# Question
Title: Advice for breaking Lichess's 2000 rating mark
Although I have known the rules of chess since I was little, I only actually started playing it in May or June 2019, so about 6 or 7 months ago. When I started I had a Lichess classical rating of around 1100 (at my lowest I got to 1000!). With some peaks and bad moments, I did manage to increase my rating quite consistently over the months, and I have recently gotten to 1900. This was very satisfactory for me, since I really studied hours per day and worked very hard in order to improve.

Nevertheless, I find that I can't really move on now! I got stuck on 1900. This happened to me before at a 1500 rating; at that point, after being stuck for weeks, I studied Nimzowitsch's "My System", which was what allowed me to break the 1600 rating mark and continue to improve. I wonder if there is perhaps a book, a practice routine or something that could help me, like Nimzowitsch did when I was stuck in 1500, to 'step up' and break the 2000 rating mark.

I do know that what I most need to improve is my endgame (and I'm working on it and improving little by little). Does anybody experienced something like this? If so, what books, routines or approaches to the game helped to break the curse?

# Answer
"PhishMaster's Complete Guide To Improvement": What to study, and how.

Every player has times where they "plateau", and have trouble moving on, but they usually get past it eventually if they are continuing to study. Sometimes, it is a matter of patience.

Here is a set of comprehensive answers to questions I previously gave in various chunks, that are now combined, and will include how to break 2000.

First, this outline is more for the average player, who still may be very decent, but is not likely to be become a professional.

Beginners up to 1800, it is mostly about tactics: Tactics, tactics, and more tactics. I have found that even players, who are 2100, are not as strong at tactics as they think they are. I also found that having a very strong dose of endgames, even when I got my first rating of 1036 USCF back in 1980, has stuck with me all the way through being a Master. I still love Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" (any mistakes in it as far overshadowed by the principles that it puts forth).

For tactics, I actually recommend starting with Reinfeld's "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate", and then "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations". I firmly believe in good groupings of themes in the beginning, rather than sites that totally randomize your study. I also firmly believe in immersion, in other words, doing a lot in a short period of time. It just sticks better as far as I am concerned.

I recommend doing 50 per day, spending no more than two minutes per move on each problem. In pencil, write down next to the problem how easy you found it on a scale of 1-5 because you will do these books multiple times. That immersion method has worked very well for me. I took a friend, who was about 38 at the time, from 1000 to 1850 on ICC in three months following this method.

Around 1800, people start getting more clued in on positional play, and start picking up more on that. I still love Ludek Pachman's trilogy: "Complete Chess Strategy". That was the first time I started to see real plans enter into my games, and I still credit that trilogy with making me a Master. For the first time, I started to really grasp pawn play.

Also, around 1800, I also think that players need to understand HOW to play opening pawn structures instead of focusing on memorizing openings that when their opponent deviates, they are lost and on their own. For this, books like Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess" (a really bad book if you are looking at it with a computer, but the underlying principles are very strong), and Mauricio Flores Ríos' book "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" is a fantastic book that expounds upon what was in the Soltis book, and does it a lot better, but also at a higher level.

Starting at 2000, assuming you have a shot at 2200 and higher, you are going to start needing specific openings, and memorization as you face stronger competition. All along, you should have been still studying more and more endgame material as you will also need that when you face "monsters".

Over 2200, you are talking about in-depth refinement of what you have learned. A lot of people buy the Dvoretsky books before they are ready, and now is the time that you are just getting started to be ready for those. They will help with small details, and a lot of it above 2200 is analyzing better and better, so not only will his books refined and expand your knowledge, they are hand-picked difficult problems that need a lot of deep analysis.

Once at 2400, if you have not already had a professional coach, you probably will need one to really gain a lot more strength. In addition, if you have a kid, who is super talented, and clearly going places, it is also probably a good idea for them to have a professional coach at a lower rating, and younger age to get the most benefit.

Here is a list of areas of study, and what to read while doing them.

1. To help with basic visualization, read these books without a board, including sub-variations. If you are not sure how well you did, then put them on a board, and compare the board to your mind’s eye. In the beginning, I expect that you will have more on the board than not. a. “Combinations, the Heart of Chess” by Irving Chernev b. “1000 Best Short Games of Chess” by Irving Chernev (The games start short at only four moves, and gradually work up to 25 moves.) c. After these, you will still probably need work on visualization, so pick fun combination books to do in your head, concentrating on visualizing the final position rather than finding the solution. Solutions are in the next group.
2. To help with both basic visualization and tactical vision, do at least 25 problems per day, but preferably 50, spending no more than two minutes per move before looking at the answer. You will repeat these books at least twice over time. This alone, is why most players never get stronger…they drop pieces. a. “1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate”, 21st Century Edition by Fred Reinfeld b. “1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations”, 21st Century Edition by Fred Reinfeld c. Continue with any of the multitude of tactics books or trainers out there doing as many as you can each day.
3. Endgame. Play all of these out on a board, not in your head. a. “100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player” by Jesus de la Villa (Try to memorize this book, especially rook endgames since they are the most common.) b. “The 100 Endgames You Must Know Workbook: Practical Endgame Exercises for Every Chess Player” by Jesus de la Villa c. “Basic Chess Endings” by Ruben Fine (Although there are mistakes that have been show by both humans and computers over the years, this book shows more about the plans and what you are striving for than most endgames books. Read all the sub-endgames since they reinforce the main endgames. d. “Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual” (aka DEM. This is THE single greatest chess book ever written, in my opinion, and it is very advanced, but if you have reasonably mastered the above two books, this is the next step). e. “Tragicomedy in the Endgame: Instructive Mistakes of the Masters” by Mark Dvoretsky (This is, in essence, the workbook for DEM, giving practical positions of the material in DEM.)
4. Pawn Structures, and how to play chess, in general. A lot of chess is “what pawn break am I looking for, and how do I accomplish it?” These answer that in depth. a. “Complete Chess Strategy” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. THIS is what made me a master.) b. “Pawn Structure Chess” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.) c. “Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “Complete Chess Strategy”.)
5. Positional Chess. Play these out on a board and you will start to get a better feel for evaluating positions correctly. a. “Positional Chess Handbook” by Israel Gelfer (The quality of the printing in this book is not very good, but the content is excellent.) b. “Your Kingdom For My Horse” by Andy Soltis (This is all about exchanging, a little-covered, but incredibly important topic in chess. Frankly, Soltis is a LAZY writer, and when you read his books with a program running, you will find ALL KINDS of mistakes, but the prose, and general principles he is teaching are still valid, and in this case, hard to find in any other book. (There is a Russian-only book called "Encyclopedia of Exchanges" if you are capable of reading it.)

You will note that unlike the backpack of a typical 1200-player, there is not a single opening book listed here. That is because you are learning HOW to play chess, rather than memorizing lines that you get to the end of, and have no idea why you are there, or why it is good or bad. Most of your opponents, until you get to 2200, won’t know much about book, and you will both be on your own early on, so the one, who understands what you should be trying for, and who does not lose his pieces (tactics), will win the game most of the time.

In general, read the above list in order within any category, but you should have the visualization, tactics, endgame, and pawn structures categories all going at one time. As you start to really understand the structures more, then add in the last, “positional chess” category.
> 36 votes

# Answer
Beside the other great and detailed answer, I want to add something that is not directly an advice(answer) to the question but to explain the situation. As one might already know, Lichess ratings are overrated by around 100-200 points compared to chesscom or FIDE ratings, because players start at 1500. But this thing gets complicated in Lichess classical ratings, here is the reason:

Lichess classical is not very popular, especially among high rated players. As a result, the distribution gets narrower. For example the top classical player today is 2632 rated. Moreover, the distribution almost ends at around 2500 (and reaches 100% cumulative at 2300):

To conclude my point, although a player still has 100-200 extra rating in the middle of the distribution, that player will not have that overratedness towards the end of the distribution (higher ratings) as a result of the aforementioned unpopularity. So although you improve, that might not reflect that much on your classical Lichess rating. Don't lose the hope :)

**Extra hypothetical case:** Imagine Magnus Carlsen playing classical Lichess. He would probably only be able to reach around 2650-2700 rating because there wouldn't be enough opponent to gain rating from, where he would be underrated around 100-200 points compared to his FIDE rating.

**Extra source for rating comparison:** https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/
> 0 votes

# Answer
Just playing more games is the best advice to break the 2k glicko rating barrier for normal chess on lichess. It is not that hard!

Good luck.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: learning, rating, lichess
---


# Question
Title: Is it possible to achieve a title in online games?
I am a relatively weak player (~1600 chess.com) who mostly plays online blitz. Recently I've been thinking about shooting for a title (e.g. USCF expert) as a long-term goal. The area where I live has always had a relatively few OTB matches, and is even worse with the COVID pandemic.

Is there any title which can be achieve partially or completely via online play? Of course, I could always shoot for a particular rating, but a title somehow feels more significant.

# Answer
> Is there any title it's possible to achieve partially or completely via online play?

Yes, there are. FIDE has their own online platform and offer FIDE titles for achievements on their online Arena.

> 1.1 FIDE introduces and recognises titles designated for the chess players of the lower rating band. Ordered hierarchically from higher to lower status, these titles are:
> 1.1.1 Arena Grandmaster (AGM or ag)
> 1.1.2 Arena International master (AIM or ai)
> 1.1.3 Arena FIDE master (AFM or af)
> 1.1.4 Arena Candidate master (ACM or ac)

These titles are available for rapid, blitz and bullet. To achieve a title at a particular level and time control you have to play 50 games of rapid, 100 games of blitz or 150 games of bullet. You also have to reach a particular rating for each title.

