# Question
Title: Why do miniature games happen at the grandmaster level?
It is often said that grandmasters calculate many moves in advance before moving a piece. If this is so, why do miniature game (games less than less than 25 moves long) happen?

# Answer
It is true a GM can think of many moves ahead but sometimes only in particular positions. They also have a vast knowledge of the opening theory like some specific lines in Sicilian or Kings Indian Defence or Ruy Lopez. But there are also limitations. There are some lines which are very sharp and 1 move not played according to the opening book knowledge can pull you down very fast.

Lets say a master of 2200 ELO level is playing the Poison Pawn variation in Sicilian as Black and in the other game he is playing QGD Barmen Variation as Black against a 2400 IM in both games.

Now the opening move order will not matter that much in QGD where some move orders can be changed without affecting the position that much compared to the Poison Pawn in Sicilian. If he makes one callous move in Sicilian Poison Pawn then very soon his game will spiral downwards against an IM who will grab the advantage and squeeze like a python.

Mostly it is the lack of opening knowledge or invention of a novelty which may even backfire due to a lack of understanding of some unfamiliar positions or choosing a wrong plan in middle game.

So there are some reasons why tactical miniatures happen even at Master/GM level.
> 6 votes

# Answer
Your statement, *Grandmasters think of next many moves ...* is a bit misleading for your question.

Grandmaster *are able to* calculate many moves ahead, but this is not something they do at each and every move. Basically, as for the start of the game, the first 10 or 20 moves are played from memory (known opening repertoire + home preparation) and not found over the board.

Even when the home preparation ends, players usually do not start calculating like crazy all possible moves to depth 20. They would rather (also see here):

1. evaluate/analyze the position based on general principles and experience
2. depending on this analysis develop a general plan (Should I improve piece activity? Should I play against an opponent's weakness?....)
3. come up with concrete (candidate) moves
4. calculate the consequences of the candidate moves: Depending on the position at hand this can be many moves ahead (e.g. in tactical or forced lines) or it can just be a single move, basically just checking whether you don't blunder something (e.g. in less tactical, more positional games where it is just practically impossible to calculate all possible lines)

## So how can grandmasters lose in less than 25 moves?

They are humans so not perfect and might make mistakes. In this case they can go wrong at basically each part of the thought process:

1. They might mix up memorized opening theory, confusing lines and thereby making a bad move. Occasionally they might run into a strong opening novelty prepared by the opponent in which case even playing the commonly accepted opening line can bring them into trouble. Also there is the funny story around the Zapata-Anand miniature where Anand apparently blindly followed published opening theory (informator) of a Miles-Christiansen game which was a prearranged draw but in fact included a huge blunder.
2. They might evaluate the position wrongly, e.g. underestimate a threat.
3. They might come up with a plan that is impossible to push through or pick the wrong plan out of a choice of plans.
4. They might miss a possible candidate move
5. They might make a mistake in calculation.

In addition any combination of the above is possible.
> 13 votes

# Answer
This question can be answered from the angle of computer chess as well, when it might actually be more illustrative. The shortest decisive game ever played in the unofficial World Computer Chess Championship is this 20-move victory by Arasan over AllieStein (TCEC15's round 45). Computers report their depths, e.g. on move 16 AllieStein had a depth/selective depth of 38/54 - indicating it was searching 19+ moves ahead - and yet it was mated four moves later. Why?

The answer is simple: pruning. Some lines a computer (and a human) simply doesn't consider very seriously. For example, take this line:

```
   [Title ""]
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 d6 2. Qg4

```

Everyone, including complete beginners, should be able to calculate this far, and yet nobody analyzes the position after 2...Bxg4 for obvious reasons. White is completely lost. Accordingly, we "prune" - we don't consider the lines that arise after this position. If we are White we don't do it because we're not crazy, and if we are Black we don't do it because we assume White isn't crazy (i.e. we only start analyzing it *after* they play it). Pruning lets us focus our attention on the main moves in the position and analyze those to greater depths.

However sometimes this kind of pruning can miss the key move. Perhaps White isn't actually giving up a queen for free, and there is some deep tactical motif that compensates. We would never find out, because we pruned the move; but perhaps the opponent didn't prune the move, found it was sound, and played it. In that case we can easily lose. Take a look at the position in the aforementioned AllieStein v Arasan game, after 17...Rfb8. (Annotations are by Guy Howarth.)

```
[Title "AllieStein-Arasan"]
[Event "TCEC15"]
[Date "2019-??-??"]
[Round "45"]
[White "AllieStein"]
[Black "Arasan"]
[Annotator "Guy Howarth"]
[fen ""]
[StartPly "34"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 {as mandated} 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4
6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Qd4? (7.Bd3) Qe7 8.f3 Bc5 9.Qd3 O-O 10.Bg5 Rb8
11.O-O-O d5 12.exd5 h6 13.Bh4 Ba6 14.Bxf6 Be3+ 15.Kb1?? (15.Rd2) Rxb2+
16.Ka1 gxf6 17.Qxa6 Rfb8 18.Bd3?? (18.Qa5) Qb4 19.Ne2 Rxa2+ 20.Kxa2 Qb2# 0-1

```

AllieStein projected this principal variation:

> 18. Bd3 Qc5 19. Qxc6 Qa3 20. Qxf6 Bg5 21. Qd4 Be3 22. Qf6 Bg5

Evaluating it as -2.69. Meanwhile Arasan, when it played 17...Rfb8, projected this principal variation:

> 17. .. Rfb8 18. Qa5 Qe5 19. f4 Qxf4 20. d6 Bd4 21. dxc7 Rxc2 22. Bb5

When AllieStein played 18. Bd3, Arasan's eval shot up. This indicates it had pruned 18.Bd3 as inferior. Its reply, 18...Qb4, was not the move AllieStein predicted, indicating AllieStein had pruned 18...Qb4 as inferior. But after Arasan played 18...Qb4, AllieStein realized it had blundered, and was mated a few moves later. (Black threatens 19...Qxc3 with nasty discovered checks. If the knight moves, Black has ...Qa3-Qxa2#, ...Rxc2 or ...Bd4, and White cannot defend against everything.)

Something similar to this happens all the time for humans as well.

**Technical note:** AllieStein is actually a MCTS-based engine, for which the word "pruning" does not apply very well. However, the gist of it remains: AllieStein simply didn't see (or didn't ascribe enough importance to) 18...Qb4, which is why it got mated in spite of searching 38/54 ply ahead.
> 12 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, master-games
---


# Question
Title: How do I make arrows and colored squares using Chesstempo's viewer?
I am using Anki to study chess. I use Chesstempo's viewer. My question is: How can I make arrows and squares with color on the board?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I do not think that it is currently possible. Here is a list of features, and while a couple are close, that looks like a future enhancement. Here is a link to the original source.

Features in current version

```
Multiple games per PGN file
Multiple boards per page
PGN comments/annotations
Recursive Annotation Variations (i.e. alternative lines)
FEN tag supported for arbitrary starting positions
Support for subset of Numerical Annotation Glyphs (NAGs, e.g. ? !?)
Multiple board size and piece styles
Option for automatically playing through all game moves
Alternative move display formats
CSS controlled layout
Animated piece moves
Optional Row and column labels
Drag and drop piece moves (to make next move in game)
**Optional Highlighting of from/to squares
Optional Highlighting of valid squares when dragging pieces**
Display of taken pieces
Read moves from PGN file on server or embed PGN directly into webpage

```

Features to be added in future versions

```
Crosstable support
**Visual hints such as move direction arrows etc**
Record moves mode with PGN output
Allow embedded board snapshots in move display
Configurable Board flipping (current version auto-flips if first mover is black).

```

# Answer
> 1 votes
This chess diagram generator https://www.apronus.com/chess/diagram/editor/ allows you to create diagrams with colored arrows and colored selected squares. For example:

---
Tags: software
---


# Question
Title: Central control disliked by engine in 1.e4 e6 2.d4 a6 3.c4
Recently I played a chess game that started with the moves: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 and then I played 3. c4 which according to Stockfish is inaccurate.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. c4

```

What is the reason for that? How is this situation any different in essence from the King Indian defense for instance in which White occupies the center right away with 1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 ... ?

```
[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4

```

# Answer
> 3 votes
When comparing two lines with the help of the engine, it often helps to play around with the moves by switching them between different lines and analyze the difference.

Compare for example

* **1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3** (borrowing Stockfish's preferred third move) **dxe4 5. Nxe4**

.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3 (4. exd5) dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3

```

and

* **1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. Nc3 d5** (borrowing Stockfish's preferred answer from the "worse" line) **4. Nf3 dxe4 5. Nxe4**

.

