title: Books on drawing

text:
# Question
Title: Books on drawing
There are multiple instances of books that promise winning opening repertoire. What about drawish openings, drawish strategies, etc?

So, are there books focused solely on drawing?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Books focused on defense essentially fall into this category. When defending a difficult -- or especially an objectively lost -- position, the best one can realistically hope for absent a major blunder by the opponent is to hold out for a draw via stubborn defense. You probably won't find opening repertoire books specifically geared toward drawing, though.

One book that I highly recommend is *The Art of Defence in Chess* by Polugaevsky and Damsky. (Note the British spelling; there is a similarly-titled *The Art of Defense in Chess* By Soltis, which I have no experience with.) I got my hands on this book early on in my tournament playing days, and it was truly eye-opening. It covers useful topics like fortresses, defensive exchange sacrifices, counterattack, etc. And it does so with many fantastic examples from grandmaster play, along with many illustrative exercises. (Some of the reviews of this book at the link I gave note that it might not be suitable below certain rating thresholds. While I agree that it is probably even more useful to somewhat stronger players, I reiterate that I got a lot out of it even when I first started playing competitively.)

Another good book is Colin Crouch's *How to Defend in Chess*, which explores defense via the games of Lasker and Petrosian. This book isn't the same sort of topic-by-topic defensive manual that Polugaevsky/Damsky is, but instead is a well-annotated games collection focusing on defensive masterpieces by two great defenders.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Andy Soltis - The Art of Defense in Chess. Great book. Suitable for B players and lower.

Here's a review of the book. 25 years later, I remember the excerpt.

# Answer
> -1 votes
Opening repertoire books for Black that are pitched at a high level of player (for example, the GM Repertoire books from Quality Chess) often have an emphasis on lines in which Black can reach a safe draw, and it is not considered to be much of a drawback for a line not to offer many winning chances. That is because when both players are very good, Black is generally satisfied with a draw.

There are no opening books (at least, there shouldn't be) that focus on achieving a draw as White.

---
Tags: draw, books
---


# Question
Title: Is it true that women's style of play tend on average to be slightly more aggressive than men's style of play?
> As we know, women chess is much more unpredictable than men’s. Women chess is also uncompromised and very entertaining. Men chess is more solid, pragmatic and conservative, and women game, on the contrary, is brighter, more emotional.
>
> -Andrei Selivanov, Vice-President of the Russian Chess Federation

Is this true? Do women tend on average to be more aggressive and more tactical in nature while men are more solid and positional?

# Answer
No. The evidence I've heard for the argument you saw was that top women's play has a lower draw rate than top men's play. The problem with that line of thinking is that if you look at men's games at the same Elo level as the top women, about 2500-2600, the draw rate is the same.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: strategy, positional-play, aggressive-play
---


title: Numerical FEN writing

text:
# Question
Title: Numerical FEN writing
What is the most compressed way to "write" a chessboard as an integer considering en passant and castling as always possible no matter what.

# Answer
> 4 votes
If all the pieces are on the board, there are 64!/32!/8!^2/2^6\*(32/63)\*(31/61) or about 1.2\*10^42 positions. This would require 140 bits. The 64!/32! puts the pieces on squares, the divisions account for permuting like pieces, and the last two fractions put the bishop pairs on opposite color squares. I would guess a dozen or so more bits would be required to cover positions with some of the pieces gone, but calculating the exact number is not so easy. Decoding a position from 140 bits can be done, but would be a pain. Clearly 8 bytes will not suffice.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The engine opening books in polyglot format store the fen in a 64 bit hash.

see http://hgm.nubati.net/book\_format.html for more information

note that they leave out the information about the movenumber and the actioncounter which counts the number of moves without pawn moves or taking until the 50 move rule draw. But all the other information like castling possibilities or enpassants are included.

---
Tags: notation, fen
---


# Question
Title: Can you run "Full Analysis" in Fritz with a different engine?
I have added Stockfish to the Deep Fritz GUI, and I even marked all engines except for Stockfish as inactive. However, when I run the "Full Analysis" it's still using Fritz.

Is there a way to use a different engine?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Go to *Engine-\>Change main Engine...* All you have to do then is select *StockFish* and click *OK.* Then click on *New Game* icon and the change will be applied, you should see title change from *Fritz* to *StockFish.* All that is left is to setup a position and run analysis...