The rating requirements are:
AGM = 2000
AIM = 1700
AFM = 1400
ACM = 1100
> 9 votes

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


# Question
Title: Where did this minority attack go wrong?
I have been playing the Caro-Kann recently and learnt that the exchange variation often involves a minority attack for black. I had never played a minority attack before, so I gave it a go. This was the game I played but I made a lot of inaccuracies according to the engine, and I don't like the position if not for the tactical shot at the end, as white has a passer and I'm not sure what I have, other than a nicely placed rook perhaps.

```
[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[FEN ""]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[Date "2021.12.23"]
[WhiteElo "2069"]
[BlackElo "2019"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[UTCDate "2021.12.23"]
[UTCTime "09:21:50"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[ECO "B13"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Exchange Variation"]

1. e4 { [%clk 0:10:00] } 1... c6 { [%clk 0:10:00] } 2. d4 { [%clk 0:09:59] } 2... d5 { [%clk 0:09:58] } 3. exd5 { [%clk 0:09:59] } 3... cxd5 { [%clk 0:09:57] } 4. c3 { [%clk 0:09:59] } 4... Nc6 { [%clk 0:09:54] } 5. Bd3 { [%clk 0:09:57] } 5... Qc7 { [%clk 0:09:52] } 6. Nf3 { [%clk 0:09:56] } 6... Bg4 { [%clk 0:09:50] } 7. O-O { [%clk 0:09:55] } 7... e6 { [%clk 0:09:43] } 8. h3 { [%clk 0:09:49] } 8... Bh5 { [%clk 0:09:41] } 9. Re1 { [%clk 0:09:45] } 9... Bd6 { [%clk 0:09:28] } 10. Bg5 { [%clk 0:09:39] } 10... h6 { [%clk 0:09:24] } 11. Be3 { [%clk 0:09:35] } 11... Nf6 { [%clk 0:09:19] } 12. Nbd2 { [%clk 0:09:30] } 12... O-O { [%clk 0:09:09] } 13. Qb3 { [%clk 0:09:29] } 13... Na5 { [%clk 0:08:50] } 14. Qa4 { [%clk 0:09:25] } 14... a6 { [%clk 0:08:20] } 15. Rac1 { [%clk 0:09:13] } 15... b5 { [%clk 0:08:13] } 16. Qd1 { [%clk 0:09:09] } 16... Nc4 { [%clk 0:07:19] } 17. Nxc4 { [%clk 0:09:02] } 17... bxc4 { [%clk 0:07:17] } 18. Be2 { [%clk 0:09:01] } 18... Rab8 { [%clk 0:07:08] } 19. b3 { [%clk 0:08:50] } 19... cxb3 { [%clk 0:07:02] } 20. axb3 { [%clk 0:08:50] } 20... Ne4 { [%clk 0:06:48] } 21. c4 { [%clk 0:08:34] } 21... Qb7 { [%clk 0:05:59] } 22. c5 { [%clk 0:08:02] } 22... Bc7 { [%clk 0:05:40] } 23. g4 { [%clk 0:07:18] } 23... Bg6 { [%clk 0:05:11] } 24. Nd2 { [%clk 0:07:15] } 24... Nxd2 { [%clk 0:05:07] } 25. Qxd2 { [%clk 0:07:10] } 25... Qxb3 { [%clk 0:04:13] } 26. Bxa6 { [%clk 0:07:08] } 26... Ra8 { [%clk 0:04:05] } 27. Be2 { [%clk 0:07:01] } 27... Ra2 { [%clk 0:04:03] } 28. Qc3 { [%clk 0:06:47] } 28... Qxc3 { [%clk 0:03:45] } 29. Rxc3 { [%clk 0:06:45] } 29... Ba5 { [%clk 0:03:43] } 30. Rec1 { [%clk 0:04:51] } 30... Bxc3 { [%clk 0:03:24] } 31. Rxc3 { [%clk 0:04:51] } 31... Rxe2 { [%clk 0:03:23] }

```

13...Na4 I thought was good because it prepared jumping onto the outpost with tempo, strongly provoking recapture, leaving me with a half open file with my rook staring at a pawn that I was sure to eventually capture. But the engine marks this as the first of many mistakes.

From the little success I had I felt like I misunderstood what I am really trying to achieve here in this attack. Could anyone give me some advice?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Great question. It's a deep one that is not easily answered by turning on an engine.

The goal of the minority attack is to leave your opponent with attackable weaknesses. If you look at the pawn structure after 13. Qb3, what you are ideally hoping for is b5-b4-xc3, and then after White recaptures (bxc3) you play Rac8, Rc7, Rfc8, etc, and whomp the now-backwards pawn on c3. Alternatively, if White plays cxb4, then you can now target the newly-created weaknesses on b2 and d4. The former is on a half-open file, while the latter is now isolated.

There are however problems with this plan. Notably, White can play c4, which throws the entire plan out of the window. If you look at examples of the minority attack, this square (c4) is usually cast-iron controlled before the attack begins. As it is, White is more ready to play c4 (opening lines for their major pieces and therefore developing queenside play) than you are to play a minority attack.

In any case your minority attack never really takes place because you played Nc4, changing the pawn structure away from one that's amendable to a minority attack. It's not that 16...Nc4 is a bad move - White's rather aimless drifting with the queen let you seize lots of queenside space. But after 16...Nc4 17. Nxc4, there is no more minority attack.

By the way, 13...Na5 doesn't actually threaten to jump onto an outpost, because even if you get in ...Nc4 (White currently has more attackers on that square than you have defenders), your knight can still be ejected with b3.

---
Tags: pawns, caro-kann
---


# Question
Title: What is the best chess engine for 1 CPU?
We have now GPUs, Quad-cores, i7s, i5s, i3s, and so on. However, I am wondering what is the best chess engine for 1 CPU. ChessBase offers Fritz 11 for free. Fritz 11 works very well with 1 CPU. Also, Stockfish has many versions, which one is the best for 1 CPU? Same question for Komodo. Komodo 12 is free, but what is the best Komodo for 1 CPU?

I tried Stockfish 14.1 and put my computer in trouble, even though is a new desktop, but with a Celeron processor. (Intel(R) Celeron(R) J4105 CPU @ 1.50GHz). It is impossible to analyze in my computer with Stockfish 14 because the computer freezes. I tried to use Stockfish 9 and Stockfish 10 but I did not find them in the Stockfish website. I only found Stockfish 14.

***Update 12/24***

I installed the last free version of Komodo (Komodo 12), and it is running without freezing my computer. I can analyze with this engine without problems. The same with Fritz 11. However, Stockfish 14 freezes my computer.

I am running the chess engines over the free GUI ChessBase Reader 17. You can find it in the following link:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/chessbase-reader-2017

You can download the free version of Komodo from the website: https://komodochess.com/

***Update 12/25/2021***

I found the old versions of Stockfish!

1. Go to https://stockfishchess.org/download/
2. Other Versions (At the end of the page)
3. Old (archived) releases of Stockfish

# Answer
Stockfish is the unchallenged best CPU engine right now (it's most probably the best engine, period, as well). This applies regardless of the hardware you have, as long as it's a fair comparison - i.e. you run all your competing CPU engines on the same hardware.

Choose the latest version of Stockfish, or if you prefer, choose the latest stable release (v14.1).
> 5 votes

---
Tags: engines
---


title: Was White's last move actually Ne1?

text:
# Question
Title: Was White's last move actually Ne1?
```
[FEN ""]
[Event "Ubeda op 6th"]
[Site "Ubeda"]
[Date "2001.01.25"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Comas Fabrego, Lluis"]
[Black "Vladimir Akopian"]
[ECO "A70"]
[WhiteElo "2508"]
[BlackElo "2656"]
[PlyCount "58"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nc3 g6 7. e4 Bg7 8. h3  O-O 9. Bg5 h6 10. Be3 Re8 11. Bd3 c4 12. Bc2 b5 13. a3 Na6 14. O-O b4 15. axb4  Nxb4 16. Rxa7 Rxa7 17. Bxa7 Bxh3 18. gxh3 Nxc2 19. Qxc2 Qd7 20. Ra1 Qxh3 21.  Ne1 Re5 22. f4 Qg3+ 23. Ng2 Rh5 24. Ne2 Qh3 25. Kf1 Qf3+ 26. Kg1 Ng4 27. Ra3 c3  28. bxc3 Rh2 29. Ne1 Qh3 0-1

```

In this brilliant game, I wonder whether White's last move was Nc1 instead of Ne1 since the text move allows two different mates in one. 29. Nc1 would make more sense as it makes the reply Qh3 absolutely logical. Does someone know the source of this game to clarify this?

# Answer
**Yes**. I found the game on:

All these suggest that 29. Ne1 was indeed played.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: famous-games, master-games, reference-request
---


title: What is "Hybrid Chess"?

text:
# Question
Title: What is "Hybrid Chess"?
According to the latest FIDE rating regulations:

> 2. Laws to be Followed
> 2.1 Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess ***or the Regulations for Hybrid Chess Competitions***

So, "hybrid chess competitions" can now be rated for over-the-board FIDE ratings! What is hybrid chess?

# Answer
> 6 votes
As the name suggests, hybrid chess is a cross between over-the-board and online chess. The rules are given in the FIDE Online Chess Regulations document.

> 6.1.3 “Hybrid chess” competition is an event where all players are physically supervised by an arbiter, while they play online (see Part III b)

Basically such a competition involves players at different controlled "venues" playing online games against each other while under surveillance from cameras and arbiters (no spectators allowed to be physically present) via controlled internet access.

> 16.1. The Chief Organiser designates the playing venues for the competition. Each playing venue is under the control of a Local Organiser.
> 16.2 Each Local Organiser is required to provide a playing venue suitable to host a hybrid chess competition. The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter. The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played. Only players and arbiter are allowed access to the playing area.
> 16.3 Each playing venue must be monitored by cameras.
> 16.4 In each playing venue, the fair play measures should be applied in accordance with the FIDE AntiCheating Regulations and FIDE Anti-Cheating Protection Measures. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
> 16.5 Each Local Organiser is responsible for providing an Internet connection in the playing venue. Players are not responsible for their connections to HIP and to a communication system (if required by the competition regulations), unless the competition regulations say otherwise.
> 16.6 In each venue, electronic devices used for conducting online games (playing devices) are provided by the Local Organiser, unless the competition regulations say otherwise.
> 16.7 During the game, each player shall have access on his/her playing device to a virtual chessboard and any software required for this purpose. No other website, application or software can be open on the playing device. The only exception may be a (video-) communication system, if required by competition regulations.
> 16.8 At least two arbiters will be appointed for each playing venue: a Local Chief Arbiter (LCA) and a Local Technical Assistant (LTA).
> 16.9 The total number of arbiters required in each playing venue will vary depending on the kind of event, on the system of the games, on the number of participants and on the importance of the event.
> 16.10 If the playing zone allows players to move pieces in contradiction with Article 3.3 (illegal moves), the competition regulations must specify how to deal with such irregularities.
> 16.11 The competition regulations shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. If the competition regulations specify that the default time is not zero and if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he/she arrives, unless the competition regulations specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
> 16.12 The playing zone must record the offer of a draw next to the player’s move when the draw is offered.

---
Tags: rules, rating, fide, terminology, hybrid-chess
---


# Question
Title: Adapt play style when playing against stronger / weaker opponents?
Is it a good idea to change one's style of play when facing stronger opponents? If so, what would be the better approach:

1. Play very solidly / dull (e.g. Exchange French / Caro-Kann as White), simplify, try to take the potential out of the position, hoping that the stronger player will not be content with a draw and will take too much risk and lose after pushing too hard for an advantage. If he does not fall for this, happily take the draw against a stronger opponent.
2. Complicate the game, play sidelines, set the board on fire and hope that the opponent oversees something in the total chaos caused by you, allowing you to get the advantage.