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. c3

```

In the first line, **5...Bb4+** is nasty, White is basically forced to block that check by **6. Nc3** (d4 is undefended after **6. Bd2** and the c-pawn is obviously missing, too).

In the second line, **6. c3** is an easy answer to **5...Bb4+**.

Conclusion: Playing **c4** first makes playing **Nc3** more tricky. In fact, Stockfish instead suggests **4. exd5** as the best continuation in the first line. But does White really *want* to capture right away (instead of developing the other knight like in the fourth move of the second line - never mind that he still has not developed the first one)?

# Answer
> 5 votes
It's not inaccurate whatsoever. 3.c4 is just as good a move as 3.Nf3, 3.Nc3, etc. In general you should take what engines say that early on with a grain of salt, unless the position is already extremely tactical. What was the evaluation drop when you played 3.c4, and what depth was Stockfish thinking at? For me, at depth 27 Stockfish 10 goes down from 0.58ish to 0.48ish, which isn't significant on move 3.

# Answer
> 3 votes
2.c4 is generally considered the best way to take control of the center after 1.d4 Nf6, since 2.e4 is no longer possible, but after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 a6 White already has the ideal central Pawn formation e4-d4, and has no need or hurry to push another Pawn to control the d5 square with c2-c4. He can simply begin developing some pieces instead. Of course 3.c4 is no terrible mistake, but I'd go for development with either Nc3, Nf3, or Bd3, keeping an eye on the center with my pieces.

# Answer
> 2 votes
First, I would not trust the engine in a position where not that much is happening. It has no clue what it's talking about. If you are going to trust it anyway, at least try to see what the answer to your "inaccurate move" is suggested to be.

But I think it's kind of right in this case: **3.c4** appears to fight for the center, but I'd say it makes your fight for the center more difficult. Compare for instance **3.Nf3 d5?! 4. e5!** with the lines given by Annatar, where it's not a good idea for White to play e5.

White could here take a chance to develop its pieces, probably with **3.Nf3**. If ...b5 is no threat, **3.Nc3** would also be OK. **3.Be3** and **3.Bd3** are fine but a bit more "committing". Flexibility is probably another reason against **3.c4** (you won't be able to take the pawn backwards, so your queenside will remain a bit weaker)

If you check your King's Indian example, most engines will probably suggest **2.Nf3** (or even **2.Nc3!?**) rather than **2.c4** unless they are using an opening book (engines have had a "pro-development-bias" for decades). I'd like to add that the situation is indeed quite different as the oppponent's dark-squared bishop will not go to b4, for instance, as in the lines by Annatar, so one of the main inconvenientes of playing c4 is not anymore.

As a final remark on general opening principles (which only partially applies to this case), please try to differenciate between central control and an overextended center. Just because we have a lot of pawns in it, it doesn't mean we are winning the fight for the center. You may want to have a look at some Black victories in the Grünfeld's main-line or the Four pawns attack for some illustrative games

---
Tags: opening, analysis, computer-chess, french-defense
---


# Question
Title: Are there any Chess960 positions where Black has the advantage?
I've heard it said that some Chess960 positions have a significant advantage for White, usually involving fast attacks against undefended pawns. However, since zugzwang positions do exist, it's theoretically possible that Black could have an advantage in some opening setups. Which leads to the question: are there any where he does? If not, are there any that give White less of an advantage than he has in normal chess?

# Answer
It happens that someone tried to evaluate all 960 positions with an engine. Several positions got a score of 0.00, but none of them offered any advantage for black.

Of course, those conclusions are only the evaluations of Stockfish at 40 plies depth. It is a strong hint, but no definite proof, that Black is fine in the huge majority of 960-chess starting positions, but not better in any of them.

This result matches with the intuition that in a symmetric, non-developed position, with all pawns on the 2d and 7th rank, there is always something useful to do if you are on move: in other words, there cannot be mutual zugzwang.
> 6 votes

# Answer
If you accept statistical data taken from games played between computers as evidence, then the answer may be **yes**.

See this link for the data.

At the time of writing, White scores below 50% in 155 of the 960 positions. A sample of the scores from the RNKBBRNQ starting position is shown below.

Note that the average ratings for both sides are equal, so distortions in expected result due to playing strength should be negligible.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The answer is probably **NO**, although there is no way to "prove" that (yet). Zugzwang positions exist, but they appear with many fewer pieces in the board or in some special situations that are definitely not forced from the starting position.

The "statistical evidence" suggested by some answers is not something to take seriously, as samples are small and respond only to how humans play, which is far from perfect (take games by two complete novices and you won't see any advantage for White in classical chess)
> 1 votes

# Answer
No starting position can have an advantage for black, but it may be that white may not be able to establish a positional advantage like in standard chess. Also, any attack that black can do can be executed by white also (or if not at least stopped by correct play).
As for zugzwang, just as Evargalo said, it just not possible.

I play 960 quite a bit (though it may affect my opening) and have not encountered any such position. Therefore, it probably is just a myth that such positions exist.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants, zugzwang
---


title: Is this really played by 2200+ players?

text:
# Question
Title: Is this really played by 2200+ players?
I came across the following game and was surprised to find that it was played between players with 2200+ ratings:

How do players of level 2200+ lack the very basics of opening principles to play a game like that? In general, how to beat a professional player with only a few moves in a well-prepared opening?

# Answer
> 24 votes
In short, after some investigation, I do not believe that white was a 2200 player is the real answer. First, I found it odd that it says he was exactly 2200. This is the only tournament I can find that he ever played, and it was an Olympiad, which had to be FIDE rated. He was also from Brazil, which was not a strong chess region in the world at that time. It was also at a time that FIDE ratings started at 2200. I strongly suspect that it was used simply because the tournament director had to use it for rating purposes only, and there was no other rating he could use.

That final position has been reached in my database 9 times. The losing move, 3.fe has been played a whopping 37 times, once by a 2149, but mostly by players 1900 and below. These statistics tend to bolster the idea that he was just a weak player, and that was not his real rating.

That is my real answer, but I have other thoughts on the matter if we were to assume that there are Masters, who have lost easily.

I started playing just a few years after that game, and it starts with the fact that it was a VERY different time. There were only books back then to study from, and not everyone had access to a decent library...in third-world countries, especially.

As a Master, who has never relied on opening theory myself, rather just using an understanding of opening pawns structures, I can tell you that it is easy to find yourself in a position that is very unfamiliar to you.

I also agree with DM that 2200 is hardly a professional....even 2400 is not in most cases, but they may earn a living teaching.

Lastly, another problem is that that early in the game, your sense of danger is not as keen. I once played a 2015 player in a team match. Here was that game. I have won a good number of tournament games in under 10 moves.

```
 [Title "Godin-Cotreau Team Tournament, 1988"]
    [FEN ""]

 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. Bb5+ Nbd7 5. Ne5 $2 a6 6. Nxd7 axb5 $1 7. Nxf8 $4 Bg4 0-1

```

# Answer
> 17 votes
**White (Rigaud) did not have a Fide rating.**

Until 1981, the Fide rating floor was 2200, which means that any rated player had at least 2205 and that non-rated players taking part in a Fide-rated event were given a provisionnal rating of 2200. This is the case of Rigaud in Nice 1974.

In other words, 2200 only means that the player was unrated. This was pretty common in the Olympiads, especially as very few players (~1000 worldwide) had a rating in 1974.

Thus Rigaud real level might be anywhere between nowadays-equivalent 1000 Elo and candidate-master level. In case he was a strong amateur, his horrendous third move might be due to mechanical play in opening, fingerfehler (fxe5 instead of exd5), touch-move rule or whatever. In any case, not a great day for him.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Anyone can make a mistake. Masters don't make many that are this bad this early in the game, but it does happen.

I don't agree with your statement that this game demonstrates that White "lack\[s\] the very basics of opening principles". He traded a wing pawn for a center pawn, which is very much in line with opening principles. It's just that the move loses tactically to Qh4+. g3 doesn't work like it would after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4 because the f-pawn is no longer on f4 to block the queen from going from h4 to e4. It's a blunder, but it's not really a violation of basic opening principles. (And if you say that it's a violation of opening principles simply to make a third pawn move without moving a piece, then I'll point out that 3.exd5, which also moves a pawn again, is the most common and highest scoring move from that position.)

The game is 45 years old between two players who weren't GM or IM level, and I doubt anyone really knows the details at this point. Yes, you would *think* that a master playing the King's Gambit would know the Falkbeer well enough to avoid that mistake. But 2200-level players are generally not professionals. The explanation is likely that he simply misremembered which pawn to take. Perhaps he expected some other line, or even some other opening altogether (maybe his opponent usually played the Sicilian, for example.)

# Answer
> 3 votes
This sometimes comes from playing unfamiliar openings. 2. f4 (King's gambit) is nowadays such; it was played much more commonly 100 years or more ago.

It has a hidden "flaw" for White, the ability of Black's queen to check at h4. White must keep the pawn on f4 to protect the pawn e4 from this threat.

The mistake can come from lack of experience. A century ago, "good" players would not make this mistake, nowadays, it's possible that a good player might. It's also possible that the 2200 rating was rounded "up" to the minimum rating for the tournament. But the fact of the matter is that the King's gambit was tricky for both sides when it was played around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of the best players in the world were caught in various traps, although slightly less obvious ones.

# Answer
> 1 votes
According to this source:

The ELO of O.W. Rigaud was 1476, having lost 7 out of 7 games.

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


title: Why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5?

text:
# Question
Title: Why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5?
Why isn't 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5 a good move? It gains space in the center. As beginners we are told that after 1.d4, 1...d5 directly opposes White's ambitions in the center, stopping d4-d5 (similarly, in some way, to 1.e4 1...e5)

# Answer
> 4 votes
It shouldn't be so much a question of why, but rather *how to* approach understanding a move like `2.d5.`

Otherwise one can endlessly ask questions of this nature and you cannot realistically be expected to learn every single of them independently. So shift your focus onto learning to adopt the strategic mindset and how to reason about opening theory. This will be vital to your improvement in chess understanding.

No matter what your level may be, simply try to apply your chess theory knowledge and assess the benefits and concessions of a certain move, so go back to the basics of chess and opening theory and simply ask yourself questions about the position in terms of (*list not exhaustive and the order doesn't imply importance*):

* **Time**: how many tempi are you behind/ahead w.r.t to your opponent, for instance by comparing the number of developed pieces.
* **Space**: how much territory you control, in particular, in the center and the sweet centre (`e4-d4-e5-d5`)
* **Material count**
* **King safety**
* **Pawn structure**

Now for your example, the 1st, 2nd and last points are sufficient (but all 3 needed) to explain why a move such as `2.d5` is a poor commitment strategically.

*Now before you read further, please bear in mind that strategy in chess is never so black and white: opening theory is a battle of ideas between the two players, and focusing on one as aspect alone (e.g. time) is almost always wrong, the trick is in the balance of them and in realising which aspect ought to be more priotorised in a given position. Therefore, inherently asking questions of the nature "why is x or y bad or not played?" is somewhat the wrong way of going about chess understanding, instead formulate your questions into "how do I gain more space? how do I secure a better post for my knight? what would happen if I played x here? what do I gain what do I give up? etc." What and how questions in general (not just in chess) can be more concretely handled. For these questions (such as this post), try to get to an answer on your own, even if you get to the wrong conclusion, you'll still have learnt more than by just getting the digested answer somewhere or by someone else.*

## **Time**

* You've spent 2 moves on the same pawn in a row, overly advancing it when black hasn't even committed to any pawn moves. So not only they will have equalized tempo wise, but you have now gifted them a target on `d5`, which they will exploit by developing with threats against the pawn. In other words, as user PhishMaster has concisely said it, black now leads the game, as they have the ability to create threats.

## **Space**

* The reason `e4,d4` setups are desired, specially when they can be both achieved, is due to the control they provide over the sweet centre, namely `d5` and `e5.` The 4 squares of the sweet centre are the most important squares on the board as essentially: they maximise your options of rerouting pieces between the two flanks, from the centre an attack on either flank can be backed, and pieces have a higher relative value when centralised: since not only they have the max number of moves but they secure space both in your camp and in your opponent's. By playing `2.d5` you are giving up control of the sweet centre, and are now controlling secondary central squares `c6-e6.` Below, the green square shows the centre, and in red the sweet centre.

## **Pawn Structure**

* There are various ways one can define a weak pawn, one of them is: if the pawn **cannot move**, is **isolated** and **can be attacked**. When you advance all the way to `d5`, black's plan becomes resolved and will be to achieve those 3 and simply render your pawn weak, and you'll either have to trade it (so all tempi is wasted) for a non-central pawn, or lose it. As to how it could become isolated, this is typically achieved by *undermining the back-chain defense* of the pawn, see e.g. how black approaches French structures, or the Benko gambit (see diagrams below). To read more on why often times overly advanced pawns are more prone to becoming weak, have a look at the discussions here which are quite relevant.

## **Diagrams**

Attacking and undermining a fixed pawn chain (**left:** French defense, **right:** Benko gambit):

Two diagrams for two mainlines that can transpire after your `2.d5` idea, showing how easily that advanced `d5` pawn can become a weakness (**left:** end-position of PhishMaster's suggested line, **right:** an alternative approach):

# Answer
> 5 votes
In this case, because you probably cannot maintain it, and it will become weak. The principles of not making too many pawn moves, and developing your k-side and pieces quickly take precedence. It may also be too early to determine that d5 will be the most useful move.