---
Tags: analysis, engines, stockfish, chessbase, fritz
---


# Question
Title: Chesss training-Can’t find the proper white move
I'm really struggling to find the proper white move. Can someone help me? Also, is there some tool to assist training?

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "2k3rr/pbpp4/1pn1p4/8/2PPB1qp/2N1P2Q/PP4P1/2R2RK1 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
The answer is **1.Rf8+**, as Cleveland commented. You remove the defender of the queen on g4 (that is, the rook on g8) by distracting it.

```
[FEN "2k3rr/pbpp4/1pn1p3/8/2PPB1qp/2N1P2Q/PP4P1/2R2RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rf8+ Rxf8 {1...Nd8 2.Qxg4 Rxg4 3.Bxb7+ Kxb7 4.Rxh8} 2.Qxg4

```

Wins the black queen in exchange for a rook, which means that white is winning. If black doesn't take the rook and instead blocks the check with 1...Nd8, white exchanges queens with 2.Qxg4 Rxg4, then exchanges bishops on b7 with check (3.Bxb7+ Kxb7) because the bishop was attacked twice, and then wins the rook on h8 (4.Rxh8).

As for training tools, workbooks that explain a tactical theme and then give a number of exercises is the usual way, e.g. the Steps Method. A good website like that is Predator at the Chessboard, where a tactic like this could fit in chapter 5.2.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: analysis, training
---


title: What should you do in this position?

text:
# Question
Title: What should you do in this position?
I no longer have this game, although I do remember losing it. Here's the setup of the game, with White to move:

```
[fen "2b1kb1r/r5pp/8/p1pQBp2/qn1P1P2/6P1/4P2P/2R1KR2 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
White can safely resign. He is down 2 pieces without compensation and Black has a passed pawn.

Now, Black's King is not secure, so if the White Q could get a check in, it is possible the Queen and Bishop could be a threat. However, I see nothing here that makes me think White can get anything going.

So `Qc4` to keep the Queen close to the action while keeping an eye on `g8` to prevent castling. This pins the Knight on `b4` though I don't know that it matters much.

If White gets time, he could consider `Kf2`. This will connect the White rooks in preparation for Rfd1, after which White shoves the d-pawn down Black's gullet. If Black takes it, all the better.

But White really is doomed.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: How to check Elo?

text:
# Question
Title: How to check Elo?
I am an amateur player and from time to time I like to play chess. Is it good to start playing against a computer and try to find an Elo setting where the amount of wins and losses I score is roughly the same? If so, which chess engine is the best for that kind of thing (especially for linux)?

# Answer
> 9 votes
State of the art chess engines will win every game against an amateur, so they won't tell much about your playing level. On the other hand, the engines of sensible strength (or a handicapped engine or similar) I've tried do not emulate human playing at amateur levels well. While there are stronger and weaker engines and most probably you will find an engine against which you win around 50 % of your games, I wouldn't say that tells much about your level, because your playing style may affect the results a lot. For example, I've found that it is often easy to beat most amateur-level engines just by exchanging most pieces (while making sure you don't fall into any tactical traps) and winning the endgame the engine won't understand anything about. If you practice too much against a single computer opponent, you might develop bad habits.

If you're not willing to join a chess club, you can play chess games against real people on one of the various Internet chess sites that have a rating system. When you get a reliable rating there, you can try to see (e.g. searching in the forums or help files of the site you chose) if there is an approximative formula that gives you an estimate of what your Fide rating would be (that's what you asked for).

Please also note that the rating scales and systems used by different Internet sites, by your national chess club, and by Fide may differ much. Even if one site calls their rating "elo", it means only that they use the Elo rating system for the ratings. However, even the rating pool there has no connection to the Fide rating pool, and the ratings do not mean the same.

# Answer
> 4 votes
A beginner player has no ELO rating. I think computers are terrible opponents unless you're willing to take a drubbing every game. Download the free Stockfish and learn to use it. You won't enjoy the experience. I am a slightly above-average club player. I have no chance against someone who has no chance against someone who has a sliver of a chance of defeating this engine. I use Stockfish as an analysis tool.

I recommend you join your local chess club. If you're in the USA, go to this page and find a club. There you will find other opponents of your skill level, mentors, and comradery. You can play in tournaments and earn a USCF rating, which is similar to ELO.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There are lots of websites on internet which helps you to check your ELO rating like http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating/ELO\_Chess\_Rating.shtml

You can also try http://www.forwardchess.com/ to improve your chess skills which will definitely help you to improve your ELO rating.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The http://chesstempo.com tactics server provides an estimate of FIDE rating based on your tactical performance.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I'm not sure that even configurable chess engines provide good ELO ratings. I play Shredder at 1800, winning probably about 1/2 (if I play seriously), but my actual rating is 1500-1600.

---
Tags: rating, elo
---


title: Chess set icons

text:
# Question
Title: Chess set icons
I am looking for an examples of a free chess set icons. It would be nice if the place allow to download them, but this is not really important, as I will still need to redraw them in svg format.

Just to explain what I mean by chess set icons. I need them to customize user's pieces on my chess server. Basically I am looking for examples like this (image from Wikipedia):

but not like this (image from TheChessPiece):

Also is it possible that some particular chess icons are patented and hence I can not use them?

# Answer
> 16 votes
You might look for a chess set *font*. Here are several. Licensing information is included. It looks like they have been scanned from old books in some cases.

# Answer
> 23 votes
PyChess has about 20 fonts and SVGs bundled in its source code:

# Answer
> 13 votes
Unicode has chess piece icons in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess\_symbols\_in\_Unicode

This means you could look for a font which includes the chess symbol unicode block and has a license which fits your purpose. Most fonts are in TrueType format which is already vector-based and can be converted to SVG with Apache SVG Font Converter. This would mean you wouldn't even need to redraw them manually.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I'm sure unicode has a range of codes for both white and black game pieces.

Use a font like Arial or Tahoma. In the U2600 Range.

# Answer
> 1 votes
When you are looking for more interesting Chess icons including heterodox pieces, look here for a great list:

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/imagequery.php?type=DTP&numberofcols=2&displayauthor=1&displayinventor=1&usethisheading=Desktop+Publishing+Resources+By+Image

If you are going for the simple, just use Unicode.

---
Tags: chessboards, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Is castling legal regarding rooks passing over attacked squares?
I was playing a game of chess and I was playing black. I had a rook on b2. I had control of the b1 square. My opponent white did not have any pawns in the second rank. My opponent; white castled queenside. Is it illegal for his rook to pass the b1 square considering his rook passed the b1 square I had control of. Wouldn't it make this castle move illegal on white's part?

# Answer
> 8 votes
It is still possible to castle if the **rook** passes through squares that are attacked(under control by opponent's rook e.g. as you say), it's only in the case of the **king** that such scenario prohibits you from castling.

Have a look at the post Cleveland has suggested in the comments.

Here's an example anyway:

```
[Title "O-O-O"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2bk2nr/p1p2ppp/2p5/2p5/2P1P3/2N5/Pr3PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.O-O-O+

```

---
Tags: rules, castling
---


# Question
Title: What's my next move against this Caro-Kann variant?
I'm a beginner with openings and Steinitz principles, and I'm in the interesting position where I can develop an artificial intelligence which is better than me in chess.

After the `e4 c6`, I have played the following variant against my machine, where I tried to refuse the Caro-Kann game to see if I can manage outside the commonly known combinations:

```
[Title "Caro-Kann refutation"]
[StartPly "36"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 c6
2. c3 d5
3. Qc2 Be6
4. d4 Nbd7
5. h3 f6
6. Bd3 dxe4
7. Bxe4 g6
8. Bf4 g5
9. Bg3 Qa5
10. Nge2 h5
11. Bg6+ Kd8
12. Nbd2 h4
13. Nb3 Qb6
14. Bh2 Qb5
15. Bd3 Qa4
16. Kd2 Bd5
17. Rhg1 Rh5
18. Be4 Rh8

```

At this point I'm stuck and still haven't managed to gain a real advantage and every idea I get seems to lead to a draw.

Were my moves relevant or is my defense fragile? Can I still overthrow black at this point?

# Answer
> 7 votes
There are in fact quite a few mistakes on both sides, but I can't correct the AI, so this is for White:

* 3.Qc2 is already bad - it is does not contribute to the fight for the center (and this is a fast one, no time for slow moves). After pawns exchange on e4 black plays Nf6 with tempo and gains the "first move advantage".
* 6.h3 is slow in that it doesn't develop anything and doesn't stop any threat (Black's white bishop already chose a square which is not g4).
* 10.Nf3 is better than Ne2 - controls more critical square and looks over Black's weakened kingside.
* 13.Nb3 is a straight up blunder. 13...Bxb3 with threat on the queen forces 14.Qxb3 with time for Black's 14...hxg3 - up a piece.
* 15.Nc5 is winning. There are many variations here but after knights are exchanged you threaten 0-0-0 with check and some very strong tactics.
* 16.Kd2 is weak - centralizing the king while still in the midgame is risky and serves little purpose. Better is 0-0 at least.
* 17.Rhg1 while not a mistake seems uncalled for. The h rook seems better placed at e1 aiming at the half-open file and close to Black's king (with no castle rights). I think that Bxg2 for Black will be too slow as white has chances of trapping Black's Queen with moves like c4, Nc3 and a3 etc.
* You have a better position, don't exchange pieces with 18.Be4. Something like c4 forces his bishop away, then follow with something along the lines of Rooks to e1 and d1, N to c3 (not necessarily in this order) and remember that if Black moves Q to a6 you have c5 with discovery of the bishop on the queen.

---
Tags: analysis, caro-kann
---


title: Fool's Mate - As White?

text:
# Question
Title: Fool's Mate - As White?
Fools Mate is simple as black, white opens right up, 2 moves, done.

But if you attempt to do this as white, once you move, black moves, you move, it's only check, there is no checkmate.

Is it possible to get a 2 move checkmate as white?

# Answer
> 5 votes
No.

With two moves as white, you can get out a maximum of one attacker to deliver a check.

With one move as black, there is no weakness you can create that leaves you unable to defend a check from any given attacking vector.

---
Tags: checkmate, fools-mate
---


# Question
Title: Free, simple chess program for beginners
I can't play chess very well, and want a computer game to play against. I've tried two so far - Chessbase (Fritz 5.32) and Crafty Chess. Both had the same problem that even on the lowest difficulty setting, the computer trashed me.

I'm running Windows XP. Here are my criteria:

* 100% Free (no nagware)
* Lightweight: loads quickly, small filesize (say under 15 Mb)
* Not system intensive. I don't need or want a 3d board.
* Multiple difficulty levels, the lowest one being comparable to someone who's just been told what the legal moves are, and the highest one being... good. Good enough that I won't have to switch to a more advanced program for a while.

If it could have a nice clean interface without clutter everywhere, like the current move list and advanced AI options and what not - which might be great for advanced players but I have no need for - that would be nice.

If you know of a program like this for other operating systems, go ahead and post them for future readers... but I'm on XP.

# Answer
Download Babaschess, sign up for the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) and start playing unrated games against real people. :)
> 16 votes