Would this depend on the opponent (e.g. Style 1 against aggressive players and style 2 against positional players)? How to play when facing weaker opponents?

Or is it best to play as one would usually play, disregarding the rating difference?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Playing for a wild attack, if it has no positional justification, is a pretty sure way to lose against a strong opponent. But you may not care. You chance of losing was already large; you have just made it larger. Your change of win was tiny, you have just made it not quite so tiny. Your chance of a draw was also small; you just made it a bit smaller. What really matters is your chance of getting satisfaction from the game.

Maybe the best attitude toward playing a strong opponent is to regard it as a learning opportunity. Play your normal game and be pleasant to your opponent. Perhaps they may agree to go through it with you after they win.

As for playing weak opponents, It is often a mistake to ask yourself what Morphy would have done, unless your normal style is to imitate Morphy, but give your oppent the chance to make positional errors. Avoid exchanges and keep the Pawns unbalanced. Dont go for the kill too early.

---
Tags: strategy, psychology, style
---


# Question
Title: Where is the list of FIDE approved clocks?
I see many sellers selling dozens of clocks that claim to be FIDE certified/approved.

Reading FIDE info I see what is required, and it mentions approved clocks, but I cannot find an actual list of what clocks FIDE has actually approved and made available for guidance so as to buy approved clocks without taking the word of some seller.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The electronic chess clocks endorsed by the FIDE:

| # | Model | Year |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5.5.1. | DGT XL | 2007 |
| 5.5.2. | DGT 2010 | 2010 |
| 5.5.3. | Silver Timer | 2007 |
| 5.5.4. | Sistemco | 2009 |
| 5.5.5. | DGT 3000 | 2014 |
| 5.5.6. | CE Clock | 2017 |
| 5.5.7. | KK9908 Clock | 2017 |

Source: FIDE Handbook - Standards of Chess Equipment and Tournament Venue; Section 5.5

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here is the document that includes that. See section 5.5.

---
Tags: fide, chess-clocks
---


# Question
Title: Where does the name of the Guatemalan Defense come from?
I recall reading a story that the Guatemalan Defense (1. ... b6, 2. ... Ba6) is named after a game of correspondence chess that was played between (presumably some chess team representing) Guatemala and another country. I've been unable to find this back despite quite some googling, however. Does anyone have a reference or clarification?

# Answer
> 7 votes
The reason it is called is because it is used by a Guatemala Chess Club.

> According to wikipedia "so-named because the Guatemala Chess Club used the line in a 1949 correspondence game."

So the reason is because it is played by a chess club based in Guatemala in a 1949 correspondence game.

Click here for the whole reason about the Guatemalan Defense.

---
Tags: opening, history, terminology, owens-defence
---


# Question
Title: How are Russians able to use federation flag with the WADA ban?
As far as I know, WADA banned Russian players to play under Russian flag in the world championships (I don't really know much details). And in this chesscom article, it is stated that:

> This ban forbids Russian athletes and event organizers to display publicly **the flag of the Russian Federation**, the name “Russia”, (in any language or format), or any national emblem or national symbol of the Russian Federation, including on their clothes, equipment, or other personal items, at any event under the denomination "World Championship".

However, Nepomniachtchi played with a federation flag (CFR) in WCC 2021, and now Russian players are playing with a federation flag in the World Rapid Chess Championship. Isn't this included in the ban according to the chesscom article?

I researched a bit but couldn't make something out of it. Here are some useful links:

* There is a link of a document I found from CAS website but it is too complicated and its English is not easy for me as a non-native.
* And there is a related news in WADA website.

# Answer
Russia is not the Russian Chess Federation and vice versa. Whatever the "Russian Federation" is it is not the "Russian *Chess* Federation".

The same is true of the "Russian Olympic Committee". It is not the same thing as Russia or the "Russian Federation". In the Olympics Russian athletes competed under the flag of the ROC (Russian Olympic Committee).

This was pointed out by Chess24:

> FIDE was forced into a last-minute scramble today to switch Russian title challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi’s flag before play began at the World Championship, chess24 can exclusively reveal.

...

> The ban drew worldwide attention when it was enforced at the Tokyo Olympics earlier this year. An agreement was struck that Russian athletes could compete under the banner of the Russian Olympic Committee — but were only allowed to display the acronym “ROC”.
>
> Russian chess players followed suit last month at the Women's World Team Chess Championship in Sitges, Spain, and used the used the acronym “CFR”. The Russian team went on to win the event.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: world-championship
---


# Question
Title: In promoting a pawn, if the pawn can be taken immediately on promotion, can I promote another piece, eg. Turn a rook upside down already on the board
Does a promoted piece have to go on the square the pawn has moved on or can I promote by turning my rook upside down on its existing square

# Answer
> 1 votes
The FIDE Laws of Chess are explicit:

> 3.7.5.1 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’.

So, the answer to

> Does a promoted piece have to go on the square the pawn has moved on

is "Yes".

> can I promote by turning my rook upside down on its existing square

No.

And if you turn your rook upside down then, as far as the rules of chess are concerned, it remains a rook.

---
Tags: rules, fide, pawn-promotion
---


# Question
Title: Why is 2…f6 a blunder in the Center Game?
```
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR"]
[Title "Center Game"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 f6??

```

Stockfish says that **2…f6** was a blunder and recommends **2…exd4** instead.

I understand why **2…exd4** is the best move for Black, and I have seen people explain why **2…d6** and **2…Nc6** are not as good. However, none of the resources I found mentions **2…f6**.

I know that **2…f6** blocks the f6 square which could be used to develop the knight. However, I assume that the knight can be developed to e7 later. Also, **2…f6** might have an advantage over **2…d6**, since, if White captures the pawn on e5, Black can then capture back toward the center, which as I know is generally a good thing.

# Answer
The reason is that after 3. dxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ you are in a lot of trouble and already lost.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 f6 3. dxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 (4...g6 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+) 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+

```
> 9 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, beginner, center
---


title: Chess Note Taking?

text:
# Question
Title: Chess Note Taking?
I'd like to start a notebook as I learn more about chess. I see the interactive diagrams here on stackexchange and think these would be excellent to integrate into my notes. I'm looking for something that I could use to next through the positions or lines and draw arrows/highlight squares etc in addition to my text notes. Do you guys have any recommendations on software/apps to accomplish this?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I'm not sure how this would help you with your notebook, but most modern GUIs allow for drawing arrows, highlighting squares, etc. For example, Fritz allows you to draw arrows by alt-clicking and highlighting by right-clicking.

If you are looking for something more advanced than this, you might want to take a look at Lucas Chess, which has a feature called 'Director' that allows you to draw various shapes, etc. over the board.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I use LaTeX on overleaf, although its a bit tricky to use. https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Chess\_notation

Here is an example of code I did yesterday in LaTeX:

```
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{xskak}

\hypersetup{
    colorlinks,
    citecolor=black,
    filecolor=black,
    linkcolor=black,
    urlcolor=black
}

\begin{document}

\input{titlepage}
% \maketitle
\newpage
\tableofcontents
\newpage

\section{Basics:}

This section covers the main basics of the game of chess. It does not go into immense detail.

\subsection{Coordinates}

\subsection{Notation}

\subsection{Rules}

\subsection{Moving the pieces}

\subsubsection{The Queen}

\begin{center}
\newgame
\hyperref[board1]{\textbf{Board 1} - Moves of the Queen}\hypertarget{board1back}{}
\\
\chessboard[
  setfen=8/8/8/8/3Q4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1,
  color=red!50,
  colorbackfields={c5,b6,a7,e3,f2,g1,d1,d2,d3,d5,d6,d7,d8,c3,
                   c4,e4,e5,a1,b2,f6,g7,h8,a4,b4,f4,g4,h4},
  pgfstyle=color,
]
\end{center}

\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Boards}
\end{document}

```

I don't know how better I can explain it without copying and pasting from the link I posted also.

Additionally I use https://lichess.org/editor to generate the FEN and I used the code from: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/569134/how-can-i-condense-this-code/569137#569137 here. The code examples on Overleaf link initially posted at the top are way simpler though.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Thank you for your suggestion, I will have to check out Lucas chess as it looks very powerful. I just found Scid vs PC/Mac which is quite excellent for my needs.

Here's a link for others interested http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/

The interface is not that intuitive but there are many videos on youtube to learn more.

While it allows all types of annotations I find using these shorctuts are very useful: You can hold shift and click a square to highlight it You can hold control and click start square then end square to draw an arrow

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Filter PGN for games for one sided openings
I want to filter a PGN database for games where one side plays a series of moves but I don't care what the other side does during that sequence. For example the bongcloud is where one side plays 1. e3 ... 2. Ke2. (I know there are lots of variations but that's ignore that for now). I don't really care what black does on turn one or two. How would I filter for that? I don't want to list out all the moves black can make and then input 20+ parameters. Is there a simpler way to achieve this?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I found an answer. After spending a few hours digging through PGN-Extract's website I found this:

`* b6`

means that you are interested in all games in which Black replied 1 ... b6 regardless of White's first move. The sequence:

`d4 * c4 * Nc3 *`

will pick up Nimzo-Indian, Grunfeld, King's Indian, etc. defenses. This notation is not possible with positional variations

Edit: You put the above text in a file and then set it as a parameter when calling pgn-extract like this:

`pgn-extract -v[file that contains the rules]`

---
Tags: opening, database, pgn
---


# Question
Title: How can I let my opponent know that I'm touching a piece to adjust it?
Everyone knows the touch-move rule, which states that:

> If a player deliberately touches a piece on the board when it is their turn to move, then they must move or capture that piece if it is legal to do so.

But, sometimes you just need to adjust the piece to the center of the square, so that it looks nicer.

What is the universal way to show to your opponent that you just want to adjust the piecce?

# Answer
> 26 votes
If you are just going to re-center a piece on its square, without intention to play it, the typical way is to inform your opponent beforehand with the traditionnal, worldwide used sentence:

> J'adoube.

In English-speaking tournaments, sometimes players say instead

> I adjust.

Among strong players, if it is absolutely obvious that you are not going to play a piece and you just want to replace it, sometimes just a small gesture by the hand or an eye-contact is enough. But if you want to avoid any ambiguity, say the magical words before you touch the piece !

This is explicitely mentionned in Fide's rules of chess, article 4.2.1:

> Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).

*"J'adoube"* is a French sentence referring to the medieval accolade. As far as I understand, touching a piece with your fingers without intention to move it is reminiscent of dubbing the knight-to-be with the flat of the knighting sword without intention to harm him.

Of course, if you have touched a piece intending to make a move but changed your mind, saying "j'adoube" won't allow you to repair your blunder. Kids try it sometimes, or grandmasters...

A pronunciation of j'adoube

---
Tags: rules, fide
---


# Question
Title: In Fischer-Petrosian 1971 game 7, why did Fischer give up his good knight for a bad bishop?
Fischer played 22. Nxd7, which seems strange since the knight looked very good. Why did he play it?