```
   [Title ""]
[FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. d5 e6 3. c4 (3. Nc3 Bb4 4. dxe6 fxe6) exd5 4. cxd5 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 (5. Bd2? Nxd5) 5... O-O {Black is already slightly ahead in development} 6. Nf3 d6 {White has had to artificially isolate the d-pawn, and it is weak. He also still had to develop the k-side, and could easily come under attack.}

```

P.S. To answer Trolly's question below: While the position is only slightly better for black, and hardly lost, his evaluation of the position is not really correct for several reasons. First, black is ahead in development right now, and white is surely going to need to make some concessions in order to finish developing in that position. Second, being ahead in development, there is little chance that white will be able to exploit any current weaknesses black may have anytime soon...you have to be able to get at a weakness to be able to attack it. If white does castle king-side, then the open rook-file is actually useful for black. Lastly, and this is very important, black may play d5 next move, and all of a sudden, d4 is a threat depending on what white's next move is. He may also get a big center after d5 with a subsequent e5. How exactly do you propose to castle queen-side with both Q and B wanting the d2 square? (give a sample line) because I really do not see it happening as easily as you think, and black may just throw in Bc3 if you have to capture with the b-pawn, and to prevent that is going to make white develop unnaturally.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I don't remember where I read it, but this piece of general principle applies: **In the opening, gaining space is great, but the priority is to develop your pieces**. 2. d5 does indeed gain space, but it does nothing for development (White's pieces still have the same lines available to them). Furthermore, 2. d5 actually strains White's position because the d5-pawn is now under attack from the knight.

Consider the position after 2...e6. Black has developed two pieces (pawn & knight), while White only has one. So Black is ahead in development. If White captures on e6 now, after 3...fxe6, Black would still have two pieces developed, while White has zero. But if White doesn't capture on e6, how to defend the pawn? White obviously can't play e4 because of ...Nxe4, and Black threatens ...Bb4 against both Nc3 and c4.

In short, 2. d5 marks out space, but it overextends White's position. White simply isn't ready to defend such an advanced outpost. Develop pieces first, and then only think about marching up the board.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The drawback of 2. d5 is that it moves a pawn twice before other pawns and pieces have moved.

As Black, I would counter with 2... c6, attacking the d5 pawn a second time (1... Nf6 already attacked it once). If White exchanges, 3. d5xc6 Nxc6, White has lost a lot of time moving the pawn a third time, and allowing Black to develop both knights. If White tries to defend the pawn with say, c4, it remains under heavy attack.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The ideal pawn center is with pawns on e4 and d4. Yes, a pawn on d5 is more advanced and controls more space but it isn't necessarily better. In fact, you could argue that it's weaker on d5 because it has less control over the center.

You have to look at the trade offs- d5 gains space but loses control of c5 and e5, weakens c4 and e4 and at the same time wastes a developing move. Is that slight gain in space worth everything you're giving up?

So, white wastes a move to weaken his pawn structure and is falling behind in development. That's why its not that great of a move.

# Answer
> 0 votes
That's the Indian Game: Pawn Push Variation. It's not super common but it's fine. Most common defense (per chess.com opening explorer) is 2. ... c5 and a transposition to the Benoni.

Your preparation should include some lines that are not at all common but have served black well in the chess.com database:

2. ... e5

and

2. ... c6.

If you're looking to get off the beaten path this is a pretty good route with some potential.

My view is that if you're not playing at master level all you're looking for is a playable opening position where you don't get crushed by someone else's preparation. That's slightly exaggerated but not much!

# Answer
> 0 votes
Yes, the move gains space but willingly weakens control over key dark squares (c5 and e5). Black may continue:

2...e6 3.c4 Bc5, with no problems whatsoever. Black has developed two pieces and White's spent three tempi just to set up a pawn on d5 (which would arguably be better back on d4).

---
Tags: opening, strategy, pawn-structure, 1.d4
---


# Question
Title: Uncovering the Accelerated Dragon opening
I had previously heard and seen in commentaries about the Dragon opening where black plays an early `g6` to develop the bishop on `g7` after the typical open Sicilian starting moves `c5 cxd d6.` But how does the Accelerated Dragon differ from the usual Dragon and what aspect of it is being accelerated?

*A short explanation of the naming and summary of the underlying opening idea would really be helpful.*

# Answer
> 13 votes
## **Dragon**

The opening is named after the Draco (Latin for dragon) constellation because if you remove all the pieces and just look at black's pawn structure with the pawns on `g6` and `d6` it looks like the dragon constellation as shown below (image source):

## **Accelerated**

Unlike the mainline Dragon Sicilian where `d6` is a key early move (`1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6...`), even though later it might still be pushed to `d5`, the accelerated version attempts to play `d7-d5` in one go, without the inclusion of an early `d6` move, and hence the name *accelerated* Dragon.

Here's an important move order that really typifies the accelerated Dragon, where everything black has set out to do has been achieved: safe king, healthy development, a successful early `d5` push to undermine white's center, powerful bishop on the long diagonal, active play in the center and on the queenside. I highly encourage you to closely study the 3 variations that can result from either of the 3 ways white can capture the pawn on `d5` on the next move.

```
 [Title "Accelerated Dragon, typical position"]
 [fen ""]
 [StartFlipped "1"]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 a5 9. f3 d5

```

## **Basic plan for black:**

In short, having neutralized white's central `d4` pawn for our `c7` pawn, black fianchettoes their kingside bishop and exerts pressure on the long diagonal from the get-go, unlike most other Sicilian variations where the dark squared bishop stands quite defensively. Additionally, the fianchetto structure is a good defensive fortress for the king.

Moreover, black's kept both central pawns (`e` and `d`) and in the future they can potentially make a better claim at central control as the central pawns are 2 for 1 in favour of black. Considering that white's only remaining central control lies in their `e4` pawn, with constant threats of `e5` kicking our knight to a less ideal post, black's constantly playing towards making the `d7-d5` break happen as early as possible, neutralizing white's only central foothold.

# Answer
> 9 votes
The main difference resides in the strongest counters that White has at its disposal.

If you play the Classical Dragon, then White can try the Yugoslav attack:

```
 [Title "Classical Dragon. Yugoslav attack main position"]
 [fen ""]
 [StartFlipped "1"]

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

```

followed by either `9.Bc4`or `9.0-0-0`. This position offers great attacking chances for White, but Black can look for counterplay on the queenside in this opposite-side-castling position. Games in this positions are often very tactical and wild, with chances for strategical sacrificies (an exchange on c3 or d4 for instance) Here you have a classical example

If you go for the Accelerated Dragon, the Yugoslav Attack is less of a threat because of the idea of pushing `...d5`in a single move, striking the center and destroying any chance of White playing on the kingside. There are also some tactical reasons why plans with an early `Bc4` by White (trying to prevent that centra-strike) don't work. But, since we don't play `Nf6`early on, White can place a pawn on the c4 square (no \`\`\`Nc3\`\` is played)\`, thus building the "Maroczy formation".

