system alias will allow fast communications to another channel.

SEE ALSO -------- system\_alias unalias

AUTHORS ------- Created: 22 February 2002 DAV Last Modified: 30 December 2007 mhill

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


# Question
Title: PGN database with games of players with ELO 1000 - 2000
I do the research on a difference of players' behaviour on different levels. There is no problem to find games with players rated over 2000 ELO but I lack those below 2000. Does anybody know a source with such games?

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can find a large collection of games played on FICS archived from the superb site: ficsgames.org Here you can find downloads of games based on rating category and type of games.

Edit: Now we also have LiChess giving out all games! Check out database.lichess.org. Even though it is not already categorized into Elo, you can easily do it via a pgn parser program.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The reason nobody has gone to the trouble of collecting games of sub 2000 players is because the quality is not expected to be high and not because they are not available.

Of course the FIDE rating rules also mean that fewer of these games are saved in the first place. For all events where norms are available the arbiter must send in to FIDE a pgn file with all the games. This is for the obvious reason of preventing fraud with title norms.

For FIDE rated tournaments where norms are not available (in other words the ones with few higher rated players and lots of lower rated ones) sending in this file to FIDE is optional. Still some arbiters do it although many, maybe most, do not because it is a lot of (unpaid) work.

So, these games are out there. You will find them for individual tournaments on the FIDE rating site and sites like chess-results.com (because a large number of arbiters use the Swiss Manager pairing program which works with chess-results.com). I believe sites like chess-db.com periodically look at these sites and collect games. You can find games for named individuals by searching the chess-db.com site.

In short nobody has done the hard work for you of collecting all these games into a sub-2000 database but games are out there if you want to do the work yourself.

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: Learning chess over the board vs using software
I have some good quality chess books and of course use the chess board to follow all chess game examples and variations provided. However I noticed that it is quite a tiring activity as it takes time and I do sometimes lose the sequence of moves as I lose focus when switching between board and the book.

Not long ago I found that there are ebooks (CBH, CBV and PGN file format) which allow to "read" books on a chess application (chessbase, fritz etc) and examines provided using software.

The question I want to ask actually about learning: do you learn more by physically interacting with the pieces (reading book and moving pieces) or you find yourself learning more and quicker by interacting with the software while going through variations?

# Answer
I think playing a PGN helps me more. Often I will be curious why a side line doesn't work, and often that is as revealing as the main analysis.

Of course, there's opportunity for abuse with anything as powerful as a chess engine reading through moves, but that's the case for any powerful technology. So maybe the question is not so much which is more powerful but how to blend things effectively, which is different for everyone.

This may seem like a cop-out, though. You never get a second chance to get a good first look at a position or game to assess your weaknesses/strengths honestly, so it seems like a first pass without an engine, then a second pass with an engine to clean up what you missed, would be best.

So I would set a specific amount of time for if you get stuck on something and can't figure it out (e.g. why did White, or the book, not consider a certain move,) and if you can't figure it out, use a chess engine on it. I use similar procedure for learning how to code. I note my tries that didn't work, and then stackoverflow often has several ways to look at things, so I can see
> 1 votes

# Answer
You always pay attention when moving heavy wooden pieces. Work with PC can be faster but make sure you don't do it too superficially. Sometimes I just wheel the mouse, listen to the music and after checking twenty games of my opponent I don't know what is his first move. I like the old style learning, it isn't that powerful technically but still it can produce better results. The faster you play the lines, the less understanding you will get. That's why real pieces and books are not dead for training. I would go for watching videos on pc but I think I wouldn't read ebook on it.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Personally, I prefer using a computer, especially when going through highly theoretical openings, because often a small difference between two positions result in a different consensus for the preferred treatment. As such, you'd not only want to be able to quickly transition between these positions in order to compare them, but you'll also want an engine that could often tell you why one move works in one position but fails in a similar one.

Here's an example:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.O-O-O d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Qxd5 Qc7 14.Qxa8 Bf5 15.Qxf8+ Kxf8

is generally regarded as good for black, whereas

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.O-O-O d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Qxd5 Qc7 14.Qxa8 Bf5 15.Qxf8+ Kxf8

is preferred for white.

You could of course look at this over the board (in this case, the only difference is a white pawn on f3 and a bishop on c1 versus the pawn remaining on f2 and the bishop on e2) and try to figure out why the evaluations differ, but being told (likely by the engine) that 16.Bd3 runs into 16...Qe5 in only one of these lines isn't going to hurt your absorption of opening knowledge, and saves you the time taken to look for a tactic that is almost part the theory itself.

On the other hand, if you're doing puzzles/tactics, you *need* to use a board to simulate thinking in a real game (whereas while studying openings, it's more of understanding and memorizing theory that has been developed by others, than trying to find an idea by yourself).

Middlegame-oriented books are somewhat in the middle ground: variations in these books either have a ton of branches (computers let you traverse these quickly), or skip over weak lines whose refutation is not immediately clear to weaker players (the engine gives you an immediate answer). Having said so, it might be better for your development to just take your time with these positions over the board, and try to answer any questions yourself, before asking the engine.

