# Question
Title: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 c5 — Sicilian Defense to King's Gambit?
```
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 c5

```

What's the refutation of Black's unusual third move, or anyway the best way to play against it? Which is stronger, the Open Variation 4. d4 cxd4 5. Bxf4, or the Closed Variation 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. d3?

If there is no refutation (as seems to be the case), then why is 3...c5 hardly ever played, or mentioned in the books? Is it because there are so many good lines against the King's Gambit that nobody needed another one? Is it that the people who like to play c5 usually play it on the first move?

# Answer
> 8 votes
My initial reaction is that 3...c5 is very weak just by looking at it, which is why it is so rare. The ECO key that comes with ChessBase's Mega databases is very detailed, but even this does not even have its own specific sub-key.

There are 112 games in Mega 2020 database with 3...c5. The most popular response, played in 87 of the 112 games was 4.Bc4, which had a winning percentage of 64.9%, followed by 4.d4, which was played in 17 games and had a winning percentage of 61.8%). 4.d3 (6 games/33.3%) and 4.Nc3 (2 games/50.0%) were also played.

Obviously, 4.Bc4 and 4.d4 are the choices, but you also have to think about what to play stylistically: If you play the King's Gambit, you like open, tactical, positions, so it does not make sense to play the latter two moves at all unless they eventually become the natural move to finish development later. You still want to strive for the quick development of the kingside, and play down the f-file and open center.

3...c5 is weak, but as I looked through the games, the only plan that white needs to fear is the Be7 and g5 plan (possibly g5 first), holding the pawn. Black scored in the 40-50% range in most of those lines. That might bode well for the 4.d4, and early Bxf4 plan by white.

Now that I have discussed what humans play, I am going to see what Stockfish 11 says. After looking at many lines, a lot of which are below, but that is only a small fraction of what I actually looked at, I cannot say that Stockfish found any pure refutation, but I suspect that the you will do well following the main line because if black plays 3...c5, it is because black is a weak player to start with...deny black holding f4, and you will probably win most of the time as the human stats above show.

4.Bc4 and 4.d4 early on both come in with the same evals, but as the depth gets deeper (depth 33), 4.Bc4 is preferred by Stockfish, but they are both the typical minor pluses that computers typically give white in the opening, about +.5, but as I force in lines, and go deeper, everything levels out a lot. Here are some sample lines.

One last note about the play: The reason that white can play the early Bc4 in these lines, and not worry about g5, it that it seems tactically refuted if black tries to save it. White is playing a gambit line, so I was not really worried about trying to get the pawn back simply because we are down a pawn, but the computer might be; nevertheless, I was concerned because it gets in the way of developing the Bc1 and opening the f-file, so I did lean toward recovery.

Please note that there are also extensive comments within these lines.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 c5 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. d3 {This is Stockfish's favorite, and is indicative of trying to stop the early g5 plan. It still is not the most human move, which I will also cover.} (5. d4 cxd4 6. Bxf4 Nf6 7. O-O Nxe4 8. Bd5 $1 {This leads to mind-boggling complications.} (8. Re1 d5 $17) 8... Nf6 9. Ng5 Nxd5 10. Nxf7 Qf6 (10... Kxf7 11. Qh5+ Ke6 12. Nc3 {And the other rook comes in and wins...+8.}) 11. Bg5 Qg6 12. Qe1+ Be7 13. Bxe7 Ne3 14. Rf2 Nxe7 15. Nxh8) (5. O-O $6 {This is slow, but leads to typical positions.} g5 6. d4 cxd4 7. Bxf7+ (7. g3 $5) 7... Kxf7 8. Nxg5+ Qxg5 9. Bxf4 Qg6 10. Be5+ Ke8 11. Bxh8 b6 {With wild play that the computer likes barely for black, but I do not believe that a human will survive.}) 5... Bd6 $5 (5... g5 $2 6. h4 g4 7. Ng5 $18) (5... Be7 6. Bxf4 Nf6 7. Nc3 d6 8. O-O O-O 9. Qd2 $16) 6. O-O Nf6 (6...Nge7 $4 7. Ng5 O-O 8. Qh5 $18) 7. Nc3 (7. Qe1 $5) (7. e5 $2 {This does not work due to tactics and threats of smothered mate, and the Qd1 and Bc1 hanging if the queens get traded.} Nxe5 8. Re1 O-O 9. Nxe5 Bxe5 10. Rxe5 d5 11. Bb3 c4 12. dxc4 Ng4 13. Re2 dxc4 14. Qxd8 Rxd8 15. Nc3 cxb3 16. axb3 g5 $17) 7... O-O 8. Bd2 a6 9. a4 {And the computer thinks this is roughly equal, but white is more fun to play.}

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
White's f4 sacrifices a pawn for rapid development and the possibility of an attack against the uncastled black king. c5 as a response from black addresses none of the issues in his position and just wastes a move making the gambit all the more effective. White's plan remains on track - Bc4, O-O, win the pawn back on f5 and smash through on f7.

# Answer
> -1 votes
It does make sense because even the computer says black is better ( -0.5 ) after full development and entering in the middlegame.

3...c5 is a very good move through because it takes d4 square for your pawn. 4. c3 is stupid because you must continue with development and attacking. It gives black an equal or even better position.

Look at this line:

```
[FEN ""]
 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 c5 4. Bc4 Nc6
    5. d4 cxd4 6. Bxf4 Nf6 7. O-O Nxe4 8. Ne5 Nxe5
    9. Bxe5 d5 10. Qh5 g6 11. Qf3 f6 12. Bxd4 Bf5
    13. Bb3 Bb4 14. c3 Ba5 15. Re1 Qd6 16. g4 Bc7
    17. Qg2 Be6 18. Nd2 O-O-O 19. Nxe4 dxe4 20. Bxe6+ Qxe6
    21. Rxe4 Qf7

```

Computer says it is 0, but my evaluation is that black has a secure king and already started Kingside attack, while white king is almost opened up and white has not attack.

# Answer
> -1 votes
3...c5 is terrible here. It weakens the d6 and d5 squares and leaves black with a backward d-pawn. White will play d4 at some point leaving black with an IQP and white with a superior center. Black has no way to equalize against reasonable play. Typically, in a Sicilian black doesn't play e5 because holding back the e-pawn gives black potential control over d6 and d5. The one exception would be the Boleslavsky pawn formation however you'll notice that only works if black can keep the e pawn at e5 (because of the resulting endgame).

As white I would just play Bc4 followed by 0-0. If black plays Nf6 then e5 and there isn't anything black can do. After that, decide if you want to play the immediate d4 or play c3 followed by d4. Stockfish seems to think black is okay trying to hold the pawn with g5 but I see this as a position where black is going to have to fight very hard just to get a draw. In my opinion, this is what you hope for as white. You have an active position that gives black plenty of chances to go wrong but if black plays perfectly you should still be able to draw.

# Answer
> -3 votes
There is no obvious refutation other than white wins in the end.
Certainly not a single move !! as shown in the tournament book recap.

Chess Tempo shows black doing well with it but those games are from all players 2200 and down. Looking at some of them, white was nowhere near 2200 with the moves they made.

The key point is that nobody above 2200 plays c5 as black. \[maybe a few do in a bigger database\] So the refutation comes down more to the players ability to beat an inferior move.

With no top GMs showing the way you will need to use a good engine to find the refutation. But I suspect it will be too subtle for you to duplicate OTB when your opponent makes yet another deviation from the normal moves.

Following good chess principles and developing and then improving whites position until tactics decides or you win the end game would be a good strategy.

I never made GM so while I would be tempted to play b4 here I would likely just play nb3 bb4 and then pq3 to have a better position and edge in development while black has awkward pawns and a king in a weak position.

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, kings-gambit
---


title: King's Gambit - Falkbeer Countergambit

text:
# Question
Title: King's Gambit - Falkbeer Countergambit
I like to play blitz games online (mostly 3, occasionally 5 minutes per player). When I play those, it is usually for enjoyment and getting into wild games - romantic chess, if you will.

This naturally means I play many, often questionable/unsound, gambits. (Un?)surprisingly, I fare quite well with this style, even against higher ranked players. I'm a decent player myself - around 2000 ELO when I was active (not anymore, though).

One of the gambits I particularly enjoy is the King's Gambit. I have a good understanding of how to play both the accepted and declined variations of it; however, the Falkbeer Countergambit always perplexed me.

```
[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5

```

I tend to play 3. exd5 (main line). Now, after 3. .. c6 or 3. .. exf4 I tend to get at very least playable positions. After 3. .. e4, however, I tend to run into problems. Usually, black is able to castle faster than I, thus creating some nasty pressure on the e-file for my exposed king in the center and also later on on the now somewhat misplaced f4 pawn and exposed g1-a7 diagonal.

So, I guess the questions for the 3. exd5 e4 variation are:

1. What are some playable continuations for white here?
2. What are white's long term plans?
3. Some notable/instructive games would be nice.

Please note, that this question is mostly applicable to blitz games. I probably would not play King's Gambit in a game with longer time controls anyway.

# Answer
4…e4 should actually be the least attractive option for black. But you should probably know a bit about it:

```
[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2! Bf2
8. Kd1 Qxd5 9.Nfd2!

```

The checks 7…Bf2 and 8…Qd5 look threatening, but now white is going to win material because of the threat Nc3.

```
[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2! O-O
8. Qxe4 Re8 9.Ne5 f6 10.d6

```

10.d6 is actually not the strongest continuation, but the threat to pick up the bishop with Qc4+ or to play Bc4+ is quite tricky to meet in a blitz game. Lots of ways to win quickly with white (for example 10…cd is already losing).

The general idea of 7.Qe2 is to neutralise the Bc5 with Be3 (i.e. 7…Bf5 8.Nc3 Qe7 9.Be3 or 7…Qe7 8.Be3), which usually leads to a better endgame for white.

And if you play somebody who knows his theory: The offbeat way to play against the Falkbeer would be 6.Be3 with a nice exchange sac as mainline: 6.Be3 Qh4 7.g3 Nxg3 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.hxg3 Qxh1
> 7 votes

# Answer
I used to play this a lot as black and the line that worried me most was 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4. White is completely fine here and if black presses too hard it can become a wildly tactical position where black is just struggling to survive. If you're confident in your tactics, you should be okay but that depends a lot on your analysis and who you're playing against.

If you just want something simple that avoids theory 3.Nf3, dxe4 4. Nxe5 is perfectly playable.

Bb5+ trying to trade off the pawn is extremely common but I wouldn't recommend it. Black's position is very active
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, gambits, blitz, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Programmatic method to determine if a move is passive or aggressive
I'm currently trying to determine if a player on average plays more aggressive or defensive games. To do this I wanted to look at a game from that player, then average the amount of aggressive moves vs defensive moves. But the real issue is identifying if a move is aggressive or defensive.