```
 [Title "Accelerated Dragon. Maroczy formation"]
 [fen ""]
 [StartFlipped "1"]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. c4

```

Here both sides will castle short, with a more "quiet" positional battle. White will try to make use of the semi-open `d`file and the outopost on d5, while Black will often try some queenside counterplay based on a `...b5`push and the `c`and `b`files. Another plan is to disturb White using the `c5` outpost, maybe with the help of an `...a5`push to prevent \`\`\`b4\`\` from being played See this game

# Answer
> 8 votes
The differences are really comes down to what you want to avoid or allow, meaning mostly the Maroczy Bind.

The Accelerated Dragon primarily allows the the Maroczy bind, so you would need to play the main-line Dragon if you do not want to play this. 1.e4 c5; 2.Nf3 Nc6; 3.d4 cd; 4.Nd4 g6; 5.c4. (The defining move of Maroczy). The Maroczy might not suit the tastes of a Dragon player, who is hoping for a wild game since it leads the game down a more positional path. One advantage of this line is there are a few opening traps that can catch white, but I do not recommend that approach if you do not like the position after 5.c4.

The regular Dragon due to 4...Nf6, forces white to block the c-pawn. 1.e4 c5; 2.Nf3 Nc6; 3.d4 cd; 4.Nd4 Nf6; Nc3 and the Maroczy is out.

Let me also mention the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon,and what it is designed to avoid: 1.e4 c5; 2.Nf3 g6!?. This is meant to avoid the Rossolimo anti-Sicilian 1.e4 c5; 2.Nf3 Nc6; 3.Bb5 since there is no Nc6. The downside is that white can play an early d4 or c3 and d4, and black is not as well-placed to contest the center.

# Answer
> 4 votes
There's the Dragon, Accelerated Dragon, and The Hyper-accelerated Dragon.

Each are measured by how quickly the pawn goes to g6 and each have unique variations. You can YouTube each to get a taste.

As mentioned by others, the accelerated versions typically allow White the option of putting a pawn on c4 before developing Nc3 (Since Black didn't attack e4 with Nf6).

With the pawn on c4 the game is more positional and you don't get the swashbuckling play that attracts many players to the Dragon.

Opening play in each of these Dragons often revolves around whether Black can get in d5.

# Answer
> -1 votes
The accelerated dragon attempts to play d5 in one move while the dragon plays d6 first so a later d5 would lose a tempo by moving the d pawn twice.

Given that the dragon often becomes a race as to which side can mate the other first, the extra tempo is a huge advantage.

However, playing the accelerated dragon allows white other options not available in the standard dragon.

---
Tags: opening, accelerated-dragon
---


# Question
Title: What is the best way to interface with Stockfish in a C++ program?
I am looking for a way to have my C++ program communicate with Stockfish. An ideal solution would use the compiled version and my program would send commands to the .exe which would return the results. I have looked extensively and have come across suggestions for pipes or the use of the system function but I am not sure how either of those work and if it's possible to have information returned to my C++ program. I am running on Windows. Any suggestions on what method to use and direction on how to apply that method would be greatly appreciated.

# Answer
The code required for this is platform dependent, so it may be pragmatic to use a third party API to handle inter-process communication for you. Boost provides `Boost.Process` and Qt provides `QtProcess`, both of which allow for communication via stdin and stdout.

Otherwise, you will have to directly interact with platform specific APIs, such as `CreateProcess` on Windows and `fork`, `pipe`, etc. on Linux.

Once you are able to communicate with the engine, you just need to follow the UCI Protocol (which is used by Stockfish) to communicate with the engine.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: software, stockfish
---


title: Best books on middlegame strategy?

text:
# Question
Title: Best books on middlegame strategy?
What are the best works trying to systematically summarize all middlegame themes and strategies: e.g. space advantage, pawn structures, exposed king, minority attack, isolated pawn, hanging pawns, etc. etc. I know of Euwe and Kramer two volumes work about the middlegame, but are there others, too? (PS no, I am not talking about Bronstein's Zurich 1953. Although it's a great book, I am speaking of a different kind of work.)

# Answer
The two books by John Watson about strategy. These themes are considered from a historical viewpoint usually in contrast to the way they are presented in textbooks. Even if you find a favorite textbook then later you should verify everything against John Watson's books because he always gives counterarguments and counterexamples to what is established as the usual course material.
> 7 votes

# Answer
These books are what I have studied about middle game strategy:

My System--by Aron Nimzowitch this newer version is better than the original. A solid introduction to several of your topics.
Chess Fundamentals (Algebraic)--Jose Capablanca A simple and clear book to read.
Art of Attack in Chess--Ladimir Vukovic Clear and concise book to work through more of your "etc" topics.
Yasser Seirawan's series of books from Winning Chess - Everyman Chess; there are some good ideas in them.
The Art of Planning in Chess: Move by Move-- Grandmaster Neil McDonald has some good insights from the opening.
> 3 votes

# Answer
One should definitely mention John Nunn's amazing work on middlegames: Understanding Chess Middlegames is very well structured with regards to themes and strategies. The book is divided into main sections under which you may find dozens of subsections. Here is a list of main sections with crude descriptions:

1. *Material Imbalances:* exchange, two bishops vs. bishop and a knight, ...
2. *Strategy:* planning, improving piece position, ...
3. *Activity:* initiative, open files, ...
4. *Attacking Play:* common tactical motifs such as bishop sacrifices on king's flank, ...
5. *Defensive Play:* risks of attack, counter-attack, ...
6. *Pawn Structures:* isolated, doubled, hanging pawns, ...
7. *Typical Central Pawn Formations:* open, closed, half-open and formations arising from common openings, ...
8. *Typical Mistakes* common mistakes in the middlegame such as automatically accepting sacrifices, overvaluing slight advantages, ...

This was one of the best books I have read recently and I definitely recommend it for a structured approach to middlegame.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I think you are looking for Priyomes.

***Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition: Key Moves and Motifs in the Middlegame***
van de Oudeweetering, International Master Arthur

***Techniques of Positional Play: 45 Practical Methods to Gain the Upper Hand in Chess*** \- Bronznik, Valeri

***100 Chess Master Trade Secrets: From Sacrifices to Endgames*** \- Soltis, Andrew
> 2 votes

# Answer
I still credit Ludek Pachman's trilogy "Complete Chess Strategy" for first making me understand any chess strategy. It was the difference for me between being an 1800, and when I became a Master.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: strategy, theory, books, middlegame, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: Lowenthal-LabourdonnaisSicilian Kalashnikov Variation
I have been studying the Kalashnikov Sicilian:

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 e5 (signaling the Lowenthal variation)
5. Nb5 d6 (d6 signals the Kalashnikov variation)

I have two books I have been studying that cover variations from this point forward. However, I spend a lot of time analyzing my openings and a line that comes up over and over again is

6. Bg5!?

The book Neo-Sveshnikov by Silman "covers" this line with one brief note about it on the last two pages of the book. The other book I am studying "Sicilian Kalashnikov" by Jan Pinski, Jacob Aagaard which I really like does not cover this move AT ALL.

Can anyone recommend a resource for me to read about the Bg5 continuation of this line? I find it hard to believe that it can be used somewhat commonly in GM level games and not discussed in any opening books.

# Answer
This has been one of my main two openings since it became popular in the 1980's again. With strong computers today, they say, and I agree with them, that black is virtually winning after the following line:

```
  [fen ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bg5 Qxg5 7.Nc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 Nf6 {already -2.05 on Stockfish} 9. Nc3 Nd4! 10. h4 {best per four engines} (10. Qd2 Qxd2 11. Kxd2 b6) Qf4 11. g3 (11. Bd3 Be6 {and there is still nothing to stop the roundup of the Na8.}) Qf3 12. Qxf3 Nxf3 13. Kd1 {is given as best, and the Na8 soon falls.}

```

It is clear that black's development combined with his soon-to-be material advantage (Na8 falls), makes this winning for black, and there really isn't even much counterplay to make it interesting.

The problem earlier is that the Qg5 is very actively posted, e4 is weak, and the move Nc6-d4 is not only keeping the white queen from being active due to c2 being weak, but it blocks white from getting at many critical weak squares like d5, d6, and the d8 square where the black king is.
> 4 votes

# Answer
While it's a somewhat dated source by this point, I'm certain that Neil McDonald's 1995 book *Winning with the Kalashnikov* covers this `6.Bg5` variation to some extent, and I'm nearly certain that he recommends taking it head on with

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bg5 Qxg5 7.Nc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8

```

I don't recall how much concrete analysis followed (it's been many years since I owned/saw the book). Moreover, I don't know if there's more or less coverage than what you mention from Silman's book; even though I've played the Kalashnikov with considerable frequency since the days of McDonald's book, for my purposes I've never needed to consult a newer source.

To that point, I'll say that my experience has differed from yours, in that I *almost never* face this `6.Bg5` line, despite plenty of personal Kalashnikov tournament games and countless blitz games, and indeed I've never faced it in tournament play. I think one reason for that might be that Black can sidestep any messiness if she so chooses, so that it's not that testing a try from White. In particular, my own (potentially flawed) sense is that Black could even comfortably go for the following:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bg5 Be7!? {This might look strange, as White can now force the black king to lose castling rights, but this comes along with an exchange of the dark-squared bishops that Black generally welcomes in this opening, and all things considered I think the black king can live comfortably.} 7.Bxe7 Kxe7  {This wouldn't be every black player's cup of tea, but if I'm right that this position is alright for Black, then the fact that this simple defusing of White's play is available would be a reason for 6.Bg5 to be infrequently played.} (7...Ngxe7? 8.Nxd6+)

```
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening, sicilian-defense, books, study
---


title: How to get out-of-print chess books?

text:
# Question
Title: How to get out-of-print chess books?
Seems that many chess books are out of print. For example I have been trying to get a copy of Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4 Volume 2 (Amazon) but many sites (Barnes & Noble, Quality Chess, ChessHouse, etc.) list the book as Out of Print, Sold out, etc. Most individual sellers (e.g. on Amazon or Ebay) sell the book for ridiculous amounts (100 dollars or so). What is the best way to get out-of-print chess books like this?

# Answer
abe books

used bookstores but you have to contact them as most have no online web site to order or check inventory
> 4 votes

# Answer
Unless you really want a particular book, I actually do not recommend online used book stores. They typically realize that a chess book is out-of-print, and price it accordingly...meaning high.

The single best place to find an out-of-print chess book is eBay. Most books, unless INCREDIBLY rare, get sold here at least periodically.

Login to your account, and search for the book you are looking for. Get a sense for how much it goes for (search completed and sold listings too for a more accurate estimate). Then save your search (this is why you need to login). The saved search will now email you every time a new one becomes available. If the condition and price are to your liking, buy it.

I have a book that I want to get a copy of, and while somewhat hard-to-find, I still get new listings every few days. I have passed so far because some are listings by online used book stores, and they price it high as I mentioned above, and a few, I passed on because I am a collector, and am willing to wait for an excellent specimen. I do not just want "good". Most of these book sellers want close to $100, but one recently sold for about $30. They can be found.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You would need to look into other sources such as newinchess.com (https://www.newinchess.com/Grandmaster\_Repertoire\_2\____1\_d4\_Volume\_2-p-1974.html?&Currency=Euro)

However, that is something that happens with all other niches. Like comic books, once it is out of print, it becomes very expensive to get.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: books
---


# Question
Title: How to break through their "Great Wall of China"
It's my move as White. I have no idea what to do. I feel like I'm going to get squashed to death.

What would be my best move or strategy in situations like these?

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
In order to make progress, one or both of you need to break through that wall. Each of you seem to have the best chances on the side near the opponent's King--you have a passer on the kingside; your opponent has a lot of pressure on your queenside.

First, look at his threats. `...b5-b4` seems to force the issue on the queenside by kicking your Knight and threatening your a-pawn. It's likely that the b file would be at least half-opened if Black plays `...b4`. That's not great for you. However, it *would* free `a4` for your Knight, so you could maybe reposition it to `c5` at some point--that's not a bad thing, *if* you can survive the coming attack.

```
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/3pPpPp/1ppP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Position after `...b5-b4`.