In summary, use computers in cases where you need to move quickly between variations and get insight from the engine, and on the other hand, do things over the board in cases where you need to think for yourself.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The Chess Software especially with .pgn .cbh files have become very handy and is easy user friendly compared to the old style of reading books . Chess has an in depth knowledge and it takes years to master them . Unless you are residing in a City where there are good Chess Clubs with coaches and you are alone and you have time enough it would be easier to have Softwares which makes your life easier . Let me give you my own example . I learned Chess all by myself and my rating is approx. 1850-2100 range in different Chess websites I do not have any Chess coach at all . I find it is very easy learning through the available Softwares . I do not have time to visit a coach where they charge also higher.

Now what I miss is OTB (Over the Board Play ) which I do only a few times in a year in Practical Tournaments. Having an online advanced Chess rating in your PC in your comfortable AC room does not mean that you would be the same in OTB play where a crowd of 500-1000 players also caters to the environment , so these are absolutely two different things . OTB is essential before you step in to any Tournaments .

You will see many experts will also second the fact that Practical Tournament Play OTB is different and good in learning especially with Masters as compared to just be isolated with Chess Software.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, software, books, otb-chess
---


title: Watson's strategic chess pgn file

text:
# Question
Title: Watson's strategic chess pgn file
I am looking for the PGN file corresponding to Watson's strategic chess opening repertoire for white; is it available? If the PGN is not available, I would be interested to know what other opening books have a PGN companion available.

as a side note I've though about writing a python script to read in chess books as PDF and extracting the variations as PGN. Has anyone done this yet?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Given that PGN files are just plain text, then you can create your own.

From wikipedia you need 7 tags:

> PGN data for archival storage is required to provide seven bracketed fields, referred to as "tags"...:
>
> 1. Event
> 2. Site
> 3. Date: the starting date of the game, in YYYY.MM.DD form. ?? is used for unknown values
> 4. Round
> 5. White: the player of the white pieces, in Lastname, Firstname format.
> 6. Black: the player of the black pieces, same format as White.
> 7. Result: the result of the game. This can only have four possible values: 1-0 (White won), 0-1 (Black won), 1/2-1/2 (Draw), or * (other, e.g., the game is ongoing).

An example might be:

\[Event "QGA: Main line with 7.Bd3"\]
\[Site "?"\]
\[Date "????.??.??"\]
\[Round "?"\]
\[White "Me"\]
\[Black "The other guy"\]
\[Result "\*"\]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. Bd3 *

---
Tags: pgn
---


# Question
Title: Why did Alekhine decide to move his king to c3 before playing b3?
In the following photograph, Alekhine decided to move his king to c3 before playing it to b3. Afterwards he moved his king back to the starting point, i.e. e2. Why didn't he just play b3 right away, which is so much easier?

The game can be found here on chessgames.com.In the current postion, it is Alekhine’s 34th move.

```
[Title "Alexander Alekhine-Max Euwe, London England, 8/4/1922"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "66"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. Nbd2 c5 5. e3 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. h3 O-O 8. Bc4 Re8 9. O-O e5 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Bxe5 dxe5 12. Ng5 Be6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Nde4 Nxe4 15. Qxd8 Rexd8 16. Nxe4 b6 17. Rfd1 Kf8 18. Kf1 Ke7 19. c4 h6 20. Ke2 Rxd1 21. Rxd1 Rb8 22. Rd3 Bh8 23. a4 Rc8 24. Rb3 Kd7 25. a5 Kc6 26. axb6 axb6 27. Ra3 Bg7 28. Ra7 Rc7 29. Ra8 Re7 30. Rc8+ Kd7 31. Rg8 Kc6 32. h4 Kc7 33. g4 Kc6 34. Kd3 Rd7+ 35. Kc3 Rf7 36. b3 Kc7 37. Kd3 Rd7+ 38. Ke2 Rf7 39. Nc3 Re7 40. g5 hxg5 41. hxg5 Kc6 42. Kd3 Rd7+ 43. Ke4 Rb7 44. Nb5 Re7 45. f3 Kd7 46. Rb8 Kc6 47. Rc8+ Kd7 48. Rc7+ Kd8 49. Rc6 Rb7 50. Rxe6

```

# Answer
He probably wanted to make the time control which is usually on the 40th move before making any comittal decisions.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


# Question
Title: Why did Andersson waste two tempi in this game?
Andersson gives Karpov two tempi (Na6-b4-a6-b4). Understandably, he moved his knight to b4 initially to attack the white bishop. But then he moved it back and forth! It was **the 32nd move** when he did this, so it is possible that it was due to time. Is there a subtler intention?