I am looking for a method to determine if it's aggressive or defensive using a Machine learning/AI type algorithm, rather then having a bunch of if-else statements. I've seen this other question regarding this topic. In an answer to that question, user @HelloWorld recommended to use something called the "Monte-carlo tree search". I've done some basic research of the search, and I don't understand what they mean by "margin error". Can someone explain what that means and how it ties to this topic?

Also if you have any other algorithms to determine if a move is passive or aggressive, I'd love to hear it.

# Answer
As described here the min-max algorithm is used in order to get the best strategy from any position in games, and therefore in chess. It uses tree ordering of the moves and each layer in the tree describes another player's move. The leaves at the bottom of the tree are the "values" gained from reaching this position with the sequence of moves from going down the tree. The algorithm assumes that the other player is playing his best possible moves also. This algorithm was used for example in Deep Blue, but the problems were that the branching factor of each node in the tree gets huge after couple of moves. So this is very hard to calculate.

In the matter of your question, I don't think you could gain any knowledge about passive/agressive moves from min-max algorithm, as it only tells you the best moves (not knowing if it was passive or agressive). I think a better approach to determine wether a move is agressive or passive will be tagging a large amount of moves in different positions in the game (with tags being 'passive'/'agressive') and training a Neural Network to determine if a new move that it never saw is passive or agressive.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Other algorithms for solving chess problems are min-max algorithm. What it does it tries to maximize your position and to minimize opponent's moves.

More detailed info: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/minimax-algorithm-in-game-theory-set-1-introduction/
> 1 votes

# Answer
Rather than using the engine evaluation, I suggest you to review how the engine evaluate threats and how you could capture such data.

For instance, a possible activity or aggresive order from more to less could be: A mate threat \> loss of material \> loss of space \> overloading a piece \> weakening the King's castle \> pawns doubled \> mobility reduced \> piece with reduced mobility \> piece distance to own king, etc.

An aditional element is how an engine determines which pieces or squares are insuficiently defended or attacked and how this was changed with the previous move. In a elementary book I read moves were classified as attacking moves, defending moves or developing moves. Later I learned that we must consider also in-between moves in dinamic positions.
> 1 votes

# Answer
The idea of an aggressive move and passive move is quite intuitive to my knowledge, but here is the general outline for whether a move is aggressive or not(These are very general and in some cases don't work):

Aggressive: 2 square pawn move, pawn move which threatens a piece, moves which threaten common tactics(pin, fork, skewer, etc...), checkmate threats, aim to open up position, avoiding queen trade, and more..., flank pawn moves, sacrifices, and etc...

Passive: 1 square pawn moves, Retreating moves, aim to close position, aiming at queen trades, and etc...

Assign a value to each of these categories positive being aggressive and negative being passive.

Example: A knight retreats and attacks the opponent's queen. A retreating move could be -10 and attacking the queen could be +15. This would give that move a value of +5. The rest is just as you said averaging for the entire game.
> 0 votes

# Answer
By "margin error", i.e. "margin of error", HelloWorld probably means the standard deviation of the distribution of results, possibly implying that an aggressive move will converge on a result faster than a passive move. One way to classify using that idea would be to calculate the length of a game following each candidate move, sort in ascending order, and label the ones in the top half "aggressive" and the rest "passive". This way you can label all moves in a given game and decide whether a player is passive or aggro.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: engines, analysis, strategy, style
---


title: King's Gambit Variation

text:
# Question
Title: King's Gambit Variation
(C32 King's Gambit Declined, Falkbeer, 5.de) 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 ...

Instead I made the move **3. fxe5**

What can this variation can be named as?

```
 [Fen ""]
 [Event "Let's Play!"]
 [Site " Chess.com"]
 [Date "Jul 1, 2016"]
 [White "anandsadasivam"]
 [Black "MaximusXIV"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [WhiteElo "1168"]
 [BlackElo "1000"]
 [TimeControl "1 in 14 days"]
 [Termination "anandsadasivam won on time"]
 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. fxe5  1-0

```

Wherein the one with ECO code C32 comes up like this

```
[Fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4

```

# Answer
> 8 votes
`1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5` is known as the **Falkbeer Countergambit**.

However, 3.fxe5?? is not a variation but a blunder. As Wikipedia explains, you will either lose material after 3...Qh4+, 4.g3 Qxe4+ (due to a fork between the King and the Rook), or expose your King to the black pieces after 3...Qh4+, 4.Ke2 Qxe4+ 5.Kf2 Bc5+.

I am not aware of a name for 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4. Not every opening variation has a name.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The opening trap doesn't have a name, but was made famous in the game **Rigaud vs. Cooper, 1974**. Not all motifs and variations have names, but you can make reference to this famous game to name the trap.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As already said, 3. fxe5 ?? is a terrible blunder after which the computer's evaluation drops from about equal to -5 (in Black's favor). The correct reply by Black is to play Qh4+:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pP3/4P3/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

    3... Qh4+ 4. g3 Qxe4+ 5. Qe2 Qxh1

```

The correct play is 3. exd5 by White, after which, Black has the choice to play the "true" counter gambit, probably unsound, but tricky:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/4PP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]

    3. dxe5 e4 4. d3 Nf6

```

And White can claim a small advantage here. A safer option for Black is to capture on f4, and you get a balanced game, not really a gambit anymore though !

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/4PP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]

    3. dxe5 exf4

```

With a very safe position.

Check this article about the King's gambit for more details about this particular trap, and about the King's gambit in general.

---
Tags: opening, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Can the outcome of the submitted position be clearly determined?
Playing a blitz game, I reached the below position:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "1r3rk1/1q1nbpp1/p1n1p2p/P1p1P2P/2Pp1BN1/5BP1/1P2QP2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

At this point both players had less then a minute, so I played `b4`. My idea was to slow down Black counterplay on the queenside, in order to get time for my attack ( `...cxb4` is the only move ). My opponent blundered and lost on time.

I do not have an engine available at the moment, hence this post. I want to know the following:

Does White have winning advantage in the above position, or Black, or is it a draw ?

I seek concrete lines and moves. You can use engines if you want.

# Answer
> 1 votes
From the original position, Stockfish doesn't see a whole lot going on. I don't think this means the game is drawn, but simply that there's no knock-out. Stockfish scores the position as slightly in White's favor. This "ideal" continuation doesn't seem suitable for a blitz game; there's too much moving for the time allowed.

I then ran the b4 move which yields a small advantage to Black. But holy smokes look at the "final" position. Black has two deadly outside connected passed pawns while While surely has a devastating King attack in there somewhere. I'll let this grind while I go to work...

```

[FEN "1r3rk1/1q1nbpp1/p1n1p2p/P1p1P2P/2Pp1BN1/5BP1/1P2QP2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Qe4 (1.b4 cxb4 2.Bxh6 Qc7 3.Bf4 Kh8 4.Bxc6 Qxc6 5.Rad1 Nc5 6.Rxd4 Nb3 7.Rd3 Nxa5 8.h6 g5 9.Bc1 Nxc4 10.Nh2 Rg8 11.Red1 Rbd8 12.Rxd8 Bxd8 13.Rd4 Nb6 14.Bd2 a5 15.Qd3 Nd5 16.Ng4 Qb7 17.Qe4 b3  {-.59}) Nd8 2.Qxb7 Nxb7 3.Bc6 Rfd8 4.Bd2 Nf8 5.Be4 Rd7 6.b3 Nd8 7.Ra3 Rc7 8.f4 Nc6 9.Kg2 Nd7 10.Nf2 Nb4 11.Raa1 Rcc8 12.Reb1 Bf8 13.Ra4 Nc6 14.Nd3 f6 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Bf3 Bd6 17.Ra3 Kf7 18.Raa1 Kg8 19.Rb2 Kf7 20.g4 Nd7 21.Re1 Nf6 22.Rbb1 {+.34}

```

ALNS, if you have specific variations, let me know and I'll run them.

EDIT - Here's the analysis of `1.b4` after something like 10 hours. This is coming down to a draw. I don't think Black can convert this.

```

[FEN "1r3rk1/1q1nbpp1/p1n1p2p/P1p1P2P/2Pp1BN1/5BP1/1P2QP2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 cxb4 2.Rad1 Qc7 3.Bxc6 Qxc6 4.Rxd4 b3 5.Nxh6+ gxh6 6.Bxh6 f5 7.exf6 Bxf6 8.Rg4+ Kf7 9.Qd3 b2 10.Rb1 Ke7 11.Bxf8+ Rxf8 12.Rf4 Qd6 13.Qxd6+ Kxd6 14.Rxf6 Nxf6 15.Rxb2 Nxh5 16.Rb6+ Ke7 17.Rxa6 Nf6 18.Ra7+ Nd7 19.Kg2 Rc8 20.g4 Rxc4 21.Kg3 Kd6 22.f4 e5 23.fxe5+ Nxe5 24.g5 Rg4+ 25.Kf2 Rxg5 26.a6 Rg4 27.Ra8 Ra4 28.Ke2 Ra3 29.a7 Nc6 30.Kd1 Nxa7 {-.49 after 34541 seconds}

```

```

[title "Try Be4 Bb1"]
[FEN "1r3rk1/1q1nbpp1/p1n1p2p/P1p1P2P/2Pp1BN1/5BP1/1P2QP2/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 cxb4 2.Be4 Nc5 {Stockfish initially tried a few variations on 3.Bxh6 but rejected them. Instead Stockfish goes defensive} 3.Bg2 (3. Bb1 d3 4.Qd1 b3 5.Be3 Rfd8 6.Qf3 Qb4 7.Rd1 b2 8.Ra2 Nd4 9.Bxd4 Rxd4 10.Ne3 Ne4 11.Kg2 Nc3 12.Rxd3 Rxd3 13.Rxb2 Qxb2 14.Bxd3 Bc5 15.Ng4 Rd8 16.Bf1 Qa1 17.Bd3 Qa2 18.Bf1 Qxa5 19.Qc6 Bd4 20.c5 Nd5 21.Qxa6 Qxc5 22.Bd3 {-5.65 White is a rook down.}
) Rfc8 4.Rad1 Qd7 5.Bxh6 gxh6 6.Qd2 Qe8 7.Nxh6+ Kg7 8.Qf4 b3 9.Bxc6 Rxc6 10.Rxd4 b2 11.Rb1 Nb3 12.Rxb2 Nxd4 13.Rxb8 Ne2+ 14.Kf1 Nxf4 15.Rxe8 Bb4 16.gxf4 Kxh6 17.Rh8+ Kg7 18.Ra8 Bd2 19.Ke2 Bxf4 20.Ra7 Bxe5 21.Kd3 Bf4 22.Ra8 {-2.29}

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
This is what I like to use Lichess for

http://en.lichess.org/analysis/standard/1r3rk1/1q1nbpp1/p1n1p2p/P1p1P2P/2Pp1BN1/5BP1/1P2QP2/R3R1K1

It's not nearly as powerful as stockfish or the likes but you can get a general idea whether you had particularly strong tactics available.