---

Now let's think offensively. Where can *you* break through his wall? If you can't push pawns of your own, Knights are usually the best at this sort of thing, since they can jump to the back lines. The nature of the pawn wall means their only jumping-off spots are the spaces just in front of enemy pawns. A great spot immediately suggests itself, then: `f4`! From `f4`, a White Knight would threaten three Black pawns, as well as Black's light-squared Bishop. If you could maneuver a Knight to `f4`, then, you may be able to break through on the kingside and really put Black's king in some trouble. It's too bad you don't have a light-square Bishop to pressure `h5`.

```
[FEN "6k1/8/p3p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1N1P/P7/1PP5/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

```

---

The previous point began with "if you can't push pawns of your own". But you do have a pawn or two with moves, so let's look at those. Pushing the b-pawn isn't very appetizing, as it would likely result in a half-open c-file for Black to use to attack you. But what about `a3-a4`? It doesn't lose any material, and it somewhat mitigates the threats posed by `...b5-b4`, since Black would no longer have anything to capture. He could still take `...bxa4`, but once you recapture with `Nxa4`, he only has a half-open b file, and meanwhile your Knight is placed to advance to `c5`. Your dark-square Bishop and your Queen also have potential to slide around Black's wall via `d2`. All in all, not ideal, but not too bad either.

```
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/3pPpPp/N1pP1B1P/5N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 b - - 0 1"]

```

Position after `1.a4 bxa4 2.Nxa4`.

---

None of the above lines are perfectly satisfactory: they're either too slow, or potentially inadequate in terms of dealing with Black's queenside threats. Thus we have a third possibility: the King is in danger and no one can come to his aid--therefore, *we flee to the kingside*.

Because the position is so closed, and Black has no *immediate* threats against your King, you could simply play `Kd2` right away, and march your King out of harm's way, simultaneously clearing spaces for your other pieces to maneuver to the queenside if need be. I'm not going to cover this option in any further detail since Wes already gave a good account of it in his answer, so you should go read about it there.

## Conclusion

Three basic plans come to mind for me. Hopefully they at least give you some insight into how I would tackle this situation, so you will be able to evaluate them on their own merits and drawbacks, and then either choose among them or come up with something altogether better!

* As a medium-term goal, reorganize the kingside to place a Knight on `f4` to pressure all of Black's kingside forces and tie his pieces to the defense of his wall.
* Soon or immediately, `a3-a4` could be played to limit Black's queenside attacking potential and potentially close the position completely, or free your own pieces to end-around Black's wall.
* Go for a walk with your King behind your own lines, via `d2` and `e3`, to make room for your other pieces to maneuver and get your monarch out of the danger zone.
> 9 votes

# Answer
White cannot break this Great Wall of China in this position. In fact, **White is slightly worse** and here's why -

**1. Pawn chain**

Black's pawn structure is better than White's. The pawn on **e6** is the base of Black's pawn chain and it is almost impossible for White to have any attack on that. True, White could possibly bring a knight to **f4**, but that's not happening any time soon, and even if that happens, Black can easily defend **e6** with one of his pieces. On the other hand, White's "virtual" pawn chain base is **b2** and it is far easier for Black to attack that. Black can open the b-file by playing **b4** and aim his rooks at **b2**.

**2. Weaknesses**

Black's only real weakness is the pawn on **h5**, but that is firmly protected by the bishop on **g6**. If White brings a knight to **g3** (which will take time) to double attack the pawn, Black can play **Qe8** and protect it. White's **b2** pawn is quite weak. If the **b-file** is opened, it will be a constant target for Black.

**3. Quality of pieces**

Black's worst piece is the bishop on **g6**. It is doing nothing at the moment and is completely blocked by its own pawns. The same can be said about White's bishop on **f4**. These two pieces are equally bad. So the comparison is between the knight on **c6** and the bishop on **e7**, with the knights on **c3** and **f3**. The knight on **f3** is not doing much. It just supports **d4** and plays a defensive role. Meanwhile, the knight on **c6** is constantly attacking d4. So the knight on **c6** is better than the knight on **f3**. The knight on **c3** does absolutely nothing. It's activity is completely neutralized by Black's pawns and it can be threatened any moment by **b4**. On the other hand, the bishop on **e7** is supporting the advance of **b4**, and is not as much hemmed in by pawns. So the bishop on **e7** is slightly better than the knight on **c3**.

Still, it's not easy for Black to break through in this position if White plays correctly. The correct plan for White should be to march his king away from the queenside, which is soon going to come under fire from the Black rooks. White can safely do this because the center is closed and there's no way for Black to go after White's king. Thus, I recommend the following line which gives White equality-

```
      [FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

      1. Kd2! b4 (1... Rb8 2. Ra1 b4 (2... a5 3. a4 b4 4. Nb5) 3. axb4 Rxb4 4. Rxa6
      Qc8 5. Ra2 Qb7 6. Rb1 Qb6 7. Ke3 $1) 2. axb4 Bxb4 3. Ke3 $1

```

Such king walks are quite common in closed positions. Consider this game where the great Gary Kasparov himself playing against a strong program like Fritz took his king for a walk on the queenside instead of castling kingside, which could have been dangerous.

```
      [FEN "rnb2rk1/1p3ppp/1Pp2n1q/2Pp4/1B1Pp2b/PNN1P2P/1R1Q1PP1/4KB1R w K - 0 23"]
      [White "Kasparov"]
      [Black "Fritz"]

      1. Kd1! Be6 2. Kc1 Rd8 3. Rc2 Nbd7 4. Kb2

```

Such king walks are also at times seen in closed positions that arise from the Nimzo-Indian defense. Here's a game between two strong grandmasters Timman and Hort, where Hort played this maneuver.

```
    [FEN "rn1qk2r/pp3p2/3p1n1p/2pPpbp1/2P4P/2P1PPB1/P5P1/R2QKBNR b KQkq - 0 11"]

    1...Kd7!? 2. Bf2 Kc7

```

Finally, a word of **caution**! Do **NOT** attempt king walks unless you're quite sure that your king cannot be attacked and will be safe at its destination.
> 8 votes

# Answer
This is an old question, but it brings up a very relevant chess point that no one above has touched on: **In any position, allowing the area of the board you are playing in to become locked is usually positional suicide.** Once your area is locked, the only hope is a sacrifice to open it...in this case, it will never come to fruition.

The computer only gives this as slightly worse for black, but as 5 and then 10 and 15 good moves are played, the eval is going to skyrocket. This is virtually lost already since you cannot attack h5 easily (Kg7 and Rh8 if necessary).

Your feeling that you are going to get "squashed to death" is not wrong. The best plan is probably to evacuate the Kc1 over to the locked k-side, and hope to be able to defend what is soon to be a weak queen-side. I am not optimistic since you do not have as much space to maneuver there as black does, and your pieces will be fighting for the same squares.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Nxd5. allows you to flood in.You should get an easy win.
> -6 votes

---
Tags: analysis, strategy, theory, middlegame, pawn-structure
---


# Question
Title: What did Bobby Fischer mean in this quote?
Bobby Fischer has been quoted many, many times. What did Bobby Fischer mean when he said "My opponents make good moves too. Sometimes I don't take these things into consideration.”?

# Answer
It means that even he, Bobby Fischer, was susceptible to overlooking his opponent's good replies.

From the book, "Counterplay: An Anthropologist at the Chessboard", here is a quote on page 74:

"So intense was Fischer's concentration, and so single-minded his intent, that he would sometimes become immersed in his own ideas at the board and forget certain possibilities available to his opponent. "Yet possessing a tremendous will to win," Elie Agur writes of Fischer, "he might have "forgotten' his opponent at times, carrying out his plans as though no obstacle could be put up to stop them." Or to quote the man himself: "My opponents make good moves too--Sometimes I don't take these things into consideration."

You are right that this is widely quoted, and attributed to him, but I would love to find where and when he said this exactly. I suspect it was in response to a game that he lost or drew. That I have been unable to find so far.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: fischer
---


# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Declined: Alatortsev variation, is there a high quality resource covering this line?
I am working on my opening repertoire, and I need ways to dodge the Exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined with `Nge2`. Many masters use the *Alatortsev variation* to do this.

After the following moves:

```
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7

```

We get the *tabya* of the above mentioned line.

There are many books about QGD that cover this line, but none does that in full detail.

Furthermore, browsing through Internet I found that there were some important theoretical novelties at the top level which were not mentioned in modern books about QGD. Unfortunately I can not provide the links now since it was more than 3 months since I last saw them.

So my question is following :

Is there a book or an online resource that covers this line in great depth with high-quality analysis?

Thank you.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Be7 avoids the QGD Exchange Variation and usually moves towards either an exchange with Bf4 or a regular QGD. If it's a regular QGD, there obviously won't be any books dedicated specifically to this variation as it will transpose to another well-known line.

The only pressing line then is the one with cxd5 and Bf4. I can't recall any books that focus specifically on this line in depth, but there have been many games played at the international level that use this variation. I would recommend exploring game databases like MegaBase and finding annotated games.

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are a couple of opening books that dedicate a chapter to the Alatortsev variation: The Queen's Gambit & Catalan for Black (2001) by GM Janjgava and The Queen's Gambit Declined (2007) by IM Rizzitano. The former is a repertoire book based on the move order 3.Nc3 Be7, while the latter is not.

Besides the Alatortsev variation, there are also different ways to avoid 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5. Two of them are shown in some very recent repertoire books, both published in 2018:

# Answer
> 1 votes
There is no need for a special book on this, which is why you cannot find one that covers it much. The reason is that it simply transposes to most normal lines, but just avoids the Botvinnik Nge2 line that you are trying to avoid. There is one line that white can try that breaks from standard theory.

After 3...Be7, white really has only two main choices:

1. 4. cd ed 5. Bf4, and therefore you avoid the main line with Bg5. It can continue with 5...c6 6. e3 {still trying to play Bd3 and Nge2} Bf5, and you have avoided it.
2. 4. Nf3, and you have avoided the line you wanted to, and it transposes to mainline stuff right away.

Considering option two goes right back into mainline, the only one that anyone would consider wanting to write about is option one, and there is just not enough material that remains independent from the mainline to warrant it.

Soltis covers 3...Be7 in his book "Transpo Tricks in Chess" on page 130. He notes: "On the minus side, this order denies Black non-... .i.e7 variations, such as the Cambridge Springs, Vienna and Botvinnik."

# Answer
> 0 votes
Chessable.com has a video and e-book that cover this line for Black. The author (a GM) recommends a very quiet positional approach for Black which I really like. But other players with Black may want a sharper repertoire.