# Answer
`Na6-b4-a6-b4` was a waiting strategy. Black lacked counterplay in the position, and there wasn't much else to do. ...Nxf3+ was a possibility but it would just open the g-file for White's rook.
> 2 votes

# Answer
In "Anatoly Karpov: My 300 Best Games" Karpov gives 31...Nb4?! as a dubious move, and suggests 31...Rb4 instead, with the clear idea that Bxb4 cxb4 and Nc5 gives black a bind on the queenside.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: positional-play
---


title: Checkmate in 6 moves

text:
# Question
Title: Checkmate in 6 moves
Can somebody tell me the right six moves, and what has to be done? This puzzle was created vy Fritz Giegold and published in Zeit-Magazin in 1976

```
[FEN "n1N3br/2p1Bpkr/1pP2R1b/pP1p1PpR/Pp4P1/1P6/1K1P4/8 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Here is the solution:

> 1.Rh1 d4 2.Ra1 d3 3.Ra3 bxa3+ 4.Ka1 a2 5.Ba3 Kxf6 6.Bb2#

It can also be found in the YACPBD chess problem database.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


title: Interactive chess coaching software

text:
# Question
Title: Interactive chess coaching software
Is there chess software that helps you train while you play against it? I know there is software to train openings and such, but I would like one to actually **advise** you interactively as you play against the computer, maybe giving you hints and tips for example.

EDIT:

The kind of interactivity that I'm looking for is not necessarily audio or text related and can be either PC or phone based, doesn't matter. To further explain my idea let me explain you my situation:

I know how to play chess, I know all the rules, the basic principles and I have some knowledge of the strategies and tactics that can be made in the game. The thing is that at a certain moment I honestly don't know what to play. There are so many options that I just get lost in the possibilities. It would be nice to have something to tell you that a move is just accomplishing nothing at a certain moment. Or maybe just to tell you that a certain move exposed a vulnerability that you just didn't see, and it actually recommends you a move.

I think this is just more practice than anything, but sometimes I play with people that commit mistakes (develop queen early, don't care about control of the center) and I still lose, because I don't know how to capitalize on mistakes. It would be nice to also have something train you on these kind of things: to see and punish mistakes and gain tempos.

I know it's too much to ask for, but who knows, maybe a software like this actually exists.

# Answer
This is sort of the holy grail of chess training sofware ... something that substitutes for a human Master/GM level coach instructing and critiquing you whenever you needed it.

Till date, I believe **nothing** comes close to the quality of instruction/critique of a good human coach, though software that tries to offer some kind of interactive feedback-based training include:

* Ubisoft's ChessMaster.
    + Very rudimentary feedback + post-mortem move analysis. The cheapest of the three ... the move-by-move feedback is usually mostly suited for tactical errors. Good for people just starting out using computers to train with.
* Chessbase's Fritz
    + Probably the best bang for your buck of the three, given the quality of feedback and lots of bells and whistles. A fairly annoying/helpful "coach" who will flag any error you make (though doesn't clearly explain why it was a mistake). Features such as explaining (or more or less summarizing) the benefits of each move in a given position, a *hotness* indicator for how critical or "on the edge of a cliff" a position becomes.
* Chess.com's Chess Mentor
    + The most "human" like feedback but these are pre-programmed scenarios based on **instructional positions** you have to play through, rather than your own games.

Once again, these all fall short of explaining nuances in a way that you are **guaranteed** to understand (a human coach can figure out precisely what doesn't make sense to you and focus on that mental roadblock!) , though if you are not really intermediate-strength level yet, software such as the kind listed above might be of some help.
> 9 votes

# Answer
I am into chess for ages and into online chess for decades. Since I like to get better in chess I always searched for software that helps me to improve.

I found a webpage, that does this (at least for me).

lichess offers

* positional and tactical training ("Make the best move for white/black" things)
* Opening training (choose x strong moves in a position)
* Coordinates training (ok, this is mostly for beginners).

They added a opening database you can "walk" through to get games to analyse.

And you can of course PLAY chess there.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Lucas Chess sounds like exactly what you want. It has a competition mode where you play against weaker engines. A strong engine follows your play, and when you make a move that doesn't evaluate well, it shows you an alternative, with possible continuation lines for both moves. You can pick the engine move or continue with your own. Comparing the lines will show you if you blundered something or missed a tactic. You get points for beating the weaker engines, and as you accumulate points, you'll have stronger engines available to play against.
> 2 votes

# Answer
You may try chess wizard in ipad. This app provides exactly the same kind of support. https://itunes.apple.com/app/chess-wizard/id916537412?mt=8
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is also good chess educational apps for Android from Chess King (ChessOK, Convekta) https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=8196632901699712832
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, software
---


# Question
Title: How can one precisely sacrifice a piece for a winning attack?
```
r2qkb1r/5ppp/p1bppn2/1p3P2/4P3/1BN5/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 b qk - 0 1