```
 [Title "Fischer-Petrosian, Buenos Aires (7) 1971, 10/19/1971"]
 [FEN ""]
 [startply "42"]

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. O-O d5 8. c4 Nf6 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. exd5 exd5 11. Nc3 Be7 12. Qa4+ Qd7 13. Re1 Qxa4 14. Nxa4 Be6 15. Be3 O-O 16. Bc5 Rfe8 17. Bxe7 Rxe7 18. b4 Kf8 19. Nc5 Bc8 20. f3 Rea7 21. Re5 Bd7 22. Nxd7+ Rxd7 23. Rc1 Rd6 24. Rc7 Nd7 25. Re2 g6 26. Kf2 h5 27. f4 h4 28. Kf3 f5 29. Ke3 d4+ 30. Kd2 Nb6 31. Ree7 Nd5 32. Rf7+ Ke8 33. Rb7 Nxf4 34. Bc4 1-0

```

# Answer
This is a very famous position. Well, here are some reasons, and there are quite a few:

1. Since this was a Candidate’s Match to qualify to play Spassky, it comes down to exact calculation above all. Fischer calculated that it was good, and his judgement bore out since the game only lasted another 12 moves. Here are some things that probably contributed to this judgement.
2. It was clear that black had to take with the Ra7 so as not to lose d5, and after that, neither black rook remains well placed since the Ra8 cannot leave the a6-pawn undefended, and either the Rd7 or the Nf6 is stuck defending d5. D5 also limits the scope of the Rd7, in particular.
3. It also leaves the a6-pawn particularly weak since the Bd7 might have been able to defend it. GM Mikhail Suba is famous for saying "Bad bishops defend good pawns!" In addition, when you look at the minor pieces that are left, the Bd3 versus the Nf6 is clearly in favor of the B and its nice scope. It is of note that if black tries to liquidate the weak a6-pawn with a5, white can just push, creating a dangerous passer.
4. Lastly, and most importantly in this position, the white Ra1 immediately takes the only useful file, the c-file, with an immediate threat of Rc6, thus black played Rd6 stopping it, which allowed white to take the 7th rank. In all fairness, the computer finds both 22.a4 and 22.Rc1 stronger by about half a pawn, but Fischer’s method is clear, and very straightforward.
> 20 votes

# Answer
**22. Nxd7+!** Fischer trades one advantage for an even bigger one: the invasion of the White Rooks.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, fischer, bad-bishop
---


title: What is the best move in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the best move in this position?
I'm trying to make a correct move but I can't find one.

When I move, I always get a warning message from chess.com.

```
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "12.29.2021"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Fmbalbuena"]
[Black "AI (600 ELO)"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r1k3/p2np1b1/1qp1bnpr/1p1p1pN1/1P1P1P1P/N1P1P3/P2R2QR/2B1KB2 w - - 0 1"]

```

update from OPs comment: In the board, it's whites turn to play.

# Answer
> When I move, I always get Error of chess.com, Why?
> Error means That i will lose, Not invalid move.

Nxe6 is winning. You take a piece for free and threaten another piece. Meanwhile black has no threats.

```
[FEN "2r1k3/p2np1b1/1qp1bnpr/1p1p1pN1/1P1P1P1P/N1P1P3/P2R2QR/2B1KB2 w - - 0 1"]

1. Nxe6

```
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Any chess software with "force move" facility?
Does anyone know if there is a chess program on the market (PC or iPad) which provides force-move functionality while it is the computer's turn to play (the opponent tells the computer program which move it must make)? I think that is the best option to practice one's openings serially.

That's different from the "switch side" functionality which, as far as I know, can only be made while it is your turn to play. Thanks!

# Answer
> 9 votes
I know Chessmaster does this (see Ubisoft's list of controls for Chessmaster X), since I've used Chessmaster X. In certain (i.e. non-competitive) game modes, Ctrl-F will force the computer to move during its turn. It isn't a free program, but it has a lot of good resources for a beginner which IMO make it worth it.

**Edit**: It looks as if I have misread the question; I believe you actually meant the player can force the computer to make a *certain* move when it is the computer's turn. As far as I know, you cannot do this without setting up the board to a certain position, then playing from that position. E.g. you are White: `1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 ...` and you want to make the computer play `2... f6` to practice your advantage against this opening. In this case, you would set up the board manually (which Chessmaster as well as most other chess programs allow you to do) as `FEN rnbqkbnr/pppp2pp/5p2/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 1 2`, and play as White from there In most programs, including Chessmaster, you can manually move around/add/remove pieces to attain the desired position.

# Answer
> 6 votes
I do this all the time while in analysis mode using SCID and Stockfish.

# Answer
> 1 votes
StockFish / Small fish / Fritz / Chess master GM version all have this functionality .

# Answer
> 0 votes
> the opponent tells the computer program which move it must make

Every GUI / front-end which allows you to switch between playing against the engine (normally the default mode) and "infinite analysis" has this functionality.

All you need to do on your turn before the computer move you want to force is switch on "infinite analysis", make the forced move for the computer or sequence of forced moves and then switch "infinite analysis" off again.

# Answer
> 0 votes
On Lichess.org's analysis board, you can use the "practice with computer" icon to toggle between analysis mode and having the computer respond to moves.

---
Tags: software
---


title: Abbreviation: GM or IGM?

text:
# Question
Title: Abbreviation: GM or IGM?
Recently I was browsing old issues of my clubzine when I tripped over "IGM". Wait, aren't all Grandmasters international by default? But I'm old enough to remember that the abbreviation "IGM" instead of the now-familiar "GM" was actually in use decades ago (1970ish).

Thus:

* Was there *ever* a difference between GM and IGM (obviously, let's restrict to the official FIDE period 1950+)? I assume not.
* If it was just a matter of standard abbreviation — when did it change? (Educated guess on the why: computer tables.)

# Answer
> 4 votes
Was there a difference? Yes. Botvinnik was a Soviet GM before he became FIDE IGM, for example, and the national title did not go away just because a FIDE title was instituted, especially as the FIDE title initially was honorary (no norms).

The original FIDE abbreviation was IGM. A check in the FIDE 2022 title regulations indicates that the current official abbreviation is just GM, but I'm afraid I can't pinpoint the change in time. Oxford Companion to Chess (new ed. 1992) still uses 'IGM'.

---
Tags: history, grandmaster, titles
---


# Question
Title: How are chess boards updated in real time in Blitz and Rapid tournaments?
In Rapid and Blitz tournaments, there are usually multiple over-the-board chess games going on simultaneously.

It seems many websites and live streams have access to the chess boards of many players, and are able to show the moves in real time.

How does this work? Are there dedicated people watching every game and updating the moves in the system? Or is it somehow done automatically? If so, how does that work exactly? And how are multiple websites or streams which do not seem to be affiliated with each other able to show the moves?

I believe the live analysis board is usually out-of-sync with the video of the players, so I suspect that it might be done manually, but it seems absurd to have an army of people watching each game and updating the moves.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The company Digital Game Technology produces digital boards, sets and clocks which can be connected via cables or bluetooth to a computer running their free software which allows the games to be shared via the internet in real time.

For tournaments cables are required. More information on their tournament e-boards here.

---
Tags: software, tournament, online-chess, blitz, rapid
---


# Question
Title: Was Carlsen disadvantaged by the Sonneborn-Berger tiebreak due to his high rating?
After Carlsen was excluded from the 2021 FIDE Rapid championship playoffs by the Sonneborn-Berger tiebreak, chess24 reported:

> He (Carlsen) criticized the rules, saying it would give his opponents an unfair advantage as long as he is the highest rated player

But Sonneborn-Berger does not take rating into account, so how does it give an unfair advantage to lower rated players?

Update: @Alexander Gardens points out the quoted complaint is about Dubai 2016, not the Rapid World Championship 2021. I suspect that clarification in the linked article was added after I asked the question - maybe someone with better Google-fu than me could confirm if that is the case.

# Answer
It doesn't; the part you quoted looks like an erroneous statement in the article. I don't see a quote by Carlsen where he explicitly says this; Carlsen does say it's unfair but not just to him:

> Carlsen speaking to NRK with a rant lasting several minutes about why he thinks the tiebreak rules in this event are unfair. "I just don't think this is fair. It has to be changed." and "It's just too amateurish in a world championship." #RapidBlitz #nrksjakk
> 6 votes

# Answer
I think you have misread the article. That quote is about the tie-break system used in 2016, not this year. In 2016 the average opponent strength was used, which put Carlsen at a disadvantage. If I understand correctly, his criticism of it being unfair to higher-rated players was made in 2016, and then the rules were changed in 2017.

> Carlsen later pointed out that he also lost out due to worse tiebreaks in the 2016 World Rapid Chess Championship in Dubai, where he finished third behind Vasyl Ivanchuk and Alexander Grischuk, due to a worse rating average of his opponents.

> He criticized the rules, saying it would give his opponents an unfair advantage as long as he is the highest rated player. The rules were changed for the 2017 event in Riyadh.
> 5 votes

# Answer
As you can read on the Wikipedia page, the Sonneborn-Berger score of a player is the sum of the points of the opponents. This score per opponent is multiplied by 1 in case the player won, by 0.5 if the player had a draw and by 0 if the player lost. This way losing (or drawing) against an opponent with much points is 'worse' than losing (or drawing) against an opponent with low points. But you only know this at the end of the tournament :-)

Ratings have nothing to do with this. So I do not really understand what Carlsen means. Perhaps a lower rated player has more chances to win against a higher rated player in a big tournament because the higher rated player needs every win he can score and takes a little risk. I do not know. All systems to appoint a winner are not fair. This also counts for the way that Carlsen has beaten Caruana in the previous World Championship or him winning Tata-steel in 2018. There should also be a draw on tournament level :-)
> 3 votes

---
Tags: carlsen, rapid, tie-breaks
---


# Question
Title: What do chess engine evaluation scores (+1.3, -3.2) really mean?
I know that chess engine evaluations like +1.3 intuitively mean that White is evaluated to have an advantage equivalent to 1.3 pawns of material, or that -3.2 means that Black is evaluated to have an advantage equivalent to a little over a knight or bishop. But I am struggling to pin down what "having an advantage equivalent to" really means or how it could be implemented.

Such evaluations do not simply count the material on the board, but rather might translate into such an advantage *in future*. For example, an evaluation of -3.2 might be because Black, through optimal play, can force the capture of a white Bishop "for free" in the next couple of moves.

Other cases might not be so clearly linked to material advantage. For example, although currently level in material, Black, through optimal play, may gain a strong tactical advantage *in future* due to the white King being open.

My doubt here is that an engine will inevitably turn a -3.2 advantage into a future win for Black, even if the full path to checkmate is not clear. So the further we look into the future, the stronger the advantage will inevitably become for Black.

Hence my confusion. It seems that there is some "future looking" aspect to the evaluations, but depending on how far into the future we look, the evaluation for the current position changes.

Trying to "backwards-engineer" the concept, it seems that maybe there is a fixed window of turns somehow in which the advantage is considered, but this again seems material-based whereas an advantage might never translate into a material advantage in the short term. Perhaps another way would be to consider how much material must be given to the other side right now in order to make the position equal, but then there's the question of what material, and where to place that material.

Chess engines (not based on supervised learning at least) must implement this evaluation function in some way, and I guess that there is some standard definition in order to make the scores of different engines comparable (though I might be wrong).

My question is: is there a standard/typical, rigorous definition for these chess engine evaluations, and if so, what is that definition?

# Answer
One thing you must understand is that any chess engine using negamax/minimax with alpha-beta pruning and other heuristics uses a static evaluation function at the leaves of the search-tree. This function returns terminal values (e.g. win-in-0, loss-in-0, draw-in-0), or estimates of 'position value' when the game has not ended, and these values propagate up the search-tree. The engine eventually chooses a move that maximizes the guaranteed value of a leaf that it can reach in that tree no matter what the opponent does. Now, of course there is no doubt about win-in-k or loss-in-k values; if any **correct** engine evaluates a position to have such a value, it means it has *proven* that the indicated side can guarantee a win within k moves. The question is what do other values mean.

SF uses some big value M (≈64) to indicate almost sure win (overwhelming advantage), which shows up especially when one side will have an unstoppable pawn promotion and the other side has too little material. As per the above explanation, if SF evaluates a position to have value ≈ M or ≈ −M, that value implies guaranteed almost sure win for the indicated side. SF also has other 'tiers' for different levels of confidence.

But besides these coarse 'tiers' SF also has fine-tuned heuristic factors that are evaluated to add little bits of 'positional value' to each side, such as king-danger and bishop-pair. These do not correspond directly to material, but the values have been tuned so that SF makes the correct decision with the highest frequency that its designers could achieve using those heuristic factors. At least this is what is happening with SF10.

In fact, although each piece is given a value (piece-value-bonus), even this value changes over time (piece-value-mg to piece-value-eg), and the square it is on is also taken into account (piece-square-bonus), along with many other things. So it is hard to even say that +1.3 represents roughly 1.3 pawns. Not at all, really.

So there is **not really any material meaning** to an evaluation of +1.3 by SF10. Rather:

* SF10 has searched a tree T and found that **if** both players only make moves given in that tree T **then** White can guarantee to reach a leaf node of T with static evaluation value at least +1.3 **and** Black can guarantee to reach a leaf node of T with static evaluation value at most +1.3.
* In extensive testing, it is found that *generally* SF10 performs better with the weights it uses in its heuristics than with other weights. It does often mean that a position with higher static evaluation than another position is more likely to be better for White, but it can be very wrong, for example in this position:

```
[Title "Bad for Black"]
[FEN "q1k5/PpP2ppp/1Pp5/2N5/8/8/7P/K7 w - - 0 1"]

```

The static evaluation for this position (you can try using the link above) is solidly in Black's favour, but it is wrong! This shows that the static evaluation of leaves of the search-tree can be very inaccurate. However, this problem is mitigated strongly by the search-tree itself! Since SF never plays based only on static evaluation only, its chosen move tends to be correct simply because incorrectly evaluated leaves are rare. The primary approach is **quiescence search**, which extends the search-tree at nodes that are deemed to be not quiet (e.g. just after check or capture), and hence usually avoids erroneous evaluation based on a misleading material balance in the middle of a piece exchange. This approach does not help in the position I showed above, and SF10 depth 20 on Lichess evaluates it at ≈ −3.

But SF10 will rarely get into such problematic positions in the first place! This is because quiescence search ensures that the vast majority of leaf nodes of the search-tree have roughly correct **relative** static evaluations (and here all the tiny bits help), and so choosing the best move based on that tree not only almost always turns out to be the best move but also almost always avoids subtrees where the future search would have many such problematic positions at the search-tree leaves! For instance, to get to the above illustrated position Black not only has to hide the queen in a corner but also get the king stuck! This is very heavily disfavoured by many of the heuristic factors including king-danger and piece-mobility *at earlier moves*, so SF10 would never even *have* to evaluate such problematic positions in the first place.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Chess engines search the game tree and return the evaluation of the best final position in the tree. The evaluation corresponds to the static evaluation (i.e. the evaluation function of the engine evaluated on that position), regardless of whether it is a NN evaluation, a NNUE evaluation, or a handcrafted evaluation function. There is no "future-looking". Evaluation functions cannot look into the future; that is what the search algorithm does.

I'm guessing a lot of your confusion stems from the fact that engine evaluations have long passed the point of just counting material. It factors in the locations of the pieces, king safety, pawn structure, whether there are opposite color bishops on the board, and a whole lot of other factors.

Finally, some evaluation functions don't actually return a +x.xx centipawn eval. They return a win percentage, that is, an estimate of how likely it is that they will win from that position. That estimate is then converted to centipawns with a formula that depends on the engine, e.g. Leela's conversion from win % to centipawns is cp = 90 * tan(1.5637541897 * q), where q = win probability + draw probability\*drawscore - loss probability \[1\]. If you are having trouble understanding centipawn eval, it might be more helpful to think of it as a win percentage.

\[1\] "drawscore" is a factor which allows you to influence how Leela treats draws. A negative drawscore for example pushes the engine to avoid draws, because draws would add a negative amount to the eval. It is similar to contempt in traditional engines.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The evaluation is based on general results from the engine’s tablebase. It thinks by positional means, and looks forward a few moves. It looks in its programmed tables and sees, ‘Ah, an open file is worth about .5 pawns (for example).’ Then it sees if it is also in this case a .5 advantage, and using this for many more details in the position, the computer calculates the approximate advantage for white or black.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: engines, evaluation
---


# Question
Title: Do you say "good game" after a game in which your opponent played poorly?
Suppose you win a game in a noncompetitive way, when you know your opponent cannot feel good about his play. Maybe he dropped his queen early, to a simple tactic that should have been evident for a player of his level, for example.

Do you say "Good game" when you shake hands? Or do you say nothing at all?

# Answer
Why not just:

> Thanks for the game.

You wanted to play a game, and your opponent gave you a game. Played well or not, you could thank him for giving you the opportunity to play.
> 70 votes

# Answer
In short: Yes. It is a polite way to acknowledge an enjoyable game.

"Good game" isn't the same thing as saying, "well-played game".

Saying "good game" just means you enjoyed playing it. You could have enjoyed it for many reasons. For example, it could mean something as simple as, "thank you for being polite and not stalling or offering draws from badly losing positions", or "not being a d\*** when you lost".

It could even mean, "yes, I clearly won, but you kept me on my toes".

"Good game" does not imply that the opponent played well in any way, and is the normal polite way of thanking a person for their time. If the person is rude to you, or obnoxious, then you wouldn't probably feel the desire to say "good game", no matter how well they played.
> 52 votes

# Answer
In general you say something like "Good game until ... That was a shame".

> Maybe he dropped his queen early, to a simple tactic that should have been evident for a player of his level, for example

So, in that case "Good game until you dropped your queen. That was a shame because it was a real fight until then". It may be a small white lie but it is less transparent than the standard "Good game" which comes across as formulaic and lacking in sincerity.
> 8 votes

# Answer
In Go (which I discovered after Chess, and ... much prefer now, I have to confess), we usually say "**Have a good game!**" before we start (the meaning being: let's both play a nice game, and enjoy it), and "**Thank you for the game**" at the end, said by both parties. There can be tons of variants, but there is usually a good attitude from both players before and after the game. If the game was well played on both parts, it's often pointed out by saying something like "This was a really nice game!", as we are both happy we played it (even when one loses, if the game was well played by both, it is a good feeling to have lived it and contributed to it). And often the game is then discussed by replaying key moves of the game and exploring what each could have done better instead of those moves. Being fiercly fighting on the board during the game shouldn't lead you to be rough to your opponent outside of it, so saying "good game" to your opponent for a game where the opponent blundered seems a bit misplaced, even hurtful. Just saying "Thank you for the game" is enough (and hopefully doesn't convey the same feeling. Intonation is key.).
> 7 votes

# Answer
Whatever you choose to say to your opponent, consider also saying something along the lines of:

> Perhaps we should have a rematch sometime?

Which is a polite way of acknowledging that they messed up and offering them a chance to redeem themselves without actually embarassing them by stating that you know they played badly.

---

Not directly pertinent to your question, but if you do end up having a rematch with them and they make the same mistake again then it may be a good idea to tell them why it's a bad move/strategy in case they aren't aware.
> 5 votes

# Answer
I try to, but in the case of egregious errors like that, I'll typically slide that into "...at least up until move 15" (or wherever the queen fell). If it's not just dropping the queen to a pawn, like maybe it was a long bishop move for example, I might add something like "Long moves are sometimes hard to see."

We all have those kind of games and we all feel horrible after it. I try to at least say something that might relieve the stress a bit. maybe ask a question about a moment that occurred earlier in the game, if I can come up with one.

To me the important thing is to be encouraging. Sometimes that can be really difficult.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Personally I always say good game after a game, but I have had opponents storm out upset saying stuff like "you think that was good?" "you lucky...." etc.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is no silver bullet / “single size fits all” response - there will be occasions when it’s advisable / etiquette to give different responses (if any) accordingly. I provide a couple of examples to illustrate.

Depends upon opponent. If you’re playing your partners father, say, then yeah say “good game” to keep the peace with the outlaws ;)

If it’s a competition, then “thanks for the game” should suffice if anything -

It also depends upon the game and how you won - if your opponent was up a piece in the lead the the most part of a long drawn out game, but unfortunately blundered - “well played, you almost had me” with an appropriate tone could be in order if your opponent appears to be receptive (eg makes eye contact / smiles whilst shaking head etc). If you totally crushed him/her with the fried liver, foils, ant-fried, or due to early Queen capture, then perhaps don’t say anything (“thanks for game” could even be construed as unintentional sarcasm).

After playing a 6 hr game its polite but to say something - even if it pertains to effort / resilience / close call.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: etiquette
---


# Question
Title: As GMs get older, does their age affect their Classical, Rapid and Blitz ratings equally?
As GMs age beyond their prime, their ratings will likely drop in Classical, Rapid and Blitz chess.

If we compare the mean Elo ratings of older and younger GMs across all 3 time controls, does it show the same decrease or are certain time controls affected more?

(I am asking specifically about GMs because I believe that age would be a limiting factor only in the highest levels of play.)

---

This question was inspired by the following amazing achievements:

In January 2007, Viktor Korchnoi was ranked #85 in the world at **Classical** chess, at age 75.

Boris Gelfand achieved 22nd place in the World **Rapid** Chess Championship 2021, at age 53.

Anatoly Karpov nearly defeated Spanish IM/GM Rey Enigma at **Blitz** chess in 2021, at age 70.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Running queries against rating data downloaded from the FIDE rating data download page gives the following average standard, rapid and blitz ratings for players with the GM title over 50 and under 50:

50+ Std=2441 Rpd=2428 Blz=2412
U50 Std=2532 Rpd=2521 Blz=2515

Surprisingly that looks like no real difference to me.

GMs over 50 are understandably, on average, weaker than GMs under 50 but both sets are fractionally better at standard than rapid and fractionally better at rapid than blitz.

I tried checking for U30's and got:

U30 Std=2575 Rpd=2535 Blz=2538

---
Tags: rating, fide, statistics, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Is this theoretical novelty double-piece sacrifice actually sound?
Working my way through Hannes Langrock's book on the modern Morra Gambit (second edition), I came across an interesting sacrifice that he believes is at best worth a draw. Indeed that's also Stockfish's initial conclusion. But when I analyse it for a while (with SF 14.1 on 32 cores), it actually appears to be very strong, maybe even winning. The line starts with 11 Nd5, the critical point is 19 Rxe7, and my novelties are 20 Qe5 and 21 Kh1.

Have I missed something in my notes to the attached analysis, or is this double-piece sac really sound?

*\[In case it matters, I hover around Glicko 2200 on Lichess\]*