According to the analysis it sees an opportunity for a draw through perpetuals by sacrificing the bishop on H6 but no particular advantages to either side to play for. It favors Qd4 which does centralize the queen and puts some pressure on the knight on c6 but overal it's very even.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Not really.
You would need to play it out to the end to be sure.

And even then there would be questions like what if at move 77 I did this move instead of that move.

Even engines would not be definitive. But if you played the position out a thousand times between two engines you could get a statistical answer but still not likely to be definitive like the OP implied.

That said, my intuition says white could win and should at least draw. OTB especially blitz ,I would be trying for that mate and expecting a perpetual at worse.

I would play Q-Q2 (qd2 for the kiddies:) and look at the bishop taking the king rook pawn followed by Be4. Black might play P-KB4 \[Pf4\] to hold on but his position would not be as good and white could ultimately win.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: What are some good defenses against the king's gambit?
The king's gambit has a lot of initiative and attack. Is there a good defense to neutralize this initiative?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The best way is Fischer's way. he had a low opinion of it, and so he wrote an entire paper on it's neutralization. Here is the paper and here is his proposal

```
[Title "King's gambit bust!"]
[StartPly "6"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1. e4 e5
 2. f4 exf4
 3. Nf3 d6

```

What have we achieved here.

* Our opponent is a pawn down
* Our bishop is freed, pointing at the somewhat weakened kingside. With the idea of Bg5 and other threats.
* The knight jump on e5 isn't a plan anymore
* Lots of ideas for black.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'm not an e5-player, but sometimes I play it when I know that someone is well-prepared against my usual defenses or in blitz games for fun. Here is what I'm using:

```
[Title "KG random side variation"]
[StartPly "16"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1. e4 e5
 2. f4 exf4
 3. Nf3 Ne7
 4. Bc4 d5
 5. exd5 Nxd5
 6. O-O Be7
 7. d4 Be6
 8. Qe2 O-O

```

`3. Ne7` might be rated as suspicious but it's viable move to make. It's not widely played so there's a chance that your oponent won't know theory here at all. Those kinds of position are rather equals for human beings. Of course it's always a tiny tiny plus but it's nothing decisive.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I've had success with the Cunningham Defense as it keeps White from castling:

```
[Title "Cunningham Defense"]
[StartPly "9"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. f4 exf4
3. Nf3 Be7
4. Bc4 Bh4+
5. Kf1

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you're looking to “fight fire with fire”, the Falkbeer Countergambit may interest you.

```
[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[StartPly "9"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. f4 d5!?

```

If you are interested in very sharp, attacking play, then you will enjoy this defense. White must be very careful from the beginning because it is very easy to lose the game from a single misstep.

```
[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[StartPly "9"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. f4 d5!?
3. fxe5?? Qh4+
4. g3 Qxe4+

```

# Answer
> 0 votes
If you are trying to **neutralize** your opponent's initiative in the King's gambit (rather than fighting for the advantage but accepting a high risk of losing), I suggest to play a quick d7-d5, which is usually enough to remove most of the danger:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 exf4

```

Don't play the Falkbeer counter-gambit with 3... e4 if your goal is to neutralize ! 3... exf4 is much safer Interestingly it can transpose into the so-called Modern defense : 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5

And you can find the d7-d5 idea in the 3. Bc4 variation of the King's gambit:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Nf6

```

With a very solid position as well.

But it is true that the King's gambit is a very complex opening from a tactical standpoint and it is easy to get lost in the complications. Check my overview on the King's gambit if you are interested to learn more !

---
Tags: opening, kings-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Why is King's Gambit said to be refuted?
We all known that Bobby Fischer has published the famous "A Bust to The King's Gambit", where the gambit is said to be losing for white. Why is it so? Is there any line that can secure black an advantage in the opening, assuming best play from white from today's point of view?

# Answer
> We all known that Bobby Fischer has published the famous "A Bust to The King's Gambit", where the gambit is said to be losing for white. Why is it so? Is there any line that can secure black an advantage in the opening, assuming best play from white?

It is **not** refuted but the *Modern variation* is very "pleasant" for Black at the moment, even though being "equal". The fact is that White **barely** holds equality here, and if he makes the slightest mistake then chances are high for him to lose the game. I am referring to the line `1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5! 4.exd5`.

Other old popular lines are very sharp and unexplored but **mainly easier to play** with Black. I refer to the lines where Black plays `...g5` with Black's dark squared bishop being posted on `d6` or `g7`. These are simply ultra sharp, inhuman lines where even computers explode!

That is the reason why you will not see King's Gambit being played at the top/master level:

1. Too much memorization of lines which can be refuted by one computer-like novelty;
2. Even if White manages to get out of the opening with "equal" position, Black usually has easier time playing the middlegame;

I have checked the evaluations of all the lines in the *Chess Informant ECO ( 2006 )* and my claims are supported -\> White will **always** have a move that offers equal / sharp game, but the positions are wild and very hard to play.

This is not something that top GMs want, they do not enter into highly tactical lines.

The reason for this is that in order to play this type of chess, you need to be physically very fit, you need to solve puzzles on a daily basis, **you lose a lot of energy over the board** when playing like this ( this is very dangerous for tournament play because **you will play subsequent games worse** ), the amount of stress you suffer is very high, and most of the time the **entire line** can be refuted by a single novelty found by a computer. Furthermore, the openings like this reduce to "I calculate better than you" type of game, so GM can not defeat markedly weaker player if he prepared his opening and calculates as good as that GM ( I have seen players who "fit this bill" so it is not impossible ).

If you intend to play King's Gambit as White, or you play `1...e5` **by all means** get *John Shaw-King's Gambit ( 2013 )* as it is most up-to-date publication and the coverage is simply exceptional.

I wish I could give you some illustrative lines but the material is so vast that it would not fit in 10 posts or even more! Just get the book and all will be clear!

Best regards.
> 12 votes

# Answer
Just my totally subjective opinion. Seems to me that at sub-master level - the goal is to have fun and enjoy the thrills and chills of the game.

So why not play King's Gambit as well as all the other gambits ? Accept that you might get blasted off the board - but you might equally wind up getting some sudden inspiration and doing the same to your opponent.

Why even worry about whether or not grandmasters currently favor an opening or whether it is fashionable at the moment ?

And who cares if computers like a line or not ?

I love it when people throw gambits at me that I am totally unprepared for - it gets the juices flowing.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The King's gambit is probably not refuted, but Black has several good replies to it. White's goal is certainly to play a sharp game with a quick attack and Black can either oblige and try to outplay White on such lines:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4

```

This is the start of some crazy lines, and anything can happen here. Of course, there is the Fischer move, but it is not necessarily a forced win for Black, just a good game:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6

```

d6 is just a waiting move that prevents White's Knight to jump on e5 later on. But Black also have a whole family of defenses based on a quick d7-d5 that levels things immediately and let Black with a safe position:

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

    1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5

```

All that to say that Black has many interesting ways to fight that give him at least equality on perfect play. If you are interested, check my article on the many ways to play the King's gambit.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, kings-gambit, refuted
---


# Question
Title: Does FIDE or USCF allow ICCF type numerical notation instead of the so called algebraic?
ICCF uses pure numerical notation counting each square by row and column eg 11 to 88. So Pd4 often written just d4 - would be 2224 so there can never be any confusion should two pieces be able to move to the same square.

If One used that notation in an OTB tournament would FIDE accept it or would that be a problem?

# Answer
Neither appears to allow numerical notation.

FIDE requires algebraic notation.

> Article 8: The recording of the moves 8.1.1
>
> In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

The USCF prefers algebraic, but also permits descriptive or "computer notation".

> 15. The Recording of Games15A. Manner of keeping score.In the course of play each player is required to record the game (both the player’s and the opponent’s moves), move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, on the scoresheetprescribed for the competition. Algebraic notationis standard, but descriptive or computer notation is permitted.

I cannot find a definition for "computer notation" in their rules.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: fide, notation
---


title: What happened to the CCLA?

text:
# Question
Title: What happened to the CCLA?
I wonder what happened to the CCLA. Did the CCLA get folded into ICCF or USCF or just go out of business? Did it merge with yet some other chess group?

# Answer
> 2 votes
They appear to still be active.

https://www.serverchess.com/

---
Tags: correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: Why does the black king evade to f8, and not to h7?
I'm trying to practice with the app https://f-droid.org/en/packages/jwtc.android.chess

Why does the black king go to f8, and not Kh7 instead?

```
 [FEN "r2rb3/1p2RBk1/2pP1ppR/p7/P7/7P/1q3PP1/3Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rxg6+ Kf8 (1...Kh7) 2. Rg8#

```

# Answer
> 15 votes
Kh7 would also result in mate due to Qh5. So both moves are equally "good" Kf8 Rg8 maybe was seen as less obvious than Qh5.

---
Tags: checkmate, problems
---


title: Understanding The Isolani Pawn

text:
# Question
Title: Understanding The Isolani Pawn
After reading *Chess structures* of Mauricio Flores Rios, I have some initial questions on the Isolani (or isolated queen pawn). The author shows this diagram:

Later, he proceeds to giving White and Black plans for the game. Here my questions arise.

White is supposed to start a kingside attack. I can see no reason why one would do that. I mean White does not have a majority of pawns in the kingside. I would not clearly start doing anything on the queenside but I am not sure why I should do it in the kingside.

Furthermore, if the reason for why this kingside attack is justified does not lie in the pawn majority, I cannot see why the pawn distribution would allow White pieces to be arranged so as to threaten the kingside. White can place a knight on e5 but he can also put it on c5 so it is unclear to me.

I have this very same question also regarding the following pawn structure:

Later, the author suggests placing the Queen and a bishop forming an attack on the b1-h7 diagonal as well as a bishop on g5. These are reasons to start an attack to the kingside but again I am not sure why the pawn structure would suggest doing this.

My second question is why Black is supposed to benefit from the exchange of White light-coloured bishop. I can see this bishop supports the d4-d5 rupture but it seems somewhat exaggerated to exchange it simply for that (maybe there is a better reason?).

# Answer
To answer your first question, in these structures, white has more space and because of that, he can put his pieces in more advanced positions. Black's king is usually on the kingside in these positions which makes the e5 square a great square for a knight. If the knight was on c5, then black could play b6 and kick the knight out. When the knight lands on e5, f6 would be unwise by black because it greatly weakens the e6 square. Basically, these pawn structures result in more space which means it is easier to maneuver and therefore, start an attack. Also, these pawns are a short term advantage, and without quick action, black could quickly arrange his pieces to attack your d4 (and c4) pawn(s).