1... b4 2. fxe6! bxc3 3. exf7+

```

In the above game, black played 1...b4 to encumber the white knight's journey to d5. Ambitiously, white sacrificed it with 2. fxe6! bxc3 3. exf7+: attacking the uncastled king, claiming the f7 square as his, and trapping the king on the center files.

The inactivation of black's dark bishop justifies this sacrifice: it's not soon seeing daylight anytime. Similarly, the a8 rook is also passive; only the queen, light-squared bishop, and f6 knight appear to be able to defend a central onslaught.

The black king can move to either Kd7 or Ke7, which aren't ideal in the least: these squares lie on two semi-open files available for white to take advantage of.

Altogether, this convinces white that black's life is going to be a terrible time. Still, the development of the queen's bishop must occur for placement of the connected rooks on d1, e1. He can choose squares such as g5, pinning the queen, or move his bishop along the a3-f8 diagonal after a capture on c3.

1. White needn't checkmate, but he should return with, beyond question, a better position than black. What final position does white visualize that warrants the knight's goodbye?
2. There can be an overwhelming number of variations in realizing that final position: after 4. Re1, black has a number of responses. If this is the best move, how does white calmly reassure himself that all of its responses are inadequate? If it's not the best move, what is and why?

I am not looking for a final, deeply analyzed (e.g. best) variation, but **a winning position and the most effective way to achieve it**: the moves that should be played first, and why. A 3-ply variation is enough, but a 4-ply variation is perfect. Maybe I also missed some critical details about the board, and would welcome these observations, if any.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well I hope you are looking for a kind of algorithm or steps which would justify whether you should sacrifice or not. Irrespective of the above diagram which serves as an example I would like that you pay attention to the fact that "There is no perfect way to find out whether the sacrifice that you have played can be refuted or it will bring a complete victory".

You need to depend upon a few factors to bring out the best results. If you have ever watched videos on YouTube or see game annotations you may have heard that in some games the GM or the host says it is chess "intuition" which brings out this kind of magical moves. Chess intuition somewhat comes from experience or your own chess understanding. It can not be conscious calculations but looking at the board your active pieces vs. opponent's inactive pieces and with proper imagination can bring great results. If you see that after the sacrifice you can add fuel to the fire with every move, your king is safe and you can lodge a continuous pressure then a sac is definitely good for a winning attack.

You need to take risks sometimes which you may win or lose depending upon some infinite chess factors which is not easy to state for every scenario. Even the great players make many mistakes and they forego the game.

# Answer
> 3 votes
> If this is the best move, how does white calmly reassure himself that all of its responses are inadequate?

White doesn't see a forced advantage in every line. He sees, what he believes to be, good winning chances. To quote Spielmann in *The Art of Sacrifice in Chess*:

> In real sacrifices the player gives up material but is unable to calculate the consequences with accuracy; he has to rely on intuition

---

> What final position does white visualize that warrants the knight's goodbye?

I think you answered your own question. After 2. fxe6 bxc3 3. exf7+ white probably thought that a lead in development and 2 pawns for the piece (potentially 3 if bxc3 is played) is sufficient compensation.

White doesn't have to look further than this *if* they are willing to take risks and figure out the attack 2 or 3 moves at a time. If white is risk averse, then they may not even consider 2. fxe6 bxc3 3. exf7+ at all.

# Answer
> 3 votes
**"I am not looking for a final, deeply analyzed (e.g. best) variation, but a winning position and the most effective way to achieve it:"**

This statement is in conflict with itself. You are dealing with a position that requires CONCRETE analysis, i.e., accurate calculation leading to checkmate or a winning position. This is not a positional assessment where you are gaining a strong square, etc. The most effective way would be a final, deeply analyzed variation that is irrefutable.

In a blitz or rapid time control, I'd go in for it "because it looks good (intuitive senses). In a slow tournament game, I would settle into a long think and give it my "Karpov 7" treatment and assess it and compare it to my alternatives, which of course, is always how you should play. If I find my alternatives offer less, then I play it. Otherwise, I probably play safe.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The gut feeling is that White is not developed enough. For example, after `2. ef Qb6 3. Kh1 cb 4. ef Kd7` White cannot protect the `e4` pawn. And it is not so much the pawn, but the Black Knight at `e4`, with the Black Queen at `b6` forming an immediate (smothered) mate threat. White is pretty much forced to `5. Re1 Ne4 6. Be3 Qb7`, and now White has to worry about the weakness at `g2` as well as the Knight fork at c3 after `cb`.

So unless I am missing something obvious, the sacrifice doesn't look sound.

---
Tags: tactics, attack
---


title: Opening repertoire for different levels

text:
# Question
Title: Opening repertoire for different levels