# Answer
You could try WinBoard. WinBoard is a GUI, that you can use with thousands of engines. Two of the most famously weak engines, that you can use it with it are:

* Ufim 0.82 The limit strength can be set as low as 700 ELO
* BrutusRND This one literally makes random (legal) moves.

Source: chessforums

When you outgrow those engines, it will be easy to switch to a stronger one. The advantage of having multiple Engines is, that they all play different and so you won't get bored as fast.

Additionally, you could also weaken any existing engine. Here is an example with Crafty.
> 10 votes

# Answer
**Lucas Chess** is great! From the description of the program:

> "The computer uses different chess programs (so-called chess engines) of various strength. The user starts playing against the weakest engine at first. Initially the engine plays with limited strength but as the user wins more games the engine will be given more calculation time and its strength will improve. Eventually the engine will reach its maximum level of strength and if the user continues to win he will be passed to the next stronger engine and so forth.

It comes with a tutor that watches over your moves.
Lucas Chess ships with several chess engines from very weak to very strong (Stockfish,Rybka) and thousands of training positions (mate in 2,3,4 .. etc.)
For improving your openings try **ChessHero** or **ChessPositionTrainer**
> 8 votes

# Answer
If I'm not on my own computer, I use Shredder Chess Online. You probably can't get much simpler than that. Unfortunately it has just 3 levels, but fortunately the middle level fits for me if I don't want to think too hard, and the highest level if I'm in serious mood :-)
> 5 votes

# Answer
Another free chess program under Windows is Zillions of Games. Zillions is a generalized game system that includes chess as well as other games. You can easily control its intelligence. There are different settings for
1. Skill level
2. How variable its move choices are
3. How fast the computer moves

I purchased the full version of Zillions, because I wanted to play more games than those included in the free download version.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I find that SparkChess is fast and easy to beat on its lowest level. It has a neat flash based interface, though you'll need Adobe's Flash Plugin to play.
> 4 votes

# Answer
My favourite chess engine is Numpty chess. I am an "average"(?!) rated chess player and I have had hours of fun playing against this engine and look forward to more. It is not so highly rated like some other engines eg StockFish, Rybka, Fritz etc etc and is great for learning & improving at chess. This means you do get winning chances and so you do not get so demoralised as when playing super strength engines.

It needs a GUI to run in & is easily setup in Winboard or Arena chess gui. Chris Tatham is the engine author and a fine friend of mine (only through Numpty!). Numpty is at Numpty chess engine and is freeware. Give it a game & enjoy!
> 4 votes

# Answer
I'd like to answer my own question with a recommendation for Chessology.

Interface is pretty clean, and good difficulty settings, I found.

It also has an interesting feature: it colors squares of the board to reflect which player controls them. Red for black control, green for white control, with the color varying along a spectrum to represent weaker or stronger control (I think the formula is just Control = WhitePiecesThreateningSquare - BlackPiecesThreateningSquare, but I haven't done extensive testing). How useful that feature is I don't know because I don't know much about Chess, I'll leave it up to you esteemed gentlemen to discuss in the comments.
> 3 votes

# Answer
You can try the online option at https://www.apronus.com/chess/playcomputer/. You can experiment with the strength of the computer by reducing its time to think per move (in milliseconds).
> 3 votes

# Answer
Download Chess Wizard from this site:

http://www.chess-wizard.com/

It's completely free and lightweight. It also supports UCI engines. You can download the BrutusRND engine, which plays random legal moves.

You can also download ufim\_802, which is a very weak engine.
> 2 votes

# Answer
believe me you should download chess master (grand master edition) it has all the features you want + there are many levels to play with including many low levels that I'm sure that any small kid can beat them
> 1 votes

---
Tags: engines, learning
---


# Question
Title: Why are doubled pawns in this case particularly devastating?
There is a case where the opponent can inflict a double pawn on us