Black would benefit with an exchange of light squared bishops because of the fact that the e6 pawn blocks the activity of black's light squared bishop. White's bishop is very strong on the b1-h7 diagonal, therefore, in a majority of circumstances, it is favorable for black to exchange light-squared bishops.
> 7 votes

# Answer
There is a lot of material available, both in books and on the internet, about how to play isolated Queens pawn positions for both sides, but you ask one very simple question that has a short answer. You ask if there is any basis in the pawn structure for White to launch a King-side attack. There is, but is a bit indirect.

If white plays passively, he may very well drift into an inferior endgame, so he needs to find a way to exert some control over the position, using the positive aspects of his pawn structure. Mostly this is that he has more space and more mobility, and he can use these to shift his pieces toward the enemy King. Typical moves include Ne5, Bd3 and Qc2, Bg5, Nc3-e4, Rae1-e3, f2-f4-f5. Even if the attack does not succeed, it will distract Black from his endgame plans. It is true that there are no targets yet for White to focus on, but they can usually be created later on. White must attack, because he really has nothing else to do.

The issue of exchanging the light-square Bishops is not so clear IMHO. Whites KB is mobile and plays many useful roles, attacking f7 and h7, preparing the thrust d5. Blacks QB has less mobility and activity, so a trade tends to relieve Blacks game. That being said, if this B can be posted on b7, it restrains the Pd4 and probes the White K-side, so can become very powerful. Rather than advising that it should always be exchanged off if possible, it might be better to say that its role must be given careful consideration.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In general, the player with more central control has the means to start a successful attack on the opponent's king. This is just a fact of chess, but I'll list a few reasons for it:

* The player who controls the centre can use the central squares for efficiently maneuvering his pieces across the board. This plays well with a fast attack.
* Central control provides the player with active outposts for his pieces, that often put them in striking distance to the opponent's king. As you noted, the e5-square works for the knight.
* Central control gives the player more space, allowing his pieces to comfortably arrange themselves in attacking formation. For example, because of his central control, White can easily put his queen on d3 to set up a battery.
* Control of the centre restricts the opponent's pieces. This allows the player to not worry so much about counterplay, allowing him to focus on offensive operations.

You noted White could also attack on the queenside. This is true, but here's why attacking on the kingside is better:

* The King is a more valuable target than mere pawns and squares on the queenside.
* The b1-h7 diagonal let's White create a Q+B battery right to the Black king's castle. There is no such equally powerful opportunity for pressuring the queenside.

Finally, Black benefits from exchanging White's light-squared bishop due to the b1-h7 potential battery.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You are saying that you do not see why White should attack on the Kingside as "White does not have a majority of pawns in the kingside.". This assumes that attacking means starting a sort of pawn storm in every case, but that is not correct.

It may sound weird, but in Isolani positions, you have better attacking prospects mostly because your pawn does not get in the way of your attacking pieces. See the illustration below:

```

    [FEN "6k1/pp3ppp/4p3/4N3/3P4/1B5Q/PP3PPP/2BRR1K1 w Q - 0 1"]

```

Here your pieces are just perfectly placed to attack. Your Knight and your Bishop are putting pressure on f7. Your c1 Bishop can quickly move to g6 or even h6. One of your rooks can be transferred to the third rank quickly (on g3 or h3). Attacking is just easier for you. Note that the pieces will carry the attack, not the pawns.

Now imagine the same position with a pawn on e3 instead:

```

    [FEN "6k1/pp3ppp/4p3/4N3/8/1B2P2Q/PP3PPP/2BRR1K1 w Q - 0 1"]

```

This may not seem huge, but your e3 pawn blocks both your Bishop on c1 and prevents any Rook lift to the third rank: your attack is much harder to carry on now.

Carrying the attack is not an easy task though, and you often need to combine an attack on the f7 weakness and a Rook lift along the third rank, topics that I tackle in my post about how to attack with the Isolated Queen's Pawn.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Where are the opening trends heading at the start of the decade?
Nearly every era has its opening trends like at the beginning of the millennia the Berlin started to become the trend and so much that e4 was starting to be avoided. With the 2018 world chess championship and Carlsen scoring, numerous wins with it the Sveshnikov is getting into fashion again. Even in the old days of Capablanca and Alekhine practically only Queens Gambit declines and Ruy Lopezes were seen. My question is basically where are the opening trends going as we go into the new decade?

# Answer
With e4, a few that come to mind are the Rossolimo Sicilian, often to avoid Magnus' Sveshnikov, and the Najdorf never goes away. The Italian game, and the Ruy Lopez is another that never goes away (Magnus has 180 games as white alone with it).

With d4, the Catalan is still popular along with the various Queen's Gambit lines.

Obviously, very few things every go totally out of style unless they are totally busted, but to come up with the list, I used ChessBase to do "dossiers" on Carlsen, Caruana, Ding, and So; and then I looked at what they played the most, and ignore openings with lesser quantities of games. They seem to mostly play very traditional openings that take direct control of the center.

EDIT: First, I think that the Berlin was on a level all by itself due to Kramnik's successes, and because every top player plays 1...e5 a lot, and because the Ruy Lopez is so difficult to defend. I just finished watching "The Method in Chess" Videos literally just yesterday, and in one of the last two, GM Dorfman made a comment about how the Ruy is just "statically worse", and that black is mostly confined to the last three ranks, and white can choose to play on the kingside, center, or queenside, meaning that black always has to be that much more vigilant about white's intentions in any of the three areas. The Berlin solved that at the cost of a slightly inferior endgame, and thus, it solved it for A LOT of elite players. Therefore, it also got played a lot more often than most other opening trends.

I looked through my New in Chess Yearbooks, which are basically surveys of opening theory, and it mostly confirmed what I wrote above. Here is a list of players, who have played each of the following openings.

What I did to get this information was plug in the position I knew was popular from reading about chess over the last few years, and the Yearbooks, and then clicked on the Reference Database (Mega 2020) in ChessBase, and then sorted by ELO rating, and paged down to see what elite players played it. If they played it just once or twice, I did not include them. Nakamura was on the edge for a few of them, but I noted that.

Rossolimo with white: Carlsen, MLV, Aronian, Nakamura, Anand, Caruana, and Giri. I sorted the following search to bring up Carlsen's games as black to show how they are trying to avoid his Sveshnikov (far right in the picture), but he also has played it against Radjabov, Gelfand, and Dubov, among others.

Sveshnikov as black: Carlsen, Caruana, Grischuk, and Radjabov.

Najdorf as black: Carlsen, MLV, Ding, Grischuk, Anand, Giri, Grischuk, and again, Nakamura dabbles.

The Italian Game with white: Carlsen (19 games), Caruana, Ding, So, MLV, Giri, Anand, Karjakin, Nepo, Aronian, and even Nakamura has played it a few times.

The Ruy Lopez with white, and all have played it A LOT...more than any other opening I could find: Carlsen, Caruana, So, MLV, Anand, Topalov (even as recently as 2015), Anand, Giri, and Nakamura some.

As you can see, while the top players may avoid one of the above, they are all very popular overall.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory
---


# Question
Title: What is the best strategy for an amateur to last as many moves as possible against a GM?
As an amateur chess player, I have been pondering this question for quite a bit now:

> In case of an amateur playing against a Grandmaster, what strategy would lengthen inevitable defeat?

I am assuming that a Grandmaster will *always* beat an amateur; I suppose that it is possible to find exceptions, but they will be so rare as to be negligible. My question is partly constrained by the following observations:

1. The amateur will have a significantly higher chance of *not* choosing the best possible move in any given situation.
2. The Grandmaster is playing as if they were playing against a Master or another Grandmaster.

In this case, will the amateur be able to lengthen their defeat by always playing what they *believe* is the best possible move (which the Grandmaster is likely to anticipate with experience), or by using strategies that are not encouraged but objectively make the game more difficult for the Grandmaster (eg. always going for the kill regardless of piece value, a queen for a queen)?

Or would it benefit the amateur to play an entirely random move every turn, since it would prevent the amateur from taking the bait/accepting the gambit?

# Answer
It really depends on what you mean by "lengthen".

I am not a GM, but as an "ordinary" Master, I have played 1700s before, who were lost by move 10, but the game still took 50 moves to finish. If you are trying to stay equal longer, that is a harder question to address.

If you are just taking about purely lengthening the game, then you are looking to trade material. Endgames naturally take longer to play out. Again, they may still be lost for many moves, but they can take 40-50 more moves to execute the opponent.

In reality, if you want a shot at being one of those statistical upsets, you want a complicated position, possibly at the cost of a pawn, where you are the aggressor. You are still likely to lose, but at least you have a "puncher's chance".

P.S. I do not recommend playing randomly. That is a recipe for making MUCH WORSE moves, which will be punished that much more severely. Unless it is an actual good move that is buried deeply, and that a strong player overlooked, a "random move" is really just a move that we discounted already, usually for good reasons. Playing moves that strong players do not consider strong, is not a good recipe for success. When I encounter such a random move, it is usually just bad, and I try to adjust to take advantage of whatever new weakness was created.

P.P.S. Based on your comment, and clarification, in the comment below, there is probably nothing you can do that will guarantee that you will stay equal longer other than if you have prepared the game with a chess database, and guess the line that the GM ultimately will play. A GM is going to be MUCH stronger positionally, and tactically. They simply analyze and understand much better.

That leads me back to my last comment above, and that is you want a complicated position. They will probably outplay you there too, but that is the only way you have a prayer.
> 23 votes

# Answer
If you want to last as long as possible against a much stronger player, whether GM or not, then you have to do the same kind of things a GM would do playing against another GM, with one minor amendment.

First, a GM would prepare for his opponent. You should do the same. Go to chess-db.com (or your favourite chess database) and download a pgn file of all their games. A gm would also try to play on his territory not his opponent's. If you know what colour you will be then see what the GM plays against your repertoire. Look through all his games against your favourite line(s) and prepare so you can at least reach an equal middlegame.

Second, in the game once you reach the end of your preparation change your approach from what you normally do and do something which stronger players do all the time, play prophylactically.

Whenever it is your turn ask yourself first what the point of your opponent's last move was. What is he trying to do? What are his plans? Rather than try and think up plans of your own try and stop your opponent's plans. Here is where you appreciate the second reason for preparing and fighting the battle of familiar ground.You should be familiar with the plans for both sides. This should help you frustrate your opponent's plans.

Third, if you don't see a way to stop your opponent's plan, because it is not clear what that is, then look for moves which strengthen your position, which make your position more solid, harder for your opponent to attack.