I wonder, is there any book or article on what openings are good and appropriate for different levels, as it's done in the 4th volume of John Watson's `Mastering the Chess Openings` and in this link http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11634/675?

And what are your recommendations for this question?

# Answer
> 7 votes
There is something to be said for choosing mainlines from the get-go. I heard several strong players (for example Jan Gustafsson, Judith Polgar) say, that they wasted time by playing sidelines in their youth or that they had problems to master certain openings they had avoided for too long. (Gustafsson played 1…g6 and Polgar King's Gambit).

So if you are young and very ambitious it makes a lot of sense to go for openings you will never have to discard. If you look at the absolute top, even Carlsen's experiments with sidelines quite often completely backfire (Northsea Defense vs Adams, Pirc vs Naiditsch, Leningrad Dutch vs Wojtacek, weird gambit vs Saric, etc.).

But most of us never reach these heights and under Elo 2400 you can get away with all kinds of openings. So my choice is to play what I feel comfortable playing and from time to time mix in some completely new stuff so I don't get bored. I play some very shaky and borderline incorrect stuff, but I can't remember ever losing because my opponent just played "the refutation". There are always chances.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I wouldn't agree with the stuff in that link you just posted. I mean "I think Scandinavian sucks" and "still playing c3 in Sicilian" as if the Alapin variation isn't good ,are arguments that make no sense whatsoever. My coach used to say that until 2100-2200 FIDE rating you should play the openings you're comfortable with and are compatible with your playing style. Probably if you're under 1600 let's say, you should avoid some too crazy openings. But all in all if they fit your playing style and you know the variations and plans your skill level hardly effects your opening choice.

# Answer
> 0 votes
There is no Opening defined for any particular level as to which opening you should play or attempt in any level but there are certain openings which require a deep chess thinking & strategy like Kings Indian Defence cannot be understood by Intermediates and below level and I have seen that they fail to play this opening . Even many lines of Sicilian are not being played even about 2000 Elo level . They say that you should play e4 in the start of your career or else their is a big gap in your chess education .

The best suggestion is that you try an opening and look for some annotated games in that line and watch videos in YouTube to learn the key points and play training games in that variation . If your winning percentage is high then I believe you must try that line and include in your opening repertoire else discard .

---
Tags: opening, learning
---


title: Identifying corresponding squares

text:
# Question
Title: Identifying corresponding squares
```
6k1/p7/3K2p1/1P5p/7P/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

```

**White to move.**

Dvoretsky notes that the correspondence between the 'f7, e5' squares is less evident. Originally, I thought that g7 and e6 were corresponding (and I don't see why not).

Clearly, e5 and f7 are corresponding: the first person to move on these squares loses. Did he just serendipitously discover this pair?

1. How do I discover that e5, f7 are corresponding?
2. Is my original claim, 'g7, e6 are corresponding', incorrect?

# Answer
> 2 votes
## f7/e5

> Clearly, e5 and f7 are corresponding: the first person to move on these squares loses

I don't think your definition of corresponding squares is quite correct. If the black king goes to f7, black does not necessarily lose.

In this position the fight is about the square f6. If black manages to get the king to f6 (with the white king not on f4) he can play g5 and create a passed pawn on the h file.

In this sense, e5 and f7 are corresponding because:

1. If the white king goes to **e5** first, black will play **Kf7** putting white in zugzwang. White has to retreat with the king (or play b6 which is equally bad). Assuming white retreats the king from e5, you note another theme of corresponding squares: f6 and f4: if the black king goes to f6, white - in order to keep equality - has to reply with Kf4. Conversely, if white plays Kf4 himself first, black can reply with Kf6 putting white in Zugzwang. However you can easily see that black will always get to f6 favourably. For example 1. Ke5 Kf7 2. Ke4 (staying close to the square f4) Ke6! and white has to play Kf4 (which is answered with Kf6) or retreat further to the third rank, letting the black king to the fifth rank. In this case black is winning.
2. If the black king goes to **f7** first, white has to prevent Kf6 by playing **Ke5**. The position is still a draw in this case.

## g7/e6

You can confirm for yourself that white is too slow to win on the queenside, i.e. capturing the pawn on a7 with the king and promoting the b pawn will take longer than black getting a queen on h1 (after playing g5...).

This means that white always has to keep an eye on the kingside pawns, because black is threatening to create a passed pawn with g5, hxg5 h4. Particularly this means, that the white king has to be able to reach the square ("pawn promotion square rule" for black pawn on h4): d4-d1-h1-h4. Particularly this means that the white king may never move to the sixth rank. So e6 is never going to be a corresponding square for the white king.

---
Tags: endgame, zugzwang
---


title: Two Knights Defense 4. Ng5 - Strategy?

text:
# Question
Title: Two Knights Defense 4. Ng5 - Strategy?
I've been trying do some research on the defence against `4. Ng5`, since it has been a really big thorn in my side for a bit of time.