```
[Event "Engine Analysis of Zakharov-Gusev (Tula 2001)"]
[White "SF 14.1"]
[Black "SF 14.1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B21"]
[Annotator "Mark Pearce"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[FEN "RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr b KQkq - 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4 a6 7.O-O Nge7 8.Bg5! f6 9.Be3 b5     10.Bb3 Ng6 11.Nd5!? {Zacharov's daring innovation.} exd5 12.exd5 Nce5 (12...Na5? 13.Re1! Be7 14.d6 {Black is in big trouble}) 13.d6! Bb7 14.Nxe5 fxe5 (14...Nxe5? 15.Re1 Qb8 16.Bc5 {Black's position is hopeless}) 15.f4! exf4! (15...Qf6? 16.fxe5 Qxe5 17.Bf7+ Kd8 18.Bb6+ Kc8 19.Re1 {Winning}) 16.Re1! {Zakharov had to foresee this position before he played his sacrifice on move 11!} 16...fxe3 17.Rxe3+ Be7 18.Qd4 Qc8! (18... Qb8? 19.dxe7 Qa7 20.Bf7+! Kxf7 21.e8=Q+ Rhxe8 22.Rf1+ Kg8 23.Qxa7 Rxe3 24.Qxe3 {1-0 Zahkarov-Gusev, Tula 2001}) (18...Rf8? 19.dxe7 Nxe7 20.Rae1 Rf6 21.Qc5! d6 22.Rxe7+ Qxe7 23.Rxe7+ Kxe7 24.Qc7+ {Winning}) 19.Rxe7+! {Already two pieces down, White makes a further sacrifice!} (19.Rae1!? Qc6= {After this more prosaic line Hannes Langrock (in his "Modern Morra Gambit, Second Edition") believes the position looks like a draw, and the 11 games following this line in Chessbase's Mega 2020 database agree - there are 8 draws and only 3 wins for White.}) 19...Nxe7 20.Qe5! (20.Re1? Qc6! 21.Bd5! O-O-O! (21...Qxd5 22.Rxe7+ Kd8 23.Qb6+ Kc8 24. Qc7#) (21...Qxd6 22.Bf7+ Kxf7 23.Qxd6 Rhe8 24.Qxd7!) 22.Bxc6 Nxc6! {This is the only line analysed by Langrock - and White is losing})(20.Qe3? Qd8 21.Re1 a5!=)  20...Qd8 21.Kh1! {A beautifully quiet move that prevents ...Qb6+ and a potential escape with ...0-0-0. This is a crazy position - White has sacrified two pieces for a stranglehold on e7, but surprisingly doesn't need to hurry with exploitation.} 21...Rf8 22.Qh5+! g6 23.Qe5 {White quietly takes time to open the c3-h8 diagonal before doubling on the e-file. This is possible because Black is almost paralysed.} 23...Rf2 (23...Rf5 24.Qg7 Ra7! (24...Be4 25.Re1 Rc8 26.h3 Rc1 27.Rxc1 Bxg2+ 28.Kh2! Bd5 29.Bxd5 Rxd5 30.Re1 Rd2+ 31.Kg3 Rd3+ 32.Kf4 Rd4+ 33.Qxd4 Kf7 34.Rxe7+ Qxe7 35.dxe7 {followed shortly by mate}) (24...Rc8 25.Re1 {transposes to above line}) 25.Re1 Bxg2+! 26.Kxg2 Qa8+ 27.Kg1 Rg5+ 28. Kf2 Rf5+ 29.Ke3 Qf3+ 30.Kd2 Qf4+ 31.Kc2 Qxh2+ 32.Kb1 Qxd6 33.Qg8+ Rf8 34.Bf7+ Kd8 35.Qxf8+ Kc7 36.Qxe7 Qxe7 37.Rxe7 Kd6 38.Re4 {A marvellous King walk followed by roughly equal material - but Black's rook is terrible.}) 24.Re1 Bxg2+ 25. Kg1 Rf5 26.Qd4! {Stopping the check from b6} Bf3 27.h3! {Making room for the King} Rc8 28.Kh2 Rc1! (28...Rc4 29.Bxc4 bxc4 30.Qh8+ Rf8 31.Qxh7 Rf7 32.Qg8+ Rf8 33.Qxg6+ Rf7 34.h4! {Black is completely paralysed.}) 29.Qh8+! {Liquidating into a very advantageous ending - possible because the c3-h8 diagonal is now open after move 22!} Rf8 30.Bf7+! Kxf7 31.Rxe7+! Qxe7 32.Qxh7+ Ke6 33.Qxe7+ Kd5 34.Qxf8 1-0

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
I found the following game, which reaches the position at move 19 by transposition. It also indicates that the sacrifice is sound, with the continuation 20. Qe3

```
[Event "It"]
[Site "St. Lo (France)"]
[Date "2012.07.10"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Devallee, Jeremie (FRA)"]
[Black "Duchateau, Thomas (FRA)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B21"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
[Startply "39"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Bc4 Ne7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Be3 Ng6 9.O-O b5 10.Bb3 Nc6 11.Nd5 exd5 12.exd5 Nce5 13.Nxe5 fxe5 14.d6 Bb7 15.f4 exf4 16.Re1 fxe3 17.Rxe3+ Be7 18.Qd4 Qc8 19.Rxe7+ Nxe7 20.Qe3 Qd8 21.Re1 Rc8 22.Qd4 Qa5 23.Rxe7+ Kd8 24.Re8+ 1-0

```

---
Tags: opening, theory, sacrifice, smith-morra-gambit
---


# Question
Title: Can playing blindfold chess be learned or is it a natural skill?
Any blindfold players here? Just wondering if blindfold chess is a skill that can be learned by amateurs like me or a natural skill by chess GM's, IM's, etc.

# Answer
As I have said before, this requires physical fitness and strong memory. In order to play blindfolded chess properly you need to master the following:

1. Having always **clear vision** of the board.
2. Properly move and capture pieces.
3. Properly update the overall position on the board after the move is played.

Now it is time to implement solutions for the above tasks:

## 1. Having always **clear vision** of the board.

You must know which squares are light and which are dark. First you must know **if the coordinate has odd parity or not.** This is important for both letter and number coordinate. You first check the letter's parity, and then you determine the color of the square like below:

1.1 If letter has odd parity and number does not, than it is a light square ( `a2`, `c8`, `g6`... Do you see the pattern now? ).

1.2 If letter and number both have odd parity, than it is a dark square ( `a1`, `c3`, `g5`... Do you see the pattern now? ).

2.1 If letter doesn't have odd parity and number does, than it is a light square ( `b3`, `f5`, `h7`... Do you see the pattern now? ).

2.2 If letter and number don't have odd parity, than it is a dark square ( `c1`, `d4`, `h8`... Do you see the pattern now? ).

---

## 2. Properly move and capture pieces.

Here you have `*starting square*`-\>it is the square a piece stands on, and the `*target square*`, the one you wish to move your piece to.

When moving/capturing you change the value of at least one coordinate, be that letter or a number. For example, when you move a rook from `h1` to `g1` notice that the letter coordinate got decremented by 1. The same goes for number coordinates, when moving a pawn from `e2` to `e3` notice how number coordinate incremented by 1.

To illustrate this in the most efficient way, I will introduce a special notation that I will explain right now:

We shall adopt the format `L[±/+/-]N[±/+/-]`.

`L` is the starting letter coordinate and `N` is the starting number coordinate.

`[]` store **simple adding/subtracting** function describing how to calculate the valid coordinate for putting a piece, or be blank in which case the coordinate remains the same.

This function uses symbols `±`, `+`, `-` for calculation.

The symbol `/` lists options ( **you can always do only one mathematical calculation in the bracket.** ) .

For example, rook can move forward or backward so instead of writing `L[+1]N[]` or `L[-1]L[]` it will be shorter to write `L[+1/-1]`. Then you choose which function to perform, adding **or** subtracting.

*Furthermore, each option for `L` will have corresponding option for `N`, meaning that in this example `L[-1/+1]N[-1/+1]` you either do `L[-1]N[-1]` or `L[+1][+1]`. This will all be clearer in practical examples shown below.*

Here are the patterns:

> *Pawn:*

When moving a pawn, **always** increment by one **the number coordinate**. If testing for capture, replace the starting letter coordinate with its successor or predecessor, else do nothing.

*Example:*

When you apply this for the diagram above, a pawn on `f3` can move to `f4` and capture on `e4` or `g4` and a pawn on `b6` can move to `b7` and capture on `a7` or `c7`.