Finally, suppose you reach not only an equal endgame but one in which you can't see any way your opponent can win, maybe something like a fortress. Don't lose sight of the objective! Your objective is not to win. It is to make the game last so long that it ends up in a draw.

If there really is no way for your opponent to break through then he will try and tempt you. He will apparently weaken his position to try and lure you into giving up defence and going on to the attack. Don't be fooled! Don't start thinking you might win. You won't, but you might easily find a way to lose. Keep on defending. You are happy to repeat. You are happy to shuffle back and forth in your defensive position. Be patient. In his other games the GM is much more patient than you. Match him for patience.
> 13 votes

# Answer
I'm interpreting the question as "how to last as many moves as possible before the computer eval breaches \[some high number\]". In this scenario, try:

* Preparing and memorizing some long opening line, the longer the better. After all, each move in your home preparation also counts!
* Watch for tactics. Blundering a piece is the easiest way to lose (positional blunders are not usually as devastating). Make sure you defend all your pieces, make *luft* early to forestall back rank mates, and look at all the captures & checks at your opponent's disposal.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: strategy, grandmaster
---


title: "Back story" of the pieces legal moves

text:
# Question
Title: "Back story" of the pieces legal moves
An acquaintance whose family was from Turkey, told me that the pieces move the way do based on ideas about Persian warfare. Moving in a rank or file was considered earthly, and moving diagonal was heavenly.

The king and advisor (queen) are combination of earthly and heavenly power. They are both equal in power, but the king can only move one space at a time, because he is burdened with the weight of command.

The pawns must move in an earthly way, but can only capture with the help of god (so the capture is diagonal like the bishop).

Everything else is fuzzy: There was something about why the pawn's first move could be one or two spaces. I can't remember anything about the knights. There was a reason rooks where earthly. There was also a bit about why castling goes the way it does, and why pawns can be promoted.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? It was a cool story, and I'd like to hear the whole thing again.

# Answer
Your acquaintance is right, and wrong to some degree, since before chess went to Persia, its precursor is considered to have been invented in India. It was based on troop movements there, so they had already been established by then, even if they were later modified.

This is taken from Wikipedia here:

> Precursors to chess originated in India during the Gupta Empire. There, its early form in the 6th century was known as chaturaṅga, which translates as "four divisions (of the military)": infantry, cavalry, elephantry, and chariotry. These forms are represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively."
> 2 votes

---
Tags: history
---


# Question
Title: What is it called when opposite colored pawns up against each other?
When a white pawn and a black pawn are touching on a file, what is it called?

# Answer
I think what you're asking about is referred to as a "blocked pawn". There is another question here that asks basically the same question, except in reverse... A pawn can also be blocked by another of the opponent's pieces, rather than another pawn. In either case, it can't make any progress unless the pawn/piece blocking it somehow goes away, or unless an opportunity arises for it to capture on an adjacent file.
> 8 votes

# Answer
With the exception of Hans Kmoch's attempt to give it a name, which never caught on (I have never seen anyone else use it anywhere), they really do not have a name that I have even seen.

I probably have seen this referred to mostly as "two opposing pawns", but that is really just English rather than a specific chess term.
> 12 votes

# Answer
According to this post, pawns that block each other are called a "ram".
> 4 votes

# Answer
For the scenario where one pawn is on the second rank and the other is its sixth rank but cannot be captured by a pawn on an adjacent file, YouTube vlogger Kingscrusher coined the term "thorn pawn". The chess engine Leela Zero seems to establish thorn pawns quite frequently as part of its strategy, and they can be amazingly effective at limiting enemy mobility. If e.g. Black has castled kingside and the king is at g8, a thorn pawn at g6 can make it impossible for Black to establish f7, g7, or h7 as escape squares. If White keeps a rook ready to pounce on the eighth rank, Black will have to keep a rook *on* the eighth rank. Unless or until Black can resolve that situation, White's thorn pawn will enormously upgrade the playing strength of White's rooks and downgrade the playing strength of Black's.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pawns, pawn-structure, terminology
---


# Question
Title: Why black is happy with slow development?
One important opening principle is to develop your pieces and being ahead in development is the aim of the opening. In the following opening, white is obviously ahead in development (developed the queen and both knights, one of them in a centre square) but black seems to be fine:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Ne5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nf6

# Answer
I do not know that I would say "happy", but in chess, there are pluses and minuses to every move we make, and on top of that, there are exceptions to many positional concepts. We see GMs move pieces twice in the opening all the time when there is a good reason.

Now, as to that specific position, black is, indeed, somewhat behind in development, but has compensating factors. In particular, black has traded the bad bishop for white's good bishop, and the exchange of light-squared bishops makes most kingside attacks very difficult to execute, and in the Caro, with less space, that is a concern. The c6 and e6 pawns are well-placed to help control the light squares since the bishop was traded. Black's remaining bishop is probably a little better than white's, and contributes well to the defense.

In addition, black is incredibly solid, so black has the time to finish development safely, and then to break back with c5. It is almost impossible to prevent c5 later.

Lastly, black is normally down one tempo, but here it is two. Black had no choice but to play Bh7 when white played Ne5. How is being behind in development normally punished? By opening the position. That is virtually impossible here, so black is content (the word I would use instead of "happy") to be behind en development temporarily.

Edit: I am going to move a few more things from my comments below to the answer.

One more thing that compensates is that the Ng3 is not well-placed, and often goes to e4 later, giving back a tempo. You also might look at h4 as a potential weakness, but it is rare in practice that it is a factor in that sense...it usually is not weak, but cramps black's kingside.

Development is not the overriding factor in this line, or similar lines...it is that white has more space, which is why black must eventually chip away at the center with c5. If not, it will probably be a slow strangulation.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: caro-kann, development
---


title: Starting with the Sodium Attack

text:
# Question
Title: Starting with the Sodium Attack
Can someone suggest good to great developments starting with the Sodium Attack Na3? I am currently using this opening for my games, but I cannot find a really powerful strategic development with this opening. Any previous games with this is also welcome, as well as some advice on development strategies.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The analysis below is without the aid of a computer or any resources, but are just my thoughts on an unconventional opening:

```
[FEN ""]

1. Na3 e5 {Black seizes the centre and has the option to play ...Bxa3} 2. b3 {White dissuades ...Bxa3 and plans to fianchetto the bishop later} d5 {Black gains more space to counter white's hypermodern plans} 3. c4 {White must challenge the black centre, and hopes for 3...dxc4 4. Nxc4} d4 {Black wants to retain the space advantage} 4. Nc2 {Preparing e3, Be2 and O-O} Nf6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. d3

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
## Let's think this through.

Frankly, I think Na3 is a *terrible* opening move. But I'll play along with the concept for a moment because there is the germ of a useful lesson in this exercise.

Clearly, a3 is a poor spot for a knight - it can only attack four spaces, all of which are near the edge of the board - so this move must be to get the knight to a better square. c2 and c4 are the obvious candidates. From c2, the knight exerts pressure on d4, which isn't a bad thing. (In a lot of openings, d5 ends up being critical, which suggests that Na6 might have potential as an opening move for Black.) From c4, the knight pressures d6 and e5. You could imagine this move being paired with f4 or Bf4, along with Nf3, to put pressure deep into the Black center.

I seriously doubt that any of these ideas are really going to be effective over the board. But the exercise of looking at a move like this and thinking through how it might be turned to advantage is what every player should be doing every time his opponent makes a move. The moment your opponent lifts his fingers from his piece, you should run through just this sort of exercise. Try to figure out what sort of strategic ideas (as well as tactical) his move might support. To win consistently, it isn't enough to have a strategy. You have to be able to identify and counter your opponent's strategy as well.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Chess openings are characterized by a **sequence of moves** and a certain **pawn structure in the center**. This pawn structure is the major factor that determines the strategic ideas for the middlegame.

In your question you give a *single move* and in a comment you state that you *do not want to disturb the central pawn line initially* (for whatever reason..). As you can see from this, what you have here is not really an opening and therefore it is impossible to give you any specific strategic ideas without knowing your plan/setup for the center. Basically asking for strategic plans in the position after 1. Na3 is like asking for strategic plans in the initial position. All we can recommend are general opening principles in this case: fight for the center, develop pieces...

I agree with anybody else that 1. Na3 is not a good move. It is not going to lose immediately, but gives away the advantage you have playing white. Some reasons why it is a bad start for a game:

1 Na3 puts the knight on the rim where it has few squares. This is not in itself a bad idea, if it could go to some meaningful squares from there or if it could attack something from there. However playing this as the first move you cannot say whether it will be a good place for the knight in the future. If black is an experienced player he will try to take advantage of you committing your knight to such a square that early.

Let's see what future the knight could have from there. On b5 and c4 it could easily get kicked away by a pawn, which leaves c2, which is really only a useful square if you need to defend a pawn on d4 or if you want to push a pawn-break on d4. But do you know whether this will be the case?

A similar purpose you could achieve by moving the knight b1-c3-e2, which is a more flexible route with lots of alternative options, while for your knight on a3 most of the time the only possible path will be to c2.

Also note that in order to get to the semi-useful square of c2 you needed to move the knight twice so you lost a tempo.

As others I strongly recommend to play something more normal. Chess openings are very well analyzed and there is a reason that nobody is playing 1 Na3

# Answer
> 1 votes
Aka Durkin Opening. I would tend to agree with some of the negative comments re Na3 as the first move: Knights tend to be most effective when they have a stable central post ie are protected and cannot be kicked away by a pawn.

However, another way of looking at Na3 as a first move for White is that you are in effect playing as Black but with an extra move in hand. Playing a first move as white like a3 or h3 is like this too. In principle these moves as White cannot be bad as such but you may just be handing the initiative to Black.

But assuming you decide to try 1.Na3, if you can drive subsequent play so that the Na3 Knight can find a secure spot at c4 or c2 then the move may have the virtue of getting your opponent out of book early and also strengthen your centre.

Remember, Tony Miles played 1.....a6 as his first move with Black against Anatoly Karpov and beat him in a fine game! Karpov may even have been World Champ at the time.

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Why is it called a draw?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is it called a draw?
There's no information as to why it's called a draw. Some of my students start to take out a pencil and paper and literally draw in the middle of the game.

Why is it called a draw?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I do not think that you will ever get a definitive answer. I did find an interesting article of a dedicated etymology site here.

I will quote part of it here:

> By the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) reckoning, the earliest record of draw, as in a contest that ends with no winner, comes in reference to an 1856 US chess match. Over the next few decades, writers marked off draw with quotes or italics, which shows the word was novel. The word was familiar by the 1870s.
>
> This draw is short for draw-game, which the OED finds for a “tie” by 1825. A draw-game, in turn, is a variation on a drawn battle or drawn match. The OED dates drawn match to a 1610 letter from English diplomat Sir Dudley Carleton: “It concluded, as it is many times in a cock pit, with a drawn match; for nothing was in the end put to the question.” (Before pilots occupied them, game-cocks fought in cockpits.)
>
> Why such a battle or match is characterized as “drawn” is unclear: Indeed, etymology often ends in draws. Drawn may be clipped from withdrawn, as in fighters who have withdrawn from the battlefield. Withdraw, “to take back or away,” features an old and original sense of the preposition with, “against,” even though it now, ironically enough, means “together.” Draw, meanwhile, is related to drag. And withdraw itself might be a calque, or loan translation, of Latin’s retrahere, “to retract.”

That is probably as close as you will get.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The word is also related to "draught", this disambiguation quite possibly comes from it. Tigran Petrosian once used a metaphor "to find an oasis in the desert" to describe Kasparov's ability to unbalance a drawish position and find a win (in a game against Korchnoi, if memory serves).

# Answer
> 0 votes
draw (n.)

c. 1400, "act of pulling," from draw (v.). Meaning "game or contest that ends without a winner," is attested first in drawn match (1610s), but the signification is uncertain origin; some speculate it is from withdraw. Hence, as a verb, "to leave (a game, etc.) undecided," from 1837.

From https://www.etymonline.com/word/draw

# Answer
> -2 votes
draw (v.) "give motion to by the act of pulling," c. 1200, drauen, spelling alteration of Old English dragan "to drag, to draw, protract" (class VI strong verb; past tense drog, past participle dragen), from Proto-Germanic \*draganan "to draw, pull" (source also of Old Norse draga "to draw, drag, pull," Old Saxon dragan "to carry," Old Frisian drega, draga, Middle Dutch draghen "to carry, bring, throw," Old High German tragan "carry, bring, lead," German tragen "to carry, bear"), from PIE root \*dhregh- (see drag (v.)).

Sense of "make a line or figure" (by "drawing" a pencil across paper) is from c. 1200. Meaning "remove or extract (a weapon) by pulling" is from late 12c., originally of a sword. Sense of "to pull (a bowstring)" is from c. 1200. To draw a criminal (drag him at the tail of a horse to the place of execution) is from c. 1300. Meaning "select one (from a number of lots, etc.)" is from c. 1300. Sense of "bring (a crowd, an audience, etc.) by inducement or attraction" is from 1580s. Of a ship or boat, "to displace (a specified amount) of water," 1550s. In card-playing, "to take or receive (a card)," by 1772; draw-poker is by 1850. To draw out "lengthen, protract" is from 1550s; to draw the line in the figurative sense of "make a limit" is by 1793. To draw blood is from c. 1400.

The difference between \[Draw Poker\] and Poker is, that the player can draw from the pack as many cards as he may wish,--not exceeding five,--which must be given him by the dealer; but previous to drawing he must take from his original hand the game number as he may wish to draw, and lay them in the centre of the table. \["Bohn's New Hand-Book of Games," Philadelphia, 1850\]

draw (n.) c. 1400, "act of pulling," from draw (v.). Meaning "game or contest that ends without a winner," is attested first in drawn match (1610s), but the signification is uncertain origin; some speculate it is from withdraw. Hence, as a verb, "to leave (a game, etc.) undecided," from 1837.

Colloquial sense of "anything that can draw a crowd" is from 1881 (from the verb in the related sense).

Alternatively: Taking out paper and pencil and starting to draw in the middle of the game sounds like they are in kindergarten and bored with the game.

Clearly you should be teaching them to use at least fingerpaint with multicolors to keep them interested.

Or you could tell them it is not a draw but a tie although then they might pull out rope and start making knots.

---
Tags: history, draw, terminology
---


# Question
Title: In the Berlin Defence, why is 4.0-0 prefered to 4.Nc3?
In the Berlin Defence, why is 4.0-0 preferred to 4.Nc3, as then White can transition into the four knights?

# Answer
In a comment that ought to be an answer, @Ellie said: “The transposition from the Berlin Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4...) to the Four Knights Game (Spanish variation 4.Nc3) is a perfectly valid one, but the four knights game is known to be a quite dry opening for white, as in there are various easily equalizing lines for black, starting from the Rubinstein 4...Nd4 (see Kramnik games). Instead 4.O-O is the more critical line (one that offers more hanging fruits...) alongside the 4.d3 line which is known as an anti-Berlin approach.”
> 3 votes

# Answer
As already said in some answers, 4. Nc3 is relatively harmless as it transposes into the four Knights game. It is a shame because developing the Knight on c3 might seem very logical (it follows the generic principles of the opening !).

Instead, 4. O-O is forcing Black to play a committal move, as 4... Be7 leaves Black with an unpleasant position:

```

    [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/1B2p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 5 4"]

    4... Be7 5. Nc3 d6 6. d4

```

And White is doing more than fine here.

So Black doesn't really have any other choice than burning bridges in some way (actually, Black is doing fine, of course) and go for 4... Nxe4 that changes the pawn structure and makes the game a lot less symmetrical, going into the Berlin endgame in which White can at least press.

```

    [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/1B2p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 5 4"]

    4... Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8 Kxd8

```

With just too much theory here, but that's another story !

To know more about how to press with White on the Berlin defense, my Berlin defense memo explores many solutions, including 5. d4 but also 5. Re1, and one move earlier, the possibility 4. d3:

```

    [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/1B2p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 4 4"]

    4. d3

```

Such a modest-looking move, yet the other real possibility to play for a win with White !
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, four-knights, berlin
---


title: Why did black resign in this game?

text:
# Question
Title: Why did black resign in this game?
Watching this video, it seemed after the highlighted point in the video that black was doomed, but from my view it was just materiel? After the exchange, white would have taken a rook and the queen (and trading white's own queen) leaving black only a bishop vs. two white rooks. Is that why black resigned? Obviously at that point black would have been at a big disadvantage. But I'm curious if there was a compelling mate opportunity for white above and beyond the materiel advantage. Here's the video:

https://youtu.be/APJ5E1wXB3g?t=1631

(Also, I'm confused why the YouTube video refers to this as a "Queen sacrifice" since the queen wasn't in fact sacrificed?)

# Answer
Because he is losing the Rh8, and at that level, that is an EASY win. It is also worse than that as mate is coming in a few moves. Even without the almost immediate mate, being down a pawn and an exchange is a lot of material.

By the way, although black did not take it, white did offer a queen sac on move 24.Qg7, but had it been taken, a new queen would have appeared next move.

```
 [FEN "2q4r/2rbkp2/4pQpP/pp4P1/4P3/5P2/PPPR4/2K4R b - - 0 1"]

 1... Kf8 2. Qxh8+ Ke7 3. Qf6+ Kf8 4. h7 {And mate after a couple of spite checks on c2.}

```

Here is the full game:

```
 [Event "EU-ch rapid"]
 [Site "Tallinn"]
 [Date "2019.12.05"]
 [Round "1"]
 [White "Aizenberg, Benny"]
 [Black "Guseinov, Gadir"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B77"]
 [WhiteElo "1995"]
 [BlackElo "2691"]
 [PlyCount "55"]
 [EventDate "2019.12.05"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "13"]
 [EventCountry "EST"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 d6 9. f3 Bd7 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 b5 12. h4 a5 13. Nd5 Nxd5 14. Bxg7 Kxg7 15. Bxd5 Rc8 16. h5 Rh8 17. O-O-O Qb6 18. g4 e6 19. h6+ Kf8 20. Bb7 Qxb7 21. Qxd6+ Ke8 22. Qd4 Rg8 23. Rd2 Rc7 24. Qg7 Rf8 25. Qxh7 Ke7 26. Qg7 Qc8 27. g5 Rh8 28. Qf6+ 1-0

```
> 11 votes

---
Tags: tactics, checkmate, resigning, queen-sacrifice
---


# Question
Title: How should white push for advantage in the Nimzowitsh attack of the Petrov's defense?
This line of the Petrov defense can often lead to opposite side castling and the general rule for that is attacks happening on both sides of the board. However, I noticed that it's very difficult to attack black in the Petrov defense.

My question is basically this: In what way should I play to get an advantage against this line of the Petrov defense, whether it should be in a dynamic or positional manner?

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3, Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
> I noticed that it's very difficult to attack black in the Petrov defense.

That is why it is popular at the elite levels: It is super-solid. The character of the game is going to depend on black, and the choice of where to castle. If black castles short, since white castles long, it is going to be an all-out pawn storm on opposite wings, and the person, who calculates, and attacks, better will win. in practice, white has fared better there, scoring about 70% per the Mega 2020 database compared to about 60% in the other lines where both sides castle long. It is a much more dangerous choice.

When both sides castle long, the game definitely becomes more positional since both sides have relatively safe kings. It will come down to things like h4, and Ng5 by white, and if that Ng5 can either be traded for the Be6, gaining the two bishops, or if white can force black to capture the Ng5 with the Be7(Bf6), again, gaining the two bishops. White has doubled pawns, but they are not a big deal, and in fact, they give white more maneuvering room since he has an extra semi-open file to use. If white can post a piece, maybe the Bf1-c4-d5 on d5, if may force a concession c6, weakening the black queenside. After c6, d5 is often forced, and then white can hit at that center with c4 if timed right.

If this type of semi-positional game occurs, it is not quite the same as the positional games that occur in d-pawn openings. The positions are much more fluid than those with blocked centers, so there is much more calculating, and by that, I mean exact calculation, and positional evaluation. And, black is more cramped.

Lastly, of course there is the open e-file. no matter what, it is likely to lead to the trade of the rooks, because neither side can afford to let the other dominate the only fully open file, and not contest it. In positions that have only one open file, if you can fully control it, it is often a decisive factor. In the distant past, when I played e4, I "made a living" playing the Exchange French, and often, before my opponents knew it, I owned the e-file, and the game.

In the end, white's slight space advantage is probably why the 60% winning percentage, but it requires patience, and there is no "do this and get an advantage" rule. I would try to read through a bunch of white wins in the line, and see how the games played out, and try to emulate the ones you liked the most.