```
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5

```

I've firstly taken a look into the Traxler attack, but I'm unsure about it since it's such a 'hack' line and well, it's a bit unreliable in a really big match.

I am looking at mainline with `Na5` and `c6`, but I am not quite sure how Black keeps up the initiative from there. His queenside looks a bit shattered and White seems to be fine with happily developing his queenside.

Can anyone tell me some kind of plan or theory on the classical refutation against `4. Ng5`? Thanks!

# Answer
> 5 votes
As someone who plays 4.Ng5 as White, I can tell you what I've found to be the hardest Black line against me: 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bc5!?

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 (8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Bd7 11. Qf3 O-O) h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Bc5!? (10...Bd6 11. f4 exf3 12. Nxf3) 11. c3 (11. O-O Qd4 12. Ng4 Bxg4 13. Bxg4 e3) O-O 12. b4 (12. O-O Qc7) Qd5!?

```

The theory move is 10...Bd6 hitting the knight, but as White I've found that 11.f4 exf3 12.Nxf3 gives White a comfortable enough game a pawn up.

10...Bc5!? takes f4 off the table because of king safety, and Black can attack the near-trapped knight with the queen instead. A main line might be 11.c3 (11.O-O Qd4) O-O 12.b4 (12.O-O Qc7) Qd5!?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I played the **Traxler** a lot, and it's quite a good option to play after preparation. Your opponents will escape with castling most of the time because they will be scared of your opening prep. And when they accept the sacrifice, there are quite easy draws for Black, if you don't want to play to win.

If you feel confident in complex tactical positions, the Traxler should be your main option. It instantly turns the tables, Black attacks, White defends.

Plus, it's a very engine friendly opening, as it's mostly tactical. You can analyze the opening with an engine and discover a novelty if you are lucky enough.

This is a very good start for preparation: https://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB63\_146.pdf

# Answer
> 0 votes
You could just do what most grandmasters do and play 3...Bc5. It will usually transpose to positions you could get after 3...Nf6 while avoiding the Ng5 stuff.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I think this video is helpful: Traxler counterattack

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 $5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7. Kf1 (7. Kf3 Qf6+ 8. Kxe4 d5+ (8... Qf4+ 9. Kd3) 9. Bxd5 (9. Kxd5 Nb4+ 10. Kc5 (10. Ke4 Qf4#) 10... Qb6#) 9... Qf4+ 10. Kd3 Qd4+ 11. Ke2 Qxd5 12. Nxh8 Bg4+) (7. Ke2 Nd4+ 8. Ke3 (8. Kd3 Nf2+) 8... Qh4 9. Rf1 (9. Nxh8 Qf4+ 10. Kd3 Nc5+ 11. Kc3 Nb5+ 12. Kb4 a5+ 13. Kxb5 c6+ 14. Kb6 Na4+ 15. Kc7 e4#) 9... d5 10. Bxd5 (
2. Nxh8 Qg5+) 10... Bg4 11. g3 Qh5 12. Qe1 Nxc2+ 13. Kxe4 Nxe1 14. Rxe1 Qf5+
3. Ke3 Rf8) (7. Ke1 Qh4+ 8. g3 Nxg3 9. Nxh8 (9. hxg3 Qxh1+ 10. Bf1 O-O 11. Qe2 Nd4 12. Qg2 Qxg2 13. Bxg2 Nxc2+ 14. Kd1 Nxa1) 9... Ne4+ 10. Ke2 Qf2+ 11. Kd3 Nb4+ (11... Nc5+ 12. Kc3 Qd4#) 12. Kxe4 Qf4#) 7... Qh4 8. Qf3 (8. Qe1 Ng3+ 9. Qxg3 Qxc4+ 10. d3 Qxf7+ 11. Ke1 O-O) 8... Ng3+ 9. Kg1 (9. Qxg3 Qxc4+) 9... Qd4+
4. Qe3 Qxc4 11. hxg3 Qxf7 *

---
Tags: opening, two-knights
---


# Question
Title: Why is the Sicilian Defense considered hard to play?
I have been told never to play the Sicilian. It is a very complicated opening that even grandmasters aren't ever able to analyze and play well enough. But why, I ask?

# Answer
> 23 votes
Good heavens. Play it!

The Sicilian is not a defense for the lazy or defensive player - the Black side will need to be booked up, tactically sharp, and more than anything will need to understand why it works, and how to make it work.

Regarding that GMs can't play it, that's nonsense. It's a deadly tool in their arsenal.

This opening's hypermodern ideas eschew some well-established 'rules' including immediate control of the center. It encourages an asymmetric game that reduces the chance for a draw. In many variations, black sacrifices the exchange on c3 in order to gain time and break white's center.

In the Sicilian, black frequently loses quickly or wins long.

Here's an example from 2013 of Anand with the black side taking apart 2716-rated Arkadij Naiditsch. According to 365chess.com, this is an ECO B52, the "Canal-Sokolsky attack". As you can see from this game, the Sicilian may not be the best choice for the timid.

```

[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bg7 9. O-O Nc6 10. Nde2 Qe6 11. Nd5 Qxe4 12. Nc7+ Kd7 13. Nxa8 Qxc4 14. Nc3 Rxa8 15. Bg5 e6 16. Re1 Nd5 17. Nxd5 Qxd5 18. Qxd5 exd5 19. Rad1 h6 20. Bc1 d4 21. Rd3 Rc8 22. Rb3 b6 23. Kf1 Ne5 24. Ra3 a5 25. b4 Rc2 26. bxa5 bxa5 27. Rxa5 Nd3 28. Ra7+ Kc6 29. Rxf7 Nxe1 30. Kxe1 Rxc1+ 31. Kd2 Rg1 32. Rxg7 Rxg2 33. Ke1 Rxh2 34. Rxg6 Rh1+ 35. Kd2 h5 36. Rh6 h4 37. a4 h3 38. a5 h2 39. a6 Kc7 40. Rh7+ Kb8 41. Ke2 d3+ 42. Kd2 Ka8 43. Rh5 Ka7 44. Rh6 d5 45. Rh8 Kxa6 46. Rh6+ Kb5 47. Rh8 Kc4 48. Rc8+ Kd4 49. Rh8 Ke4 0-1

```

Just for fun, here's Tigran Petrosian, the Patron Saint of Positional Players, dismantling Boris Spassky. This is a B42 Sicilian, Kan variation. (I like to mention such games because it's easy to get into the habit of thinking of some players as purely positional, or some as purely tactical players. All GMs are competent in all aspects of the game.)