> *Knight:*

**L\[ ±2 / ±1 \]N\[ ±1 / ±2 \]** for both capture and move.

*Example:*

In the diagram above knight stands on `e4` square. Let us use our pattern to determine on which squares it can stand:

**`e`\[ ±2 / ±1 \]`4`\[ ±1 / ±2 \]** can have the following results:

1. First option is `e`\[ ±2 \]`4`\[ ±1 \] :

This means that we can move the knight on `e`\[+2\]`4`\[+1\] = `g5`, or `e`\[+2\]`4`\[-1\] = `g3`, or `e`\[-2\]`4`\[+1\] = `c5` and finally `e`\[-2\]`4`\[-1\] = `c3`.
2. Second option is `e`\[ ±1 \]`4`\[ ±2 \] :

This means that we can move the knight on `e`\[ +1 \]`4`\[ +2 \] = `f6`, or `e`\[ +1 \]`4`\[ -2 \] = `f2`, or `e`\[ -1 \]`4`\[ +2 \] = `d6` and finally `e`\[ -1 \]`4`\[ -2 \] = `d2`.

> *Bishop:*

For the bishop is tough, but **I was able to invent a solution that is simple and effective.**

You see, we can treat diagonal as an *linear function* and a bishop as a coordinate on it. After carefully looking on the picture below we can see that diagonal **is a part of a square.** This is the equation for a *linear function* with 2 known coordinates:

Where `( x2 , y2 )` is the destination point, and `( x1 , y1 )` is the starting point.

`( y2 - y1 ) / ( x2 - x1 )` **can only be ±1**, since we have a square, which gives us the `y2 = y1 ±( x2 - x1 )` equation.

Since we know both the starting square and target square all we have to do is check if the above equation is true and if is then bishop can move/capture on the target square!

We just need slight adjustment since we use letters for `x-axis` instead of numbers:

## **Target letter coordinate = Starting letter coordinate ± ( Target number coordinate - Starting number coordinate )**

And there it is!

The tricky part is to determine when to choose `-` and when `+`. Still there is an easy way:

If your diagonal has direction like blue one in the picture above, you use `+` else you use `-` in the equation.

*Example:*

In the diagram above bishop stands on `e4` square. Let us use our equation to determine if it can move to `c6` ( **here we choose `-`** since the direction of the diagonal is the same as the red one's in the mentioned diagram ): `c = e - ( 6 - 4 ) = e - 2 = c` which is correct result ( second letter before `e` is `c` ).

Now let us test `f6` ( **here we choose `+`** since the direction of the diagonal would be the same as the blue one's in the mentioned diagram ): `f = e + ( 6 - 4 ) = e + 2 = g` which is invalid and that is a correct result.

Now let us test `b1` ( **here we choose `+`** since the direction of the diagonal is the same as the blue one's in the mentioned diagram ): `b = e + ( 1 - 4 ) = e - 3 = b` which is valid and that is correct result.

> *Rook:*

The target square must have equal letter or number coordinate, in order for a rook to go there.

*Example:*

For example in the diagram above, rook is on `e4` and he can move on any square that has at least one coordinate equal to his start coordinate. Therefore we can see that rook can stand on `e8` because that square has the same letter as the starting square, or `h4` since the number coordinates are the same.

> *Queen:*

You just have to perform testing the same way you would for bishop or rook:

Either the target square has same letter or number, or must satisfy the equation I gave you for the bishop ( `Target letter coordinate = Starting letter coordinate ± ( Target number coordinate - Starting number coordinate )` ).

> *King:*

Two conditions must be fulfilled in order for target square to be valid:

1. `Target square number coordinate` \- `starting square number coordinate` must be 1 or -1.
2. Target letter coordinate must be either successor or predecessor of the starting letter, or equal to it.

*Example:*

In the diagram above, king is on `f3`. Let us determine if he can stand on `e5`:

1. `e` is the predecessor of `f`, which is good so far.
2. 5(*target number coordinate*) - 3(*starting number coordinate*) = 2, thus this square is invalid.

Now let us test `f2`:

1. `f` is equal to `f`, so far so good.
2. 2 - 3 = -1, which is valid result, so yes, king can move there.

## 3. Properly update the overall position on the board after the move is played.

This is the place where your memory and physical fitness come into play. It will be hard for you to memorize which pieces were exchanged and where each one stand. Especially when you need to calculate lines this can be a cause of many mistakes.

I hope that this answer helps you, sorry for posting late, I have a lot of work to do. These tips are really just a basic math and you really should have no trouble using them successfully. Still if you need help leave a comment.

Good luck and best regards.
> 11 votes

# Answer
In essence, you are asking-

> Can memory (or other brain functions) be improved or is it a natural trait?

The answer is yes to both. While it is true that one's memory can be improved, it is also commonly observed that some people are more "gifted" when it comes to memory (and other brain functions) than others.

To play blindfold chess, you need three things -

1. A decent **memory**
2. A good ability to **visualize**
3. A decent level of chess **playing strength** (if you want to play decent chess i.e. or one could simply have a fantastic memory and make legal yet nonsensical moves).

**Memory**

I never "practiced" blindfold chess to learn it. I simply observed that as soon as my chess level got to FIDE 2000 level (for example), I could easily replay moves in my head and think "blindly". I don't have a great memory. I suppose my memory is average or slightly above average, but chess has surely helped to improve it to some extent.

**Visualization**

**The way I do it is by visualizing a 2D board in my head** (like a computer screen). The board doesn't have to be crystal clear (it's often hazy), but as long as you can "see" the pieces in their places, it's fine. I suppose that a chess player's ability to visualize increases the more chess he/she plays. This is normal brain development. The more you exercise a muscle, the better it gets. So I would suggest you practice visualization to get better at it.

**Playing Strength**

The real point of blind chess is to **play chess blindly and yet play it well**. So playing strength is indispensable or else there is no point in playing blind chess. If you play blind chess badly, you only prove you have a good memory and visualization power and nothing more. So, as an amateur, I would say **your top priority is to improve your playing strength. *Work on that and your memory and visualization will automatically improve***.

All the best!
> 30 votes

# Answer
It is obviously a learned skill. No-one pops into the world after gestating for 9 months able to play blindfold chess! Just as no-one arrives destined to be an International footballer, genius mathematician or Olympic athlete.

The real question is, is it learned by specifically training to acquire the skills of blindfold chess, or does it develop in some other way?

I am a reasonably strong chess player (and was stronger when I was much younger) but have always been well short of IM or GM strength. Yet I can play blindfold chess with ease. Unfortunately it is not especially strong blindfold chess! It lags about 100 rating points below my OTB rating. The main difference is that although I make fewer gross blunders when playing blindfold I do not find exceptionally strong moves or plans either.

I have never studied specifically for it but I have been able to play blindfold since I passed about 1800 strength. At least that is when I first tried it, and succeeded. The first hint that I might be able to play blindfold was when I realised that I could follow chess books without a board and pieces. When I got stronger I found that I could play several blindfold games simultaneously, so in my case the ability developed as a side effect of learning to play chess with a board and pieces. I suspect the same is true of most players including all those FMs, IMs and GMs that are much stronger than me.

Isn't this what you would expect? In learning to play chess well we become intimately familiar with the board, with the powers of the pieces, and with the patterns commonly made by tactical operations and by positional features. We also calculate future positions by imagining sequences of moves and the positions to which they lead. These are the basic skills of blindfold play, so it is not surprising that the skill can develop naturally alongside increasing chess strength.

This is not to say that you cannot train specifically to play blindfold. I expect that you can. But I do not think that is how most chess players gained the skill.

Blindfold chess is not such an exceptional and amazing mental feat as it is thought to be by people that don't play chess (and by some that do!). I do not know of any strong player that cannot play blindfold. I have challenged some strong players that have never tried to play blindfold to give it a try, and they have always managed it with some ease. What is strong? Well no-one I know that has achieved a rating of 2100 or more has failed this challenge, and many with lower ratings have managed it.
> 16 votes

# Answer
I learned to play blindfolded chess by practicing it from 2001 to 2005. In my opinion, it is a skill that can be learned, practice will give results.

What I do is to try to visualize the chess board and the pieces on the board at every moment of the game. I have to update it one or more times per second, since it keeps vanishing. It does require considerable effort and you get tired after a single game, even at relatively short time controls.

It might be easier to start off by having an empty chess board in front of you, when training. When practicing, you can ask a friend to play with the board and you sitting with your back to the board, getting and sending your moves verbally. Close your eyes, if you find it helps.

If you find it difficult, then everything is correct :)

There seems to be a nice book out there on the subject:

http://www.blindfoldchess.net/

Perhaps there are more books / articles out there!
> 14 votes

# Answer
I just want to share what I am doing now to improve my blindfold chess visualization skill.

I downloaded a dozen of minigames of 10 to 15 moves in PGN format from chessgames.com , then I load it from my chess PGN application from my mobile phone. Then I read the PGN and play it on my mind without browsing it from my PGN reader. As I finished the game from my mind. I verify the position by playing the actual game from my PGN reader. I am using Chess PGN Master available from Iphone and Android.

I feel happy every time I finished a game that matches exactly from the game I visualized.

I think this stepping stone would put me someday from playing blindfold chess.
> 10 votes

# Answer
the ability to play blindfold chess develops naturally as chess ability improves. By getting better at chess, one gets better at blindfold chess.
> 7 votes

# Answer
I have a USCF of around 1500 and I can play blind, so if that's what you're looking for it shouldn't be overly difficult. I did have to push myself a little though. I want to try multiple boards, we'll see.
> 3 votes

# Answer
If Marc Lang from germany could play 46 games blindfolded (at once) then there is a chance that you could play one.

http://www.blindfoldchess.net/blog/2011/12/after\_64\_years\_new\_world\_blindfold\_record\_set\_by\_marc\_lang\_playing\_46\_games/
> 2 votes

# Answer
I don't play blindfold but I've been told by people who do that if I want to start learning / training then the place to start is by mentally splitting the board into 4 quarters: a1-4xd1-4, e1-4xh1-4, a5-8xd5-8, e5-8xh5-8. Then picture the pieces in these 4 quarters independently of each other. So, hold in your mind a picture of the first quadrant. Then do the same for the second quadrant, etc. Finally bring the 4 quarters together in your mind.

I've not tried this but it makes sense on the principle of "crawl, walk, run" and is similar to what bridge players do, counting up to 13 in lots of different ways (4xsuits + 4xplayers, etc)
> 2 votes

# Answer
I am very surprised that in this old thread absolutely no mention is made of visualization. We tend to assume that everyone thinks as we do, but perhaps more or less effectively. This is not true. Some people think visually, others verbally, logically, or kinematically. Those who do visualize vary in accuracy and clarity. See the Wikipedia article on "Visual Thinking". I myself have no power at all to visualize and believed for a long time that the phrase "in the mind's eye" was merely a poetic figure of speech. I have played blindfold, but not well. To become good would be a huge effort.