```
[FEN "4k3/ppp2ppp/3p4/4p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P2PPP/4K3 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

Why is this kind of double pawn particularly devastating for white? I see white is okay, white can try d4 pawn break, or Rb1.

Or am I wrong? Can somebody explain why this position is not favourable for white?

This pawn structure can also arise from Nimzo Indian

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

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3

```

# Answer
In order to answer your question, pros and cons of the doubled pawns must be listed.

I shall start with pros:

* You get additional open file;
* You get additional diagonal;
* you get addition protective or attacking power;

Let me explain the last statement with the example from football. Imagine you have 2 players standing in a line, one being in front and the other behind ( just like doubled pawns ). If first player fails to stop the attacker, his "doubled" teammate ( the one standing behind ) can step in and stop the attacker. The same goes with offense -\> if first player fails to score, the "doubled" teammate might step in, steal the ball and score. **By doubling pawns, it is as if you play 2 versus 1, in the battle of controlling squares.**

A small example can illustrate this:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "k2r3r/pp3ppp/8/2p1p3/2P1P3/2P5/P4PPP/K2R3R w - - 0 1"]

```

White stands better here as he can play `1.Rd5!`, thus obtaining the initiative, which gives him an advantage.

This is just an example, and the point is to consider what happens if Black is to move? If not for the doubled pawns, Black could follow the same plan ( `1...Rd4!` ) and obtain advantage due to having initiative. That was the protective strength I talked about in the last statement above. It is as if you get **double** firepower on `d-file` and `b-file`.