---
Tags: opening, theory, queens-gambit
---


# Question
Title: If a tournament advertises G/30, can either player demand G/25 d5?
A minor controversy regarding advertised and allowed time controls has broken out on a chess mailing list I subscribe to. A one-day tournament scheduled for tomorrow advertises specifically as five rounds of G/30, and a member of the mailing list has claimed that any player can therefore demand G/30 (as opposed to G/25 d5), regardless of their opponent's wishes. The last time I played in this particular tournament, I asked the organizer if I could insist upon G/25 d5, and he said that it's my right to do so under USCF rules. Is this true, or does the fact that the tournament listing states G/30 (and doesn't mention an alternate time control) mean that I should actually be forfeited if I request a delay and my opponent refuses?

# Answer
You don't have grounds to demand the time control you like. In practice I suppose that if your opponent agrees, you could get away with using whatever time control you both want as long as the game finishes on time, which is the main point the organizers care about.

One thing that the USCF rules do cover is what to do if the stipulated time control has a delay or increment and the only available clock doesn't support it. In that case the "base time" should be used instead.

However: did the advertisement say just say "G/30", or was it "G/30 d0"? Because according to the USCF, "If the organizer fails to specify an increment or delay time in the time control (which may be zero to indicate no increment or delay), the minimum recommended delay specified in rule 5E shall apply." The minimum recommended delay for 30 minutes is 5 seconds, so the way I read that, if it was advertised only as "G/30", you'd have grounds to demand G/30 d5.
> 7 votes

# Answer
You are close, but not quite right.

I just spoke with a friend of mine, who has been a tournament director for over 40 years, USCF Senior TD Henry L. Terrie III (Hal Terrie). He told me that when you post a USCF tournament, you need to specify the delay, or it is assumed to be 5 seconds.

So, while you cannot demand G/25 d5, you can demand G/30 d5 since it was not specified. That is the only variance you can demand.

5B2: Advanced publicity time controls need to contain both the base time control and the delay/increment.

5E2: Organizer fails to specify increment or delay: Subrule added to new rule 5E with wording addressing the lack of a specified increment or delay. If the organizer fails to specify an increment or delay time in the time control (which may be zero to indicate no increment or delay), the minimum recommended delay specified in rule 5E shall apply.

It is in the PDF download here for "Chapters 1, 2, and 11 Combined".
> 5 votes

# Answer
If the tournament advance publicity specifies G/30 with no delay, then that is the time control. There is nothing in the USCF rulebook that would give you or your opponent either grounds to request a different time control, nor discretion to agree to a different time control. Per USCF rule 5B1c and 5B2, the time control really should appear in the tournament advance publicity as "G/30 d/0", but in practice the absence of "d/0" is generally understood to mean "no delay". *(EDIT: However, itub's answer is correct, rule 5E2 does specify that if the absence of delay or increment is not explicitly stated, the minimum recommended delay "shall apply" - note that "shall" indicates that there is no discretion, it is just a fact... - which would mean that the time control that should actually be played should be G/30 d/5.)*
> 4 votes

---
Tags: rules, tournament, time-control, uscf
---


# Question
Title: Lc0 gets slower if weight file gets bigger
I have two weight files, one with a size of 6MB and the other 45MB (files is listed here). The problem is that when I start to compute a move, it takes too much time, especially when I use the larger weight file. Below I start lc0 with the larger weight file

```
$> ./build/release/lc0 --weights=/weights/weight-4305
       _
|   _ | |
|_ |_ |_| v0.23.0-dev+git.9bac230 built Oct 17 2019

```

and compute a move

```
position fen rnb1kb1r/pp1p1ppp/4pn2/q7/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 3 6
go  wtime 59000 btime 59000

```

I get

```
Loading weights file from: /weights/weight-4305
Creating backend [blas]...
Using Eigen version 3.3.5
BLAS max batch size is 256.
info depth 1 seldepth 1 time 193 nodes 1 score cp 44 hashfull 0 nps 5
tbhits 0 pv d4b3
bestmove d4b3

```

This takes approximately 3 seconds. Now, when I do this computation again, it seems to take even more time

```
position fen rnb1kb1r/pp1p1ppp/4pn2/q7/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 3 6
go  wtime 59000 btime 59000
info depth 2 seldepth 2 time 4957 nodes 3 score cp 44 hashfull 0 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv c1d2 a7a6
bestmove c1d2 ponder a7a6

```

If I use the smaller weight file it takes about 1 seconds.

In my case I would like to use lc0 to play 1 minute games, so these delays are way to huge. For example, I'm also using Stockfish which doesn't have these issues.

I would like to play 1 minutes games with lc0, but with these slow computation times it is not possible. Is there a way to speed things up?

If you want to see it yourself, I've published `lc0` on my DockerHub, so you can try it out yourself

Using the smaller weight file:

```
$> docker run --rm -it jeanluca/leela-chess-zero:1.0.2

```

And to run the one using the bigger weight file

```
$> docker run --rm -it jeanluca/leela-chess-zero:latest

```

After you have entered one of the above commands you can simply past the positions into the terminal and see the result