Long ago, my university team, returning by train from an away match, would divide into two teams and play "blindfold". The player next in line for each team would make the move. Our board two was completely helpless. Some of our lower boards had no difficulty at all.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Blindfold Chess is an ability which can be learned with Practice . Though some People may learn it faster than others but with average Chess intelligence it can be achieved . As like Magnus Carlsen who can play blindfolded with 10 Opponents at a time is something God Gifted but with the Training the Average Player can achieve to play one person blindfolded at one time.

Every Chess Player should try enhancing this Quality because it gradually helps in doing better Chess calculations & Visualizations in Games.
> 1 votes

# Answer
I play in chess tournaments in Philadelphia and in the U1500 section( i think) is a blind man. He has his own separate room to play in and there are special rules that apply to him. To record the moves he has an audio recording device. He also plays with 2 boards. The main board with the real pieces the opponent plays with and a special board with peg holes for the pieces. On the pieces of the special board are metal balls on the Black pieces so he can distinguish pieces. He is allowed to touch all the pieces on his board so he can visualize. His opponent has to help him and move his pieces on the main board but he is very independent non the less! In my mind that is the real blindfolded chess!
> 0 votes

# Answer
This is a bit late but in case you are still wondering - yes you can. We've been working on our blindfold chess website for the past few months and just released our beta. The entire purpose of the website is for people to learn how to play a full game blindfolded.

We start by running you through basic PGN notation. You can get comfortable with this notation using our minigames. Once you're comfortable with that - you can train your memory using our vision puzzles while also doing 'blindfold' tactics to practice finding optimal sequences in your mind. After that it's just a matter of practicing actual games of chess, which you can do here.

Hopefully this helps you or anyone else looking to learn blindfold chess :)
> 0 votes

# Answer
This is not a technical answer. Playing blindfold can be practiced and you can gain proficiency upto a level. But beyond that level, as it is with normal chess, you need talent, pure talent.
> -1 votes

# Answer
Exercises for blindfold chess playing.

IOS/WP app.

https://itunes.apple.com/app/blind-chess-train/id802114888

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/games/blind-chess-train/9wzdncrd2vvn
> -1 votes

---
Tags: learning, grandmaster, blindfold-chess, beginner, talent
---


# Question
Title: Could FIDE make a rule allowing for a visual announcement of check and checkmate?
Using verbal methods in announcing check and checkmate in tournaments is, for the arbiters, the players etc, unpleasant. But, on the other hand, prohibiting any means for an announcement is annoying for some beginners and even a few high players. Could FIDE make a rule stating that one could instead use a visual method?

# Answer
I suppose they could make whatever rules they want, but it would seem to be unnecessary.

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

> 5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

The game is ended whether or not the checkmate is announced, and there is nothing in the rules that says a player must make such an announcement. A player is just as free to make a visual indication as they are to make a verbal one, and need not make any indication at all.

Announcing check is also not mentioned in the FIDE rules. So, again, it would seem that a player would be just as free to make a visual indication as a verbal one, and need not announce at all (indeed, it's uncommon to announce check at high or even medium levels.)

In either case, one must be careful not to distract or annoy their opponent or players on other boards.
> 4 votes

# Answer
> Could FIDE make a rule allowing for a visual announcement of check and checkmate?

Rule changes have to be approved by the rules commission. Rule changes are only made after extensive discussion and deliberation. Adding an unnecessary source of distraction like this is a bad idea so, while in theory they could, it is unlikely that such a suggestion would even reach the stage of being considered let alone adopted.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: rules, checkmate, fide, check
---


title: What inspired the touch move rule?

text:
# Question
Title: What inspired the touch move rule?
This is the touch move rule:

> If a player deliberately touches a piece on the board when it is their turn to move, then they must move or capture that piece if it is legal to do so.

Where did this rule come from?

# Answer
Chess historian Edward Winter devotes a whole article to "J'Adoube".

He notes various early references to a "touch-move" rule before gviving a clue to the answer to

> Where did this rule come from?

As Winter's consideration of the Matulovic affair shows it comes from an attempt to thwart natural tendencies to cheat when there is a lot at stake. In that case it happened in the 1967 Sousse Interzonal competition. This was a qualifier for the Candidates competition to decide the challenger to the World Champion.

Winter quotes *Winning with Chess Psychology* by Pal Benko and Burt Hochberg (New York, 1991):

> The behavior of Grandmaster Milan Matulovic of Yugoslavia during his game with Bilek at the 1967 Interzonal in Tunisia stands as one of the most outrageous violations of tournament rules ever perpetuated at an event of such importance. Matulovic moved his bishop, pressed his clock, and suddenly saw that he had made a mistake. So, he took back his move, made a different move, and only then said "J'adoube". Bilek jumped in protest, of course. "But I said j'adoube!" Matulovic exclaimed. A big argument ensued, during which the tournament director, having only Bilek's word to go on, refused to require Matulovic to make a move with his bishop as the rules provided. Although Matulovic never denied taking his move back, the tournament appeals committee, amazingly, refused to punish him. The game ended in a draw.
>
> Until that game, all the Yugoslav players customarily took their evening meals together in the hotel, but henceforth Matulovic dined alone, shunned by his own compatriots. And ever since that incident, he has been sneeringly refered to as "J'adoubovic". A final note of poetic justice: A few days after his game with Bilek, Matulovic choked on a bone during dinner and had to be taken to a doctor. From then on, the joke of the tournament was that the doctor couldn't find a bone but the word "j'adoube" stuck in Matulovic's throat.

Winter gives several other reports of the incident including by the Chief Arbiter, Diaconescu, which are also worth reading.

Here is the game:

```
[Title "Matulovic - Bilek, Sousse 1967"]
[fen ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 h6 7. b3 Bc5 8. Nd6+ Ke7 9. Nf5+ Kf8 10. Bc4 Bb4 11. Bd2 Qa5 12. Qf3 d5 13. exd5 Nd4 14. Nxd4 exd4 15. Nb1 Bxd2+ 16. Nxd2 Bg4 17. Qf4 Re8+ 18. Kf1 Qc3 19. Rb1 Qxc2 20. f3 Bf5 21. Qxd4 Qxa2 22. Ra1 Bd3+ 23. Bxd3 Qxd2 24. Qc5+ Kg8 25. Bc4 g6 26. Qf2 Qc3 27. Rd1 b5 28. Be2 Re3 29. g3 Kg7 30. Kg2 a6 31. d6 Rhe8 32. Rhe1 Nd7 33. f4 Qb4 34. f5 g5 35. f6+ Kg8 36. h3 Qc3 37. Kf1 Qc6 38. Kg1 (38. Bf3 {moved it back to e2 and then said "J'adoube"}) Qe4 39. Rd2 Re6 40. h4 Rxf6 41. Qg2 Qxg2+ 42. Kxg2 Rfe6 43. hxg5 hxg5 44. b4 R3e4 45. Kf1 Rf6+ 46. Kg2 Rfe6 47. Kf1 Rf6+ 48. Kg2 Rfe6 49. Kf1 Rf6+ 50. Kg1 Rfe6 1/2-1/2

```
> 5 votes

# Answer
The rule was established in the Middle Ages because many people would play with stakes and people would often touch pieces and then not move the piece for example the. As chess got bigger federations like FIDE and USCF adopted the rule which was created to stop people from confusing the players and to save time.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It might be worth noting that so far as the FIDE laws are concerned the full touch move rule is the main rule that dictates that each player may move only his own pieces. In the FIDE rendering the full touch move rule is art. 4.3, stating:

4.3 *Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:*

4.3.1 *one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved*

4.3.2 *one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured*

4.3.3 *one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.*

The full touch move rule refers to both the player's own pieces and those of his opponent. The general result is that a player may not move an opponent's piece, because as soon as he touches it he is obliged to capture it rather than move it (which can be achieved only by moving one of his own pieces).

There are some peccadillo's in the FIDE laws (unintentional I believe) that limit the effect of art. 4.3.

The first is that it applies only to the player having the move.

In normal English this would mean the player who's turn it is, but the FIDE laws contain a definition of the term, so this should take precedence. The definition occurs in art. 1.3.

1.3 *A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.*

Art. 1.2 dictates that White moves first, but at the start of the game his opponent has made no move so White doesn't have the move under the definition. On the other hand, since the constraints of art. 4.3 apply only to the player having the move, there is nothing in the remaining laws to stop White making a legal move with a black piece on his first move (e.g. g7-g5).

This would not generally be regarded as valid, which is why I believe it's unintentional in the FIDE laws.

The second is that the FIDE laws express rules variously in terms of both the colour and ownership of the pieces. Art.2.2 assigns ownership of the white pieces to White and the black pieces to Black at the start of the game, so this would be fine so long as there are no remaining rules that could reassign ownership.

The *en passant* rule could introduce an ambiguity in this regard, depending on whether "capturing" a piece is assumed to transfer ownership of the piece to the player making the capture.

Normally this is immaterial because

art.3.1.1 *If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.*

ensures that a captured piece is removed from the board at the time of capture and the ownership is then not relevant.

But the *en passant* rule

art.3.7.4.1 *A pawn occupying a square on the same rank as and on an adjacent file to an opponent’s pawn which has just advanced two squares in one move from its original square may capture this opponent’s pawn as though the latter had been moved only one square.*

states only that a pawn my be *captured* as if it had moved one square, not that if may be captured *and removed from the board* as if it had moved one square. In this case the move doesn't accord with art.3.1.1.

It could be interpreted as meaning the capturing and captured pawns both remain on the board after the capture and further that the captured pawn is then owned by the player making the capture. (It's common in other games that things that are captured and remain in play become owned by the player making the capture; for example a captured territory in Risk.)

In practice the pawn captured *en passant* is also removed from the board, so again I believe the ambiguity in the FIDE laws is unintentional.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules, history, fide
---


# Question
Title: Is CQL executable available anwhere online?
This article and some questions on this forum - mention http://www.rbnn.com/cql/ as a source for getting cql.exe, but that domain seems unclaimed at the moment. Is this executable available anywhere else online?

# Answer
> 5 votes
You can get it from the archive. Also the former rbnn website is preserved there.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You can find it on the initial developer's (Gady Costeff) website: http://www.gadycosteff.com/cql.

You can download the Windows and Mac executables from the download page. For the Linux version, you should email the author (see the FAQ no. 5 for the email).

---
Tags: software, cql
---