It's the 1st game of the 1969 world championship. Again, we see a long game here. Petrosian would lose the black side of a Sicilian Dragon to Spassky later in the same match, and it would be over in under 30 moves.

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.O-O d5 8.Nd2 Nf6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.b3 O-O 11.Bb2 a5 12.f4 g6 13.Rad1 Nd7 14.c4 a4 15.f5 exf5 16.exf5 Bf6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.Qf2 axb3 19.axb3 Ra2 20.fxg6 fxg6 21.h3 Qe7 22.Qd4 c5 23.Qf4 Bb7 24.Rde1 Qg7 25.Qe3 d4 26.Qe6+ Qf7 27.Qe2 Re8 28.Qf2 Rxe1 29.Qxe1 Qe8 30.Qxe8+ Nxe8 31.Be4 Rxd2 32.Bxb7 Nd6 33.Bd5+ Kg7 34.b4 cxb4 35.c5 Nf5 36.c6 Rc2 37.g4 Nd6 38.Rf4 d3 39.Rd4 d2 40.Bb3 Rxc6 41.Rxd2 Ne4 42.Rd7+ Kf6 43.Rxh7 Rc1+ 44.Kg2 Nc5 45.Bf7 b3 46.g5+ Kxg5 47.h4+ Kf6 48.h5 Rc2+ 49.Kf3 b2 50.Ba2 gxh5 51.Rxh5 Rc1 52.Rh6+ Ke5 53.Rb6 Na4 54.Re6+ Kd4 55.Re4+ Kc5 56.Rxa4 Ra1 0-1

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
There are some high level trainers who suggest avoiding lines like the Rauzer (a line in the Sicilian) or the Gruenfeld for new beginners, suggesting that the ideas behind these openings are just beyond the comprehension of new players, BUT...

Chess learning is known to centre very much around patterns, and these patterns need to become instilled in your subconscious mind.

One very rapid way to learn the basics of an opening is to download a database of high level games from the opening line in question (this is easy to do using 365Chess or other online resources, (TWIC gives good updates, but you will have to sort to opening later), then open the file in a (free) database product like Chessbase Reader (lite) or Jose (Chess for All on your smartphone). Now you simply flip the board to the side you want to play and starting clicking your way (rapidly) through the games (I like to do this for a hero, such as Svidler playing the Gruenfeld). The point here is not to think too deeply, but just to see the opening evolve again and again rapidly on your screen. You will see that you DO start to see the main ideas of the line. (I do pause if there was a neat tactic that I couldn't absorb rapidly, and play that a few times through, so as to build that idea into my mind as well; sometimes these are thematic for the opening, and sometimes they are just increasing one's mental fluidity.)

Once this last thing starts to happen in your mind, then it makes sense to study the opening much more slowly and carefully, learning concrete move orders and what-not.

A beginner who follows this route WILL quickly accelerate their understanding of ANY opening system. I think even Silman said that (essentially by hand), this is how he came to understand chess more deeply than the average bear.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The Sicilian is a very "sharp" opening that involves major complications for BOTH sides. The result is that the better player will almost always win.

If you play it as a beginner, you will "always" lose, initially. That's why someone told you "never" to play it. There are somewhat easier ways to get draws with other openings.

That is, until you get to become a "good" player. Then you can use this opening to outplay a lot of Whites who will be weaker than you.

Playing the Sicilian (and taking your lumps) is one way to get better, faster.

# Answer
> 5 votes
The Sicilian has many sharp lines and many many variants, more than any other defence to the King's Pawn opening 1.e4. This is, in a nutshell, why it is difficult to master.

Yet the idea that beginners, or players below master level, shouldn't play it is dubious at best. From a purely competitive point of view, if your opponent is about your same strength (s)he will have your very same difficulties playing it from the White side; if your opponent is much stronger than you it is very likely that you're doomed no matter what opening you choose.

In fact, choosing an opening repertoire cannot be based only on the number of lines or ideas to memorize, but also the "feeling" that one about certain positions and certain plans. Even if a beginner is not as sharp and experienced as a master, certainly may find more "natural" and easy to play certain lines and not others. Thus, I believe that is a good idea even for a beginner to try to "experiment" with a good variety of openings (studying grandmaster games and playing them himself) in order to find those for which he has a special feeling.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Whomever told you that should not be advising anyone about anything! The Sicilian is interesting and sharp. Play it, study it, love it and hate it. And do not listen to those people ever again!

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is a very weird statement. IMHO.

The only thing that I can tell you is that back when I was in the University the school team's coach, who was an IM, insisted in that the "advanced" beginners and low intermediates would learn the Sicilian Dragon since it is a very dynamic opening and there are lots of tactical themes happening all the time so it was good for them.