```
 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7. Be3 Nc6 8. Qd2 Be6 9. O-O-O Qd7 (9... O-O 10. h4 Ne5 11. Ng5 Qd7 12. Kb1 {With an all-out opposite sides attack.}) 10. Kb1 Bf6 11. h4 O-O-O 12. Ng5 Bf5 13. Bc4 Ne5 14. Bd5 {And the game has become semi-positional.}

```

---
Tags: opening, theory, positional-play, attack, petroff-defense
---


title: What is a "tornado" in chess?

text:
# Question
Title: What is a "tornado" in chess?
I am going to ask and answer this question since I played in one for the first time in almost 40 years yesterday, and because I find it surprising that no one has asked this previously.

So, "what is a "tornado" in chess?"

# Answer
I do not know if this term is used in other countries, but in the U.S., a “tornado” is a swiss chess tournament with four rounds in one day, typically at a sudden death in 60 minutes time control. It was probably given that nickname because your mind is spinning from so much chess in one day.

I played in the “Queen City Tornado” yesterday, and there were rounds at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 3:30 p.m., and 6 p.m.. It makes for a very long day.
> 13 votes

---
Tags: tournament, terminology
---


title: What is the “Gufeld Bishop”?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the “Gufeld Bishop”?
I have another question I am going to ask and answer.

The other day, I was watching a chess24 video, and GM Jan Gustafsson mentioned the “Gufeld Bishop”. What is the “Gufeld Bishop”?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Eduard Gufeld was a Ukrainian Grandmaster, who died in 2002. He was a noted expert on the King’s Indian Defense, and wrote two books on it. He won many brilliant games with the KID, and the “Gufeld Bishop” was when the Bg7 came alive, and got great scope, on the a1-h8 diagonal to become a “monster” piece (one that dominated the board, and was hard to oppose)…often on d4.

Here are references to the naming of the Bg7 as the “Gufeld Bishop”.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/chess/article756910/

http://www.debestezet.nl/catalog/images/PDF/Art%20of%20the%20kings.pdf

http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo\_misc/ba\_the\_search\_for\_mona\_lisa.asp?katid=bo&productid=1..

Now, here are a few games with the “Gufeld Bishop” in action.

In the first, Gufeld, uses a nice tactic to come to d4.

```
 [Event "Kiev Avantgard-ch"]
 [Site "Kiev"]
 [Date "1960.??.??"]
 [Round "3"]
 [White "Sakhanovich, YV."]
 [Black "Gufeld, Eduard"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E82"]
 [PlyCount "48"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 b6 7. Qd2 c5 8. d5 Re8 9. Bd3 e6 10. Nge2 a6 11. a4 exd5 12. exd5 Nbd7 13. O-O Ne5 14. Ng3 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Ng4 16. Bf4 (16. fxg4 Rxe3 17. Qxe3 $4 Bd4) 16... Bd4+ 17. Kh1 Nxh2 $1 18. Nge4 (18. Kxh2 Qh4#) 18... Nxf1 19. Rxf1 Qh4+ 20. Bh2 Bf5 21. Qd2 Bxe4 22. Nxe4 Rxe4 23. fxe4 Be5 24. g4 Re8 {And after black trades everything off on h2, Re4 will leave black up two pawns, and more will follow.} 0-1

```

In the second, the Bishop is unopposed, and when black finally rips open the f-file, it is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

```
 [Event "Goodricke op 03rd"]
 [Site "Kolkata"]
 [Date "1992.??.??"]
 [Round "2"]
 [White "Agarwal, Brajesh"]
 [Black "Gufeld, Eduard"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E84"]
 [WhiteElo "2260"]
 [BlackElo "2490"]
 [PlyCount "44"]
 [EventDate "1992.01.??"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "IND"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5. Be3 d6 6. f3 Nc6 7. Nge2 a6 8. Qd2 Rb8 9. g4 b5 10. Ng3 e5 11. d5 Nd4 12. Bxd4 exd4 13. Nce2 d3 14. Qxd3 bxc4 15. Qd2 Nxg4 16. fxg4 Rxb2 17. Qf4 Rxe2+ 18. Bxe2 Bxa1 19. Bxc4 Bc3+ 20. Kf2 Be5 21. Qf3 Qh4 22. Be2 f5 0-1

```

And in the last, he used the nice tactic with e4, then maneuver Ba4, pinning the Nb3 to the queen, so he could trade it off, and gain control of d4 again.

```
 [Event "Tbilisi"]
 [Site "Tbilisi"]
 [Date "1985.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Azmaiparashvili, Zurab"]
 [Black "Gufeld, Eduard"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E94"]
 [WhiteElo "2460"]
 [BlackElo "2470"]
 [PlyCount "72"]
 [EventDate "1985.??.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "9"]
 [EventCountry "URS"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. O-O Nc5 9. Qc2 a5 10. Bg5 h6 11. Be3 b6 12. Nd2 Bg4 13. f3 Bd7 14. Rfe1 Nh5 15. g3 f5 16. exf5 gxf5 17. f4 Qe8 18. fxe5 dxe5 19. Bxc5 $6 {Gaining the pawn structure, but poorly judging how strong the Bg7 would become. King safety is always the number one priority in chess.} bxc5 20. Nb3 f4 21. Qd1 Nf6 22. Bd3 Ng4 23. Ne4 Qh5 24. Re2 f3 25. Rf2 Nxf2 26. Nxf2 e4 $1 27. Bxe4 Ba4 $1 {Gaining d4 permanently.} 28. d6 c6 29. Qd2 Bxb3 30. axb3 Bd4 31. Bxc6 Qh3 32. Bd5+ Rf7 33. Bxf3 (33. Bxf7+ $4 Kf8 $1 {And mate on g2 is unavoidable.}) 33... Rxf3 34. Qxd4 Rxg3+ (34...cxd4?? 35. Nxh3) 35. hxg3 Qxg3+ 36. Kh1 Qf3+ (36...cxd4? 37. Rg1 {Black still wins, but has to think about the passers...this is just easier.}) 0-1

```

---
Tags: strategy, history, grandmaster, terminology, bishops
---


# Question
Title: Pushing for Advantage with White in Correspondence chess
I was viewing a top-level Correspondence chess game on ICCF between an International Master and a Senior International Master. They both had over 100 days on their clocks and they were in the following position with black to move:

```
r2r2k1/p1q2ppp/1p2pn2/8/2P5/1P3NP1/P3QP1P/3RR1K1 b - - 0 1

```

It seems that with so much time on their clocks and with the use of top-level engines and concrete analysis there is no way that white is pushing for anything here. I have also seen other games like this and my question is essentially why are they playing on in such positions?

# Answer
> 7 votes
There is no doubt that this position is currently equal, and should end in a draw, but white has two pluses that are might make it worth playing on, at least for a while.

First, there e5 square, and the Nf3 can outpost there and possibly create some discomfort for black. Black does not have a similarly strong square for the Nf6. Note that if black ever kicks the Ne5, then e6 is weak, and if it then moves forward, then the a2-g8 diagonal is weakened....little concessions is what white wants to add up into a big concession.

Second, white has the possibility of creating a passed pawn on the queenside here. In the Capablanca days, they thought that having that extra queenside pawn was a huge advantage, but over the years, it has become more clear that it can be dealt with.

The reality is that the rooks should come off, and should white then try to mobilize the queenside majority, black will probably throw the h-pawn forward, and use the queen, h-pawn, and knight to try to create enough threats to draw.

In the end though, and I know that in correspondence with computers, it is less likely, but people do make mistakes.

---
Tags: analysis, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: What do the numbers mean at the end of predicted variation opcode in and EPD entry?
I'm writing an EPD (Extended Position Description) parser and I have a doubt about what numbers means at end of "predicted variation" opcode.

Look the follow EPD sample:

```
rq2r1k1/5pp1/p7/4bNP1/1p2P2P/5Q2/PP4K1/5R1R w - - bm Nxg7 BT-2630.1; ce 182; acs 0; acn 106652; pv 1.Nxg7 Kxg7 2.Qxf7+ Kh8 3.Qh7+ Kxh7 4.Rf7+ Kg6 5.Rf6+ Bxf6 6.h5+ Kxg5 (38.748) 112.9; c0 depth=8

```

As its possible to notice, the opcode `pv` ends with numbers `(38.748) 112.9`. That

I started from the article in the Chess Programming Wiki. There I found some related materials, like the PGN specification, that have a more elaborated EPD documentation an some links to EPD entries examples. However, I can't find any explanation about the meaning of the numbers.

Does anyone have some material with a more elaborated documentation about the EPD (or PGN) format?

# Answer
On a strict reading of the EPD spec, the example shown is malformed; the `pv` opcode should **only** contain a list of moves, not any commentary on it, which should be moved to other opcodes. Indeed the move numbers should not be there either, only raw SAN moves.

I assume that some naive EPD author has simply dumped the output of an engine into it.

Indeed following the discussion from your (fixed) examples link, the first reply seems to agree with me:

> Crafty has an option to clean up epd (called epdpfdr) that produces EPD output that most programs can read. You have a few errors in your output below.

> No numbers in the pv!
> Like this: `Nxg7 Kxg7 Qxf7+ Kh8 Qh7+ Kxh7 Rf7+ Kg6 Rf6+ Bxf6`
>
> Also (a common mistake) is to put `...` in the front of the pv when it is black to move. This is not allowed. You did not do that, but I just wanted to mention it.

> This stuff:
> `(73.507) 130.7;`
> is not allowed except in the comments field.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: pgn, fen
---


title: Why is there an en passant move?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is there an en passant move?
Wikipedia says:

> It prevents a pawn from using the two-square advance to pass an adjacent enemy pawn without the risk of being captured.

… which I understand. But why would this be a rule? After all, the pawn that is on the opposing side of the board is closer to being queened. Is the en passant rule to promote offensive attack?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The en passant rule is supposed to minimize the effect of the rule change of the double step.

Basically, people thought it was boring to always make two moves that almost deterministically follow each other, because at the time you always sought to occupy the center, so they combined two moves into one. The same also happened with castling.

But these two moves are still treated like they are single moves made right one after another. Viewed like this, en passant is not actually a rule that was introduced, it was just a logical consequence of making two moves as one.

---
Tags: en-passant
---


# Question
Title: Is this an Anderssen's mate or Opera mate?
Is this an Anderssen's mate or Opera mate?

According to Wikipedia, Opera mate uses losing's side pawn to restrict its own king. In this position, f7 fulfils that requirement.

But it also fits the description of Anderssen's mate.

I fail to see the difference between Anderssen's mate and Opera mate except for the blocking pawn.

# Answer
I assume you took the mates' definitions from here. Then, it fits the *description* of the Opera Mate but I don't think that's intended – a 'real' Opera Mate doesn't happen in the corner.

Then again, those two terms aren't commonly used anyway. I bet most grandmasters will have to check Wikipedia as well to find out what they mean. Of that list, just a handful are common knowledge (the back-rank mate and the smothered mate being the most well-known).
> 5 votes

# Answer
According to chesstempo.com:

> The Opera mate occurs when the opponent king is mated on the edge of the board by a rook placed on the edge next to the king, and a bishop supporting the rook, and blocking escape onto the bishop's diagonal. A piece friendly to the mated king (usually a pawn) is blocking the king's escape on the diagonal of the colour opposite to the supporting bishop.

So it's saying the Opera Mate can occur anywhere along the edge which would make Anderssen's Mate, which does require the mating-rook to be in the corner, just a special case of the Opera Mate. If you buy the chesstempo defintion, then just because Morphy's Rook was at d8 and Count Isouard's King was at e8 and a pawn blocked the escape doesn't mean it can't happen anywhere along the edge as long as it's the King's own piece or pawn that prevents the King's escape.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Looking at the descriptions of patterns from wikipedia, this exactly fits "Mayet's mate". The section on Andersen's mate suggests opinion is divided as to whether Mayet's is a form of Andersen's or a distinct pattern.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: checkmate, patterns
---


# Question
Title: Why did the Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez disappear from the play of World Champions before Kramnik revived it?
The Berlin defense of the Ruy Lopez was played by the likes of Steinitz and Lasker.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6

```

However, it soon disappeared out of the play of World Champions and they rarely played it, before Kramnik revived it. What were the reasons for this? Was it merely a matter of the taste of the positions resulting from the Berlin or was the Berlin considered to be bad for Black after the period of Lasker?