Also, to get an idea of how I've build lc0, here is my dockerfile

From jeanluca/base:latest

```
RUN apt update && apt install clang-6.0 ninja-build pkg-config protobuf-compiler libprotobuf-dev meson -y &&\
git clone https://github.com/LeelaChessZero/lc0.git &&\
cd lc0 && ./build.sh -Dblas=true -Deigen=true
COPY ./weights /weights
CMD ["/lc0/build/release/lc0", "--weights=/weights/weight-4305", "--threads=4" ]

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
The bigger weights file corresponds to a larger Neural Network, which means more computation per node, but better evaluation per node.This is expected, and there is nothing that can make a bigger NN as fast as a smaller NN. The best solution is to use a small NN for blitz time control. I would personally recommend LD2 (available at Lc0.org/LD2)

---
Tags: performance, leela
---


# Question
Title: How many moves can be expressed with algebraic chess notation?
I am wanting to write a chess engine (see here: Creating chess engine, machine learning vs. traditional engine?). The first step I am doing is taking a position in as an FEN and converting this position into an ideal move. Pseudocode would look something like this:

`Position → Move`

or using notation:

`rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 → e4`

I am trying to create an enumeration of every possible chess move, and I feel that I may be missing some. This includes moves like "e4", "Nxf5", "Bg3+", "Qxh4#", "exf8N#". My total count of unique moves that can be expressed using algebraic notation is **1884**. Can anybody confirm the total number of unique moves that can be expressed using algebraic notation? My full list of moves can be found here: https://pastebin.com/xDNqbFt2

# Answer
> 2 votes
I immediately notice that you've missed the castling moves (O-O and O-O-O).

I would list the pawn-promoting moves according to their PGN syntax (=Q/R/N/B suffix), as that's the most commonly used in computer chess.

Algebraic notation can be ambiguous for sliding and leaping pieces (everything except pawn and king, actually) which may require specifying the origin rank, file, or both. The latter is only needed for queens, bishops and knights, as rooks are always disambiguated by one or the other.

It might be useful to treat the suffix codes indicating whether the move results in check or checkmate as orthogonal to the move itself, since pretty much any move can theoretically have those results. This would effectively divide the number of unique moves you need to handle by three. Conversely, the different promotions of a pawn definitely should be considered as unique moves.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You've got a big list, but you forgot disambiguate moves. N1f3, N1f3+, N1f3#, Qd6d4...

If you want to include all possible Algebraic moves, you need to increase your list at least tenfold.

---
Tags: programming, notation
---


# Question
Title: Artificially isolated pawn in the Caro-Kann
I would like to know why it is so disadvantageous to have an advanced artificially isolated pawn when it can be exchanged by another pawn. I refer to situations where a side cannot mantain such square with a pawn.

Examples: In the Caro-Kann, after 1.e4 c6 2. e5 d6 3.exd6?! What is so wrong with this last move? Is it a matter of tempos (White lost two moves to go to e5 only to be exchanged ) or is there any more fundamental reason? I know that the common thing to do for White is trying moving pawns to d4 (maybe f4, though it d be weakening).

Another example, for instance is when Black c pawn is on c5 (with a White pawn on d4) and then it is pushed to c4 before recommended. Then if White can play b3, Black tries to play b5, a6. Why not simply trade this pawn already?

# Answer
The shortest explanation I can think of: if you play 1.e4 and 2.e5, presumably you want that pawn there for a *reason*. If you then immediately trade it off, you've lost whatever you were trying to achieve, like maybe space or central control.

In the case with ...c5-c4 followed by b2-b3: again presumably you want that pawn to be there for some reason (queenside space?). If instead you allow simply cxb3 axb3, then:

* You don't have your pawn anymore
* White has got rid of his a-pawn in return, rook pawns are least valuable pawns (can only capture one direction)
* White has freed his a1 rook
* White still has a single groups of pawns, while yours are split in the a/b pawn "island" and the c/d/e/f/g/h "island".

By adding ...b5/a4/a6/axb5/axb5/bxc4/bxc4 black also frees his rook and gets rid of the a and b pawns that could otherwise become weak later. And the c-pawn that you presumably wanted on c4 to gain space is still there.

However, I disagree that 3.exd6 is bad. White doesn't have good options there. After 1.e4 c6, 2.e5 is a bad move. It can't be maintained there and it doesn't help with the main goals in the opening (development, control of the center, and preventing the other side from achieving those).
> 7 votes

# Answer
To be frank, you hit the nail on the head: "White lost two moves to go to e5 only to be exchanged". After some explanation, in the last paragraph, I will give some basic lines as to why exchanging is probably best already.

White is not developing, and since he cannot maintain the pawn on e5 easily, it is not good. That whole line starting with 2.e5 is also questionable. I have never seen that played, and with good reason.

In your second example, c4 is also not a good move since it also wastes time, and can be attacked at the head with b3 and if b5, then a4.

There was a similar question recently, "Why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5?". Again, to move a pawn early in the opening a second time is usually not good, but the underlying question is "can you maintain it there?". If not, it is probably bad. In the 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5? question, I showed that it would come under attack quickly, and could not be maintained. Compare that to normal Benoni 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3. d5. C5 took away one of the potential attackers of d5 by passing that square, and black played a second move also losing a tempo, so it is OK.

In your line 1.e4 c6 2. e5, it is hard to maintain e5 already after d6. E4 is clearly not good after de de Qd1. Nf3 is easy equality for black after de Ne5 Nd7 challenging the Ne5. And f4 just looks horrible positionally.
> 6 votes

# Answer
In chess you want to play for advantage. Your moves may seem playable, but they are far from optimal.

1.e4 c6 2.e5?

Sending a foot soldier beyond the central line ahead of his forces can't be a good strategy. In fact, openings like the Alekhine's 1...Nf6 seek to tempt that pawn forward.

Goals in the opening are typically to occupy and/or control the center. From there you are able to launch attacks at each sector of the board.

Your second example of a c5 pawn going to c4 (not taking the d4 pawn) then trading itself for a b3 pawn:

In essence you are trading your c-pawn for whites a-pawn when the c-pawn should have happily traded for the d-pawn. It is all about the center. If c5-c4 made sense it was to gain something in that region and thus it needs to be maintained with b7-b5 etc.

"Pawns are the soul of chess", They dictate the terrain of the battlefield and should be moved with care.
> 2 votes

# Answer
1. I have no idea what you mean by "artificially isolated pawn" esp when there is no iso pawn in the pawn structure in the position given.
2. Black is roughly equal because no matter what white plays d5 is at least equal in the center.

I'll explain it this way: Black is equal because white has no advantage. Why does white have no advantage? Because white wasted two moves.
> 1 votes

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


title: What is the weakest file on the board?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the weakest file on the board?
If f2 and f7 are the weakest squares on the board, if the f-file the weakest file on the board? For example, other than attacking f2 and f7, is there a theoretical advantage in dominating the f-file?

# Answer
> 5 votes
The f2/f7 squares lose some significance after castling has occurred. The square is no longer protected by just the king - the rook now also protects it. But a f2/f7 pawn with a king on g1/g8 might be pinned by a bishop, which sometimes results in tactical opportunities.

Generally, you should attempt to control the center of the board. The f-file is not the center, but it is adjacent to the center. It might make sense to try to control the f-file if it is open or half-open (or if you plan to make it that way) but that's true of any open file.

If the file is not open or half-open, then it probably makes more sense to look at the individual squares rather than the file as a whole. If White has a pawn on e4, that pawn controls f5, but it also means that pawn can never control f4 (so f4 might be weak.)

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have heard that a million times, but in practice, unless you are really careless with your development, and your king gets stuck in the center, they rarely play a role right out of the opening. Later in the game, I have seen many games where f7 gets pounded on, and if you already happen to have the open f-file (f2 can also fall under attack, but it is less common), that is nice, but in a real game, it is usually a B on the a2-g8 diagonal with a rook or two on the 7th, and any other supporting pieces.

You have to also realize that only a few select openings really aim at f7. You can rule out all but a few k-pawn openings, in most cases.

In short, develop normally, and IF you see the opportunity to pressure f7/f2 naturally, and it makes sense, then go for it. I would not develop artificially trying to strive to make something out of that just because f2/f7 have been called the weakest squares.

There is no weakest file that I can see.

# Answer
> 1 votes
No such thing as a "weak file".

Different pieces move in different ways. Open files do allow rooks to come into the game however. So, in that sense, a weak file would be whatever is open and can be dominated by heavy pieces.

---
Tags: positional-play, evaluation
---


title: How do generic game engines work?

text:
# Question
Title: How do generic game engines work?
The evaluation functions for chess usually includes chess specific knowledge. However, Zillions of Games is able to play any game based only on a description of how the pieces move and winning/losing/draw conditions. And as I see, does quite a good job.

Engines like Fairy-Max can only play chess-like games, which includes many assumptions in its design that do not need to be generalised. But when making a generic game engine (which I dream of doing), the engine simply can't assume almost anything.

I got a nudge in the right direction with the post *'ab-initio' piece values* on TalkChess. Yet it does not provide the whole picture.

So, how do generic game engines (like Axiom Development Kit, which is an independent engine that plugs into Zillions; or even the very Fairy-Max) evaluate position?

**Edit 1**: I found some more information in the 1993 paper by Barney Pell entitled *A Strategic Metagame Player for General Chess-Like Games* (found it from the "General Game Playing" page on chessprogramming.org).

# Answer
> 4 votes
I don't know about Zillions specifically, but it's a reasonably good strategy in most games to maximise your own flexibility of action while minimising your opponent's. This is certainly true for chess; there are competent chess engines (ie. strong enough to beat an amateur consistently) which use only material value and mobility for evaluation.

The Beale Effect (ie. minimax with random position evaluations) yields a reasonably good chess engine with a modest depth of search, plateauing around 2000 ELO. This relies entirely on a second-order effect of mobility, ie. you're most likely to find the highest random value in a part of the game tree that branches a lot.

I would not be surprised, therefore, to find that Zillions uses either a random evaluation or one based on mobility. The value of a piece, after all, is strongly correlated with its mobility.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Check out the Zillions clone and learn for yourself. http://www.chessv.org/

Even just a simple material eval function beats the majority of players.

# Answer
> 0 votes
In the 1980's I read a book "How to get the most out of your chess computer" by chess master and computer scientist David Levy. It is somewhat dated because engines like Alpha Zero have brought new ways of playing chess. But for a generic chess engine it's still a useful book. Levy explains that engines use a brute force ply search. A ply is one half move: white or black making a move. Then he explained the "horizon effect" which was the main weakness of chess computers at that time; from my games against current generaic engines on sites like FICS \[free internet chess site\] that are rated approx 2000 I still see The Horizon effect: it means that the engine's ply search ends and it assesses the outcome wrongly, often disastrously. In endgames this was the most common time for it; a human can work out that in 30 moves there's a won endgame by looking at the aspects of the potition rather than calculating. An engine, at least a generic one, can't easily do that. More advanced engines like Fritz or Stockfish find clever ways of beating the horizon effect but that's a whole other discussion.

---
Tags: engines, chess-variants, programming
---


# Question
Title: Can someone still get the title of "Club Master?"
In the 90's I was reading British Chess Magazine. I remember an article about the new title of "Club Master": a title given for strong chess performance at a club level. I have no idea what FIDE rating, if any, was required. I think that the British Chess Federation \[BCF\] gave the title rather than FIDE. Can someone still get this title?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Yes. According to the ECF website it costs £10 and a number of different titles are available for ECF members:

> (a) **Chess Maestro**
> A player must achieve a grade of at least 95 on any ECF official grading list.
> (b) **Team Master**
> A player must achieve a grade of at least 120 on any ECF official grading list.
> (c) **Club Master**
> A player must achieve a standard play A or B grade of at least 145 on an ECF official grading list.
> (d) **County Master**
> A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 170 on an ECF official grading list.
> (e) **Regional Master**
> A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 185 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).
> (f) **National Master**
> A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 200 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).

---
Tags: titles
---


# Question
Title: Trying to figure out why the engine suggested this move
I don't quite understand this. I like playing chess, and I'm working to improve, but I still am likely very much a novice.

Anyway, I played a game where I won in 9 moves, but I'm curious why the engine suggested the "best move" it did.

My game was as follows (I was playing as white):

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. dxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Bb4+ 5. c3 Bc5 6. Qxe4 O-O 7. Be3 b6 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. Qxh7#

```

The engine suggested during analysis that a better move than Bd3 (move 8) was Qxa8.

I acknowledge I still have much to learn about the game, strategy, etc. But I'm curious why this is the better move. After Bd3 I'm easily set up for a checkmate if the opponent doesn't do g6.

Does Qxa8 set up something I don't realize? Am I missing a line? What's going on there?

# Answer
> 3 votes
On my quad-core running Stockfish 10, the evals are very close, but Bd3 is preferred, and to me, I agree since you develop a piece with tempo, black defends the mate, and then you still take on a8 winning.

It is really about the same, but Bd3 is slightly better on my engine.

Basically, your intuition is right, and maybe your engine or computer are not as strong...or maybe even mine is not.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'll go along with Qxa8 wins a rook right now, as opposed to one move later. But you're about to discover something about chess engines, which will be useful later on, no matter how good you get at chess.

The line the intrigues me is 8. Qxa8 Nc6 with the idea of trapping the Q out of play for a while. What can Black get from that? So perhaps at this point, when the engine suggests Qxa8, explore what it is the engine sees by going ahead and playing it and then playing a response that might make sense, and see what the computer wants to continue with.

Then, once you think you've milked everything you can learn about the computer's suggestion, go back to the position and make your move (8.Bd3) and see what the computer wants to play against it. (8. ... g6 isn't necessarily the only response you'll want to explore, btw. You could use your engine to explore the ramifications of 8. ... f5 while you're at it; will the king flight through f7 work well enough to save the rook? I'll leave that as a fun question for you to answer on your own.)

While you do that, you may discover than one of the most useful things about an engine is they never get tired of playing different moves from a position. So when you get to a position where you disagree with the engine, you can play the position out multiple times with multiple responses; the engine will patiently show you what it's seeing for each of those lines. And the more different continuations you play out, the more you will understand what's going on in the position, and the better you will know what to play when positions similar to it arise in your future games.

The object, after all, is not to learn how the engine works, but to understand chess; and the engine can be a useful tool for that. Use it to explore the position and you can find out.

# Answer
> 0 votes
8. Qxa8 wins a rook and is almost certainly a won game for white.
9. Bd3 threatens mate but is easily countered.

Always assume your opponent makes the best reply. Making a move and hoping your opponent doesn't see the reply is "hope chess" and won't get you very far.

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: What is the theory behind center control?
Center control is an important aspect of playing chess, most openings are built around controlling the center, but why? Is center control really that important for winning a game?

# Answer
> 13 votes
The center is the crossroads of the board. Controlling it will give you access to every other part of the board. At the same time, it will drive a wedge in the opponent's position that hampers communication between king and queen side.

Control of the center is usually a decisive advantage in your favor; unless your opponent has *heavy* compensation (e.g. more than a pawn of material advantage), or a violent attack against your king.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The piece in the center four square can move to more positions than in it is in any other positions on the board. So if you can get control of the center positions, you have more options and this gives us an advantage over the opponent.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Controlling the center allows you to move your pieces to the other side of the board easier.

Further, some pieces (especially knights) have more moves if they're in the center of the board. A knight in the center has 8 moves. A knight on the rim has 4, 3, or 2.

# Answer
> 1 votes
First of all, EVERY reasonable chess opening is focused on the center in the first few moves. Even hypermodern are focused on the center even if they don't play for it directly.

Why is it important?

White has the first move advantage and there are a finite number of squares on the board. If white can turn his first move advantage into controlling more squares than the opponent then white can have a sustainable advantage. Otherwise, white's advantage will dissipate into nothing as the game goes on.