Some food for thought :)

# Answer
> 3 votes
Sicilian is hard to play for the below points .

* Either the Black Player still an Amateur does not understand Counter-Attacking Chess.
* Theory is just too long and ultra-sharp lines are difficult to memorize.
* Many Variations of Sicilian just coerce with each other and you can not keep yourself to one line . Eg Najdorf can transition to Schevengien/Kan/Taimanov etc .
* Black usually has to face K-side Attack very early from White and to defend against it the Play in Center and Q-side may gets extinguished and Black has to defend against powerful Sacs and defend precisely.
* Black has to sometimes go on a material deficit as like Exchange Sacrifice in Sicilian Dragon and where R\*N on c3 has to be done which many Players below 2000 Elo would like to condemn and focus on Activity .
* You need to understand high level chess to understand Sicilian which many Players do not seem to understand.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is a sharp openning with a long well studied variables in "chess theory", some of them as dragon, pelikan, schveniguen, etc with more than 20 moves known.

So if you are playing with someone with experience in the theory of this opening is better to avoid or going far from the main lines or variables.

The theory says that this is a "two edges sword", because of the fact that white moves in the king side and black on the queen side, is a unbalance openning, given options to both sides to attack, in the most games the winner is who can reach the rival king first.

White will attack on the king side mean while black do in the queen side, in the most aggresive variables, white castle's in queen side with a bayonet attack or moving h4-h5-h6 or sacrificing this pawn in order to open the "h" column for the rook and black using b5-a6 pawns and using C column for the rook, where in most cases is sacrificed in c3 for knight to attack the whites king.

# Answer
> 1 votes
It makes absolutely no sense to avoid it. Play it, learn it, study it, and understand it. You'll want it in your arsenal eventually anyway. It's not going to hurt you.

Maybe you wouldn't want to try it at on OTB tournament for the first year or two. But you can start by studying up on all three of the major families of at least the Open Sicilian, 2...e6, 2...d6, 2...Nc6, and their 11 main variations, over the course of a year or two, and playing dozens or hundreds of harmless online games with them.

When you get good, and your rating is getting fairly impressive, and you feel comfortable with it, you can delve deeper. Imagine if you only started the opening 10 years from now, from scratch? Now imagine if you started now, how much farther ahead you'll be with it in 10 years.

There just isn't much reason not to learn something as early as possible. When you're older, and time is running out, you'll have had more experience with it than otherwise.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I can suggest you from my experience of playing the Sicilian for 8 years now, to avoid it for the first year of your 'starting chess life' and slowly begin to read and assimilate.

I am a practitioner of e4 - c5. I'm finding it still hard to deal with the own weakness of d6. I am fide elo 1140 only. So take up this arsenal sooner.

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


# Question
Title: Board for lectures, with arrows, highlights, not checking rules
Is there good free software for creating video lessons, that allows you to make board as big as desired, highlight squares, show arrows and not checking rules, allowing to move pieces in any way, playing without king etc? I mean just board software, not software for capturing video.

# Answer
> 1 votes
You can use a setup board function is programs like scid and chessbase. These boards aren't full screen. In setup mode, they don't allow for arrows and highlights. It might be better to just program the software yourself. This would make all the features just as you like.

http://scid.sourceforge.net/

http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-and-blindingly-fast-chebase-light-2009

Chessity.com has a new e-tool for teachers.  Allows illegal moves, coins and flags on any square, and four colored arrows and squares. Large enough for students in back to see clearly.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Perhaps http://www.apronus.com/chess/diagram/editor/ will satisfy your needs. If not, then please let me know because I am the author of this free tool and I am still working on improving it.

Perhaps http://www.apronus.com/chess/pgnviewer/ in the setup mode will be also useful. The problem with these tools is that they are very powerful but not easy to operate without instruction. So do not get discouraged just ask for help.

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Should white go for piece-a-piece or two rook endgame?
As black has the upper hand, should white try to go piece-a-piece (Rooks for Rooks) or try and get the two rook endgame.

```
1r3rk1/p1p2p1p/3p2p1/Rp2p3/3bP1P1/1P1P4/2P3P1/5R1K w - - 0 1

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
Black has an extra bishop and two extra pawns. Black is *completely and easily winning*, and white can't do anything really constructive.

Black's easiest way to win is to promote a pawn to queen and then checkmate white; that in turn is easiest if white's rooks are exchanged off (take all rooks off the board, and black just plays a5, a4, a3, a2, a1=Q).

So that's what white should avoid -- if there is a choice, *don't exchange the rooks!*

That said, resigning is also a perfectly normal action for white in the given position.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Black has an extra piece and 2 pawns, with an extra pawn being on each side of the board. Black has no glaring pawn weaknesses. If the rooks are off the board, White's only chance, and it is a slim one, will be to lock the pawns up in such a way that Black can make no progress. I don't see how he can do it, especially with those doubled pawns on the g file. For example, Black could play `f6` followed by `h5` or work towards `g5` (to lock the white pawn), `Kg6`, `h5`, then `f5`. White cannot contain the pawns. And that is without taking the Bishop into consideration.

In short, Black wants to get those rooks off the board.

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