# Answer
The reason, as far as I know, it is because it is drawish. GMs look for opens that are either heavily imbalanced or uncertain, like the sicilian or the scotch, or quiet oppenings that allow positional manuevering, like the Caro-Kann. Drawish lines are used by GMs solely when they are required. Another reason is that the Berlin wasn't almost played at all in GM level. Kasparov didn't have such a deep knowlege of the opening, unlike Kramnik. Openings decide games in World Championships.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I used to read an old book about openings written by Ludek Pachman. It was probably published in 1980 though I am not sure of that because I read a translation... anyway, I digress :)

The interesting part of his analysis started after those standard moves

```

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4

```

At this point, he mentions that 5... exd4 is bad and mentions two moves. First, 5... Be7 that he recommends (I think he puts a (!) evaluation to it):

```

    [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n5/1B2p3/3Pn3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 5"]

    5... Be7

```

Funnily, this move is now only rarely seen.

And, to comment the famous line that Kramnik revived in 2000:

```

    [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n5/1B2p3/3Pn3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 5"]

    5... Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8

```

He mentions that this line cannot really be recommended as Black has some troubles finishing his development: the rooks are not connected, and also White's Kingside majority seems more efficient than Black's queenside majority. I guess this statement reflects the general feeling about this opening at that time: hard to play in practice.

I don't have the book next to me so I cannot really check my memories, but it should be close. So, kudos to Kramnik for having gone beyond this impression and proved that the whole line was playable.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The goal in a World Championship match is to press with white and draw with black. Kramnik was the first to realize what an incredibly solid opening it could be.

As to why it was dropped earlier,

From the Wikipedia article on the Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy\_Lopez#Berlin\_Defence): "The Berlin Defence was played in the late 19th century and early 20th century by Emanuel Lasker and others, who typically answered 4.0-0 with 4...d6 in the style of the Steinitz Variation. This approach ultimately fell out of favour, as had the old form of the Steinitz, due to its passivity, and the entire variation became rare".

The old way of playing the Berlin was 4...d6. When Kramnik brought it back, he played 4...Nxe4.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The reason apart from being a drawish opening, is that it can be unpleasant to play as black without correct play with the double pawn and disconnected rooks, in case one goes for the Queen exchange variation, like the one being played most often these days. A good thing going for black is the obvious bishop pair. Kramnik revived it successfully and used it in London against Kasparov as part of a strategy which worked.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It was considered unsound and unplayable before Kramnik revived it by introducing a number of improvements in Black's play. Before that, people believed that White's kingside majority was a winning advantage. The Berlin is a very drawish unless Black moves his king to the Queenside, which is risky.
> 0 votes

# Answer
I would disagree, if a player wants to draw, he would prefer the Ruy Lopez variation as a black. The Berlin Defense on the other hand provides all three results; it's possible to win with black (draw and lose as well), it depends how good black is in outmaneuvering his opponent. With advantage of two bishops (grandmasters value them more than knights, with their power in defense and offense, especially in the open game) vs. double pawns and lost right to castle which isn't the worst. Obviously this isn't an opening which I would recommend for beginners, cause misplay may cost you a game and some of the maneuvers aren't easy to find.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, ruy-lopez, berlin
---


title: How to create a good practice routine?

text:
# Question
Title: How to create a good practice routine?
I'm looking to create a structured chess practice routine. So far I have been solving *some* puzzles, played *some* games and watched *some* lessons every day. I emphasize some because it has not been very structured, which is what I want to change

I'm planning to practice 30 minutes each weekday and an hour every day in the weekend. What exactly I should do in those minutes is what I am wondering about.

How do you recommend I structure my chess practice?

Thanks

Edit: My blitz rating on chess.com where I play the most is 936.

# Answer
> 14 votes
For now, I am going to assume that you are a somewhat weaker player.

If that is the case, virtually 90% of your time should be spent on tactics for now, but you want to find them grouped by category, so you are constantly solving similar problems. Try to do 50 per day, spending no more than two minutes per problem.

In addition to that, you want to find a good endgame course, like "Silman's Complete Endgame Course". At times, when you want a break from the tactics, start reading through that book page by page. Frankly, do not try to deeply study it at first. You should prefer to just see many, many, examples played out, and try to absorb as much as you can by osmosis, rather than deeply studying at first. There are a few things that need to be memorized, like how to draw K+P vs. K when your lone king is in front of the pawn, or the Lucena position to win certain rook endgames, or Philidor's position to draw certain rook endgames.

Lastly, you can also spend some time with opening pawn structure books, like Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess". There are analysis mistakes in it galore, but the overall ideas are sound, and will teach you HOW to play chess rather than trying to memorize opening theory.

Spend most of your time on the tactics, but take breaks, and dabble in the other two. As you get stronger, things will change.

You can also read my answer here for more advice.

---
Tags: training
---


title: Game ended with a handshake

text:
# Question
Title: Game ended with a handshake
In a amateur game, black offered a handshake and white shook hands with him and neither spoke any word and the game ended. Later they had a dispute whether the game is a draw or a win for white. Black claimed that his offering of a handshake was a draw offer and when white shook hands, white accepted his draw offer. White claimed that black's offering of a handshake was a resignation.

It is an amateur game and there is no game record. So what should the arbiter do in this situation? Here are a few possibilities:

1. Claim this game as a draw.
2. Claim this game as win for white.
3. Try recovering the position when the game ended and ask them to keep playing from there. (This option may not be feasible as without a game record, they may not agree with the position)
4. Order a rematch.

**Edit**: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour".

# Answer
From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation.

The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it:

You shake hands *after* the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end is "set in stone".

If you extend your hand without a concrete reason on the board for an end of the game (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition etc.), you silently imply the other possible reason: That you just resigned, which is possible unilaterally. The "silently" part is the reason why this is done this way: It's less disturbing for neighbouring boards than saying "I resign" or laying down your king (in many piece sets, you can't make sure that it doesn't start rolling around).

If you instead wanted to only offer a draw, the game would not have ended (yet), as your opponent still has to accept. Thus, extending your hand makes no sense yet. But conversely, if you (properly by words) offer a draw, now your opponent may offer a silent handshake! Because once they (silently) agree to your draw offer, the game is over, and they can indicate this by stretching out their hand.

Of course, this "implied" way of ending games, even if it is more polite to other ongoing games, has the drawback that lead to the question here: It requires that both players are on the same page of what is actually implied. Even more problematic than the question are for example cases where one side saw a 3-fold repetition and implied "draw", but the other didn't see the repetition and assumed "resignation". Probably not the case here, it sounded like neither mentioned anything else but resignation or free draw offer.

---

Edit: Because the question came up why the players would act this way, there are some thinkable scenarios:

* Black was dishonest. He deliberately acted ambiguously to trick White (in the hope that the arbiter would be convinced of his story that he only wanted to offer a draw). (correct result: 1-0)
* Black was very inexperienced. Sometimes, weaker and especially younger players have the habit of always offering a draw before they resign (sometimes no matter how lost their position is), in the vague hope that the opponent is nice or doesn't see how winning they are. The handshake genuinely was intended to be a draw offer that White misinterpreted. (correct result: 1-0 with a degree of uncertainty. In my opinion, White should not be punished for acting in good faith, while Black with certainty did not offer a draw the correct way and thus has the weaker case).
* It was actually White who was dishonest. We don't know the position. Maybe it wasn't actually all that winning and White exploited Black's naivete of not explicitly offering a draw by words. (correct result: 1/2-1/2)

All these cases are mostly applicable to amateur tournaments. Top (and even advanced) players know that they just look like fools if they offer draws in lost positions or try to cheat that way.

To know which of these cases applies, we need more information (for example, what was each player's rough evaluation of the final position, how reasonable can we expect both players treat handshakes as resignations/draw offers? etc.).
> 48 votes

# Answer
Based on the comments to the question above, there is no offical ruling body governing the rules, therefore, the guy running the tournament is the final authority. It is really up to his judgment.

If I were he, and there were time, I would try to see if we could reestablish the position, and finish from there. If not, I would declare a draw. I would not order a rematch unless there was some other great reason that was not listed above.

Lastly, I would make sure that I taught them the rules.
> 7 votes

# Answer
USCF and FIDE rules state that a draw should be made after the move but before hitting the clock. If those conditions have not been met, then the handshake could considered a resignation offer.

https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/
> 5 votes

# Answer
Based on what @Annatar said, it may be interesting to know what was the situation on the board :

1 - Was white obviously winning ? 2 - Was there an obvious draw, such as a pat a few moves down the line ?

If 1, Black is either inexperienced or tried something fishy by asking for a draw while losing. So White wins. If 2, then maybe it was reasonable of Black to ask for what was, to him, obvious. So ruling a draw is reasonable.

It would be weird if it's neither of those situations (obvious draw or obvious loss). You wouldn't offer a draw in a situation where nothing is resolved.
> 3 votes

# Answer
There is an argument to be made that the players simply abandoned the game. As far as the rules go, handshakes don't mean anything. Nothing was said. The players just stopped playing and put away the pieces.

Handing out a `0 - 0` result where both sides lose might be appropriate, at least it won't happen again then.

Often, players resign without saying anything, by just offering to shake hands. This shouldn't happen as it might lead to problems like this question, but it does happen. It *also* happens that players offer a draw in the exact same way, especially in endgames where only they could win. It can equally lead to problems if a malicious opponent decides to interpret the offer as resignation.

*We don't know which of the situations is applicable,* so we have to look at the rules. Seen from that viewpoint, the players just stopped playing their game and got rid of the evidence. If there is more knowledge of which scenario is more likely, then we can use that. But with only the question, we can't.
> -3 votes

---
Tags: rules, draw, etiquette, resigning, winning
---