You could say why doesn't white grab space on the wing? The reason is that the opponent can grab more on the other side. If you play 1.g4 and I respond with 1...d5 I'm at least equal because I control more of the board.

Another way to look at it is this. Whenever you put a game into an engine it gives you a score. That score is based on the value of the pieces. The value of the pieces is based on their mobility and their mobility is based on control of space specifically in the center.

---
Tags: theory, strategy, positional-play, center
---


# Question
Title: I don't understand the central-control difference between 1. e4 and 1. e3
The books/articles tell me that the center is `d4`, `d5`, `e4`, and `e5`.

`1. e4` controls `d5`, but `1. e3` controls `d4`.

Both control one square in the center, no?

Yet `1. e4` is apparently a vast improvement over `1. e3`.

How would occupying `e4` make a difference? Surely a pawn doesn't control the square it's on but rather the squares on which it can capture?

I really wish these books/articles aimed at amateurs would be more precisely formulated. There's just way too much frustrating handwaving. Surely I'm not the only amateur who's had this confusion.

# Answer
> 6 votes
There isn't that much difference in strength between having a pawn on e4 or one on e3 (usually accompanied by one on d4); there are pros and cons to both (and a pawn on e3 can still go to e4, but not the other way around). The difference is between putting them there **on move 1**.

Let's take a look at the effects of 1.e4 and 1.e3, concentrating on the actual position. For 1.e4:

1. 1.e4 influences d5 and f5, squares on which black might want to place a pawn. 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 gives white chances for an advantage, and 1.e4 f5?? is basically impossible.
2. If you want to play an opening with a pawn on e4, *now* is the time to play it there. It's a pawn move to an undefended square, black can easily prevent it otherwise. Observe that the most common replies to 1.d4 are 1...Nf6, 1...d5 and 1...f5, all of which prevent 2.e4.
3. The bishop on f1 is opened up, and it might go to the nice square c4 (in case of 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4).

For 1.e3:

1. 1.e3 influences d4 and f4, but so what? If white wants to put a pawn there he could already do so, and black can't even legally put anything on those squares next move. So that's not relevant right now.
2. There is no way in the next ten moves or so that black will be available to prevent a move like e2-e3; it can be postponed until the perfect moment.
3. *White blocks the bishop on c1*. Without knowing anything whatsoever about black's setup, white basically already rules out putting the bishop on e3, f4 or g5. If you're going to fianchetto it, why not just start 1.b3. You've just made a concession before black has even played a single move!
4. The bishop on f1 is opened up, but it can't do much. 1.e3 e5 2.Bc4 just runs into 2...d5 (not enough control over that square).

It's fine to play an opening that involves e3 (as long as you put one or two other pawns near the center instead, otherwise you won't control anything on his half, white is supposed to be attacking), but doing so *on move 1* has no advantages. That's a big difference with a pawn on e4, which can be played there on move 1 "for free" and usually only with difficulty after that.

# Answer
> 3 votes
A white pawn on e4 controls e4, d5 and f5. It also has a role for the diagonals b1-h7 and h1-a8. A pawn does control the square it is standing on, since otherwise the opponent can place e.g. a pawn there. For example, if white has the pawn on e3, then black can advance e7-e5-e4 and take control over e4, d3 and f3. Thus, the white e4-pawn has several purposes.

1. Control e4, d5 and f5.
2. Cover the diagonals b1-h7 and h1-a8.
3. Provide the support squares d5 and f5 for the light and heavy pieces.

Therefore, it is clearly stronger than an e3-pawn.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Here are a few reasons 1.e4 is better than 1.e3. I'm sure other respondents will come up with others.

1. All things being equal, it's nicer to have more space than less space. It gives you more room to maneuver your pieces behind your pawns.
2. Black would love to play both ...d5 and ...e5, controlling the whole center on your side of the board. If you played e4 you would be fighting his ...d5 idea. If you play e3 you don't.
3. e4 doesn't block either of your bishops from going to good squares, but e3 gets in the way of your dark-squared bishop.

1.e3 is not a horrible move like a move that gives away a piece is. At worst it probably gives away your first-move advantage and creates an equal position. In fact, Black often moves a central pawn only one square on his first move, so how awful can it be for you to do it first? But 1.e4 accomplishes much more and is a much more ambitious way to play.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> I don't understand the central-control difference between 1. e4 and 1. e3

Let us go one thing at a time OK?

> The books/articles tell me that the center is d4, d5, e4, and e5.

That is correct.

> 1. e4 controls d5, but 1. e3 controls d4.

Again, you are right.

> Both control one square in the center, no?

Yes they do.

> Yet 1. e4 is apparently a vast improvement over 1. e3.

Yes it is-I will explain in detail bellow why is so.

> How would occupying e4 make a difference?

Again, I will explain in great detail the difference below.

> Surely a pawn doesn't control the square it's on but rather the squares on which it can capture?

Correct again, but there is a difference others pointed out in their answers-see below for more detailed explanation.

## `e4` Versus `e3`

***Analysis of `e4` :***

When playing `1.e4` you achieve **maximum efficiency** that pawn can exert in a move.

You open best diagonals for both the queen and the `f1` bishop, and do not obstruct the `c1-h6` diagonal for the `c1` bishop. Furthermore, you claim control of the `d5` and `f5` squares.

Why is this important?

Well, by taking away squares `d5` and `f5` you have **taken away the best squares** for some of the Black's pieces.

Black would like to place a pawn at `d5` to achieve **maximum efficiency** with that pawn, but can not play `1...d5` without losing a tempo after `2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3` or entering complications after `2.exd5 Nf6`, which gives White position **easier to play** ( according to the current theory of the *Scandinavian defense* and my experience ). Furthermore, Black hold **for now** but there is always **a real chance** of a novelty being discovered that will crush the entire opening/line.

Black's `c8` bishop is always best posted on `f5` but that square is also taken away from him with `e4`, so it is not so easy to **actively** develop the `c8` bishop, especially if White plays `h3` too. This means that Black **must settle with `Be6/Bd7`**, which is solid **but passive** or **lose time to develop it to `b7`** which is again a small concession.

Thus, in order to put **his own pieces** to the best squares, after `1.e4`, Black has to **make small concessions** Which give White a small pressure.

As others have pointed out, your pawn **physically occupies `e4`** thus **indirectly restricting** the opposing forces. It blocks the `e4` square for the Black's `e5` pawn/`f6` knight or even `b7` bishop. In order to **put a piece on this square** Black must **physically destroy** this pawn which requires regrouping of his forces **which is again a concession in view of investing time to maneuver pieces to execute this plan**.

***Analysis of `e3` :***

After `e3` you open the best diagonals for queen and `f1` bishop, but you close in your `c1` bishop. This means that you will **lose time** to post the bishop to its **best and most aggressive square** which means that now **it is you who will make concessions or lose precious time**. You control `d4` and `f4`, but **being first to move** you could have **claimed those squares anyway** so we can see at `e3` as **being slow** and as some form of *overprotection or prophylaxis*. Still, it is not necessary to overprotect anything this early, especially not as White! You also allow Black to play `1.e5!` **so now he gets the same benefits you could have got with `e4`**.

You also have **no control of the opponents central squares** which will force you to play "on your side of the board" while your opponent will be *free to do whatever he wants** since he will control **more space than you do with `1...e5!`**. This is dangerous, and you usually end up in a passive/cramped position so again **it will be you who will make concessions** in order to get in *the freeing break* in order to reach a position with counterplay. And again, Black can use his **space advantage** to reorganize his pieces and enter a **favorable endgame after you conduct your freeing break**.

This is very dangerous plan that White performs in many semi-open games after playing `1.e4` and I know from my experience just how dangerous and unpleasant it is to meet.

Also, you do not **physically control `e4`** like above, so your opponent can put `e` pawn or a knight there, and the **scope for his pieces increases**-diagonal `a8-h1` is now wide open. This makes them more efficient, hence more dangerous. If you ever wish to put a piece or a pawn on `e4` you will need to **fight for that square**, and there is a strong possibility that you will lose that fight.

## SUMMARY:

`1.e4` fights for the control of **Black's part of the board** thus giving **you chances for an advantage** by hindering his best piece placement. This puts **pressure on Black to equalize**, while after `1.e3` you will get the solid **but passive** position and the pressure to equalize **would be "on you"**, since Black will seize the opportunity to grab control **of your part of the board** either with `e5` or `d5`.

That is all for now, if you have further questions leave a comment and I will edit my post or reply with a follow up comment.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Maybe it will help you if you think that as White, the squares **d4** and **e4** are ***your*** part of the center and the squares **d5** and **e5** are Black's part of the center.

Sure, by playing e3, you control d4; and with e4 you control d5. Both moves control only one central square, but e4 controls your **opponent's** central square, so it is more valuable than e3.

Besides, the other advantages of e4 vs e3 are obvious.

1. You would want to play d4 and some point and your **bishop on c1** doesn't get blocked by the pawn on e3.
2. You are in a position to **challenge** your opponent's central pawns if they come to e5 or d5 (something which you cannot do with e3).
3. It's more important to control squares where your opponent's pieces could potentially be developed. e4 and d4 **prevent natural squares for Black's bishops** on f5 or c5. The moves e3 or d3 do not achieve that.
4. Your pawns in the center are closer to **attacking the Black knights**, which are often optimally placed on f6 or c6, with moves like e5 or d5.

# Answer
> 1 votes
At the beginning of the game, out of the 64 squares of the board 32 are occupied. So, space is a valuable commodity at the beginning of the game. 1) e4 allows white access to the e2 and e3 squares. while at the same time denying black access to those squares. e3 on the other hand allows white access only to e2 but blocks the critical e3 square. so e4 accomplishes more than e3. Each square of the board is like an intersection between 4 highways(horizontal, vertical and diagonal) and it is important that these valuable intersection points are not blocked especially if there is some traffic which can flow through them.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The idea you're missing is the idea that a move by you restricts your opponent's choices. You aren't just playing to make good moves but also to restrict your opponent from making good moves.

I would compare it to a game of musical chairs. Whoever controls more chairs wins the game. Same thing in chess. It is as much of an advantage to prevent your opponent from controlling a square as it is to control it yourself.

e4 prevents black from obtaining an equal share of the center. e3 doesn't. Black can respond to e3 with e5, d5 and possibly many other moves and control at least as much of the center.

---
Tags: opening, pawns, pawn-structure, center
---