The same applies in offense, and yet another "dumb" example can illustrate that:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "7k/1pp5/8/2P5/P1P5/8/8/7K w - - 0 1"]

1.c6! b6 ( 1...bxc6 2.a5+- ) 2.c5! bxc5 3.a5 c4 4.a6 c3 5.a7 c2 6.a8=Q+ Kh7 7.Qa3+-

```

Again, you can see the **supremacy** White has on the `b-file`, because even if front pawn "misses" the mark, his "rear" friend will be able to strike.

I really hope that you understand now what I meant when saying that you get your firepower doubled.

To conclude: The strength of doubled pawns is the **speeding up of piece development** and **stronger control** of the adjacent squares.

Now is the time for cons:

* doubled pawn, **the rear one**, has limited mobility and is usually a choke point for his own pieces;
* **rear pawn** can't act as a normal pawn -\> he can't support/protect the pawn he stood next to ( before he was doubled ) nor the pawn that stands in front of him -\> he cant participate in controlling the square in front of the front pawn, nor the square in front of the pawn he "abandoned" by being doubled;
* by doubling pawns, additional "pawn island" is created which weakens pawn structure's defensive potential;
* in endgame, they can't create passed pawn since they are "held" by one opposing pawn;

Several examples must illustrate the above statements before I finally turn to the positions you mentioned in your post. Let us start from endgame disadvantage:

```
[Title "Doubled pawns are useless"]
[fen "7k/p7/8/P7/P7/8/8/7K w - - 0 1"]

```

As we can see, the above endgame is a draw. Doubled pawns can't enforce promotion to queen, because they act as single pawn.

As for static weaknesses of the doubled pawns, we can use the position similar to one from your post ( the Nimzo-Indian defense ):

```
[Title "White to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "8/ppk1bppp/8/2p1p3/P1P1P3/2P1B3/5PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Eventhough White is on the move above, the position is lost for him. Pawn at `c3` is a choke point as he prevents bishop to defend the entry point for Black king. If this pawn was anywhere on the `b-file`, White would easily defend with `Bd2`, since piece coordination would not be hindered.

In the above diagrams, and in diagrams in your post, notice that side with doubled pawns have an extra "pawn island", and notice how this **hinder pawn structure's flexibility.**

As for their inability to act as normal pawns, this example might be good:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r4rk1/p4ppp/bp1n4/n1p1p3/q1P1P3/P1PBB3/3NQPPP/RR4K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

Although White is on the move, he can't defend `c4` pawn. If `c3` pawn was on `b2` everything would be fine, since `c4` pawn would have **natural pawn support** with `b3`. This example also demonstrates well doubled pawn being a choke point, because if `c3` pawn was on `b2` White could play `Rc1`, defending the pawn.

The best example demonstrating rear pawn's inability to act as a normal pawn is the following position:

```
[Title "Doubled pawn can't act as normal pawn"]
[fen "6k1/ppp2ppp/3p4/2nPp3/2P1P3/2P5/P1B2PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

```

White can't dislodge the knight, yet if the rear doubled pawn was "normal" ( on `b2` ) White plays `b4` and kicks the pesky knight. Therefore, **always strive to fore doubled pawns adjacent "neighbors" to advance.** This will create the "hole" in front of the doubled pawns which is **always** useful outpost for your pieces, and that "hole" is **permanent** weakness.

Therefore comes logical conclusion for why doubled pawns are weak: **They weaken pawn structure's defensive and attacking potential.**

It is time to answer your questions, so let us start from the first position:

> Why is this kind of double pawn particularly devastating for white?

```
[fen "4k3/ppp2ppp/3p4/4p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P2PPP/4K3 w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

This pawn structure is better for Black because he can defend his pawns with other pawns. White on the other hand has weakened pawn structure as he can't defend `a2` and `c2` pawns with nearby pawns. This means that Black can force White pieces to assume passive positions in order to defend the mentioned weak pawns, something like in my previous diagram.

Without the actual position with all the pieces, it is hard to analyze further so I will make necessary assumptions, in order to answer your question better.

First of all, `d4` is very risky since Black plays `...c5!` and puts your pawn structure under pressure.

If you exchange with `dxe5` he plays `...dxe5` and will get slight pressure with `...Qa5`. Your queenside pawns are scattered, and unable to defend, so you will go into passive defense ( I doubt you can use open `d-file` in such positions that fast to generate counterplay that will compensate a pawn loss ). Furthermore, he now gets excellent `c4` square as a post for a bishop or a knight ( again, doubled pawn can't act as a normal pawn ). Black could also get slight pressure by playing `...Rfd8` or `...Rad8` at some point because your queen will have a hard time finding a good square ( ideal `c2` square is occupied by the doubled pawn-\> excellent example for doubled pawn being a choke point ).

If you exchange with `dxc5` he could recapture with a piece and play `...Rc8` putting doubled pawns under pressure. Again, you will not be fast enough to generate counterplay against his pawn at `d6` because you will waste time for the queen ( doubled pawn is a choke point again! ). The outpost on `c4` would be even stronger then.

If you decide to "do nothing" Black plays `...cxd4` followed by `...exd4` and gets initiative because he will surely be better developed ( `c2` pawn is a choke point ). He will trade `d6` pawn for your `e4` or `c2` pawn and will have better chances in the endgame.

Therefore, you must keep your pawn structure **flexible**. Your best bet would be to maintain current pawn structure. Without seeing the rest of the pieces I can't give further advice.

As for the position in your 2nd diagram, the key is control of the `e4` square. The ideas and features of that position are explained in any decent repertoire book so I will stop here because this post is too long already...
> 4 votes

# Answer
I first need to note that there is a fairly large difference between the structure in your first diagram and the one reached in the Nimzo-Indian line: in the first diagram, white has not yet played d4. This gives him the option of playing c4 and c3, which is actually quite a strong structure as the d4 square, which would normally be weak with pawns on c4, d3 and e4, is defended by the c3-pawn.

That being said, I don't agree with the assessment that this is an uncommonly bad case of doubled pawns for white. While doubled pawns are, in general, unfavorable for the side that has them, their existence is usually not enough to significantly change the evaluation of a position. In fact, the second line gives us an approximation of how much opening theory thinks that white's structure has been crippled: about the difference between a bishop and a knight.

I wrote the above and then realized that I may have misinterpreted your question. You may be wondering why white's structure in the first diagram is worse than black's.

The doubled-pawn structure is a slight disadvantage and has both plusses and minuses which may be exploited in a given piece configuration by either side. One plus would be the possibility which I mentioned in the first paragraph. Your idea of putting a rook on b1 is another option, although that may be mitigated by black playing b6. White pushing d4 is also an idea, although it may not be so favorable here because a capture on e5 would leave the c-pawns isolated.

Black's structure is better, though, because each of his pawns on the queenside has the potential to be defended by another pawn rather than a piece. White, by contrast, will always have two pawns not defended by pawns: the a-pawn and at least one c-pawn. The attention that white's pieces will have to use defending the pawns on average will outweigh the other considerations.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: nimzo-indian, doubled-pawn
---


# Question
Title: White have an advantage with the first move
I am beginner in chess but in my mind one question overcome, Does white have an advantage with the first move?

# Answer
It really depends on what level of chess you're looking at. At the amateur level (\<2200), I would hypothesize that white's supposed "first-move advantage" is relatively insignificant. However, it's quite evident at the higher levels that white has an advantage when playing mainstream openings - please reference the Shredder Opening Database for the details of individual moves. For example, out of the 242,221 Grandmaster games where White has played `1. e4`, he has scored 54.5%.

Chess players and theorists generally agree that White has a certain first-move advantage. The page on Wikipedia is certainly a fascinating read.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Generally white is considered to have a slight advantage, and black needs to "equalize". However there are also voices (e.g. András Adorján with his "Black is OK" books) who challenge this view and attribute the results of black to a mix of inferior, too passive openings ("defences") for black and the power of "self-fulfilling prophecies".

Personally I think the truth lies in the middle: White *has* a slight edge, but it would be smaller if players with black would be more confident and aggressive.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The advantage of the first move gets more significant as you go up the rating scale. At the GM level, white typically scores about 56% to black's 44%.

I would expect as you go down the rating tree the advantage of the first move would disappear, as lower rated players typically need a larger advantage in order to convert it to a win, and also lower rated players are more prone to making mistakes that give away the advantage (or the game).

By the time you reach "normal" club-level players, I'd be surprised if the advantage of the first move was more significant than the probability of a an error giving away the game.
> 3 votes

# Answer
White enjoys a first move advantage i chess that can be translated to about a 6% probability of winning the game. This advantage is a universal constant independent of the level of play. The first move advantage is of course easily squandered and in lower levels of play. The details of this estimate may be found in the appendix of the article on pairwise comparison of chess opening variations. here is the link http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2472783 your comments greatly appreciated.
> 0 votes

# Answer
In high level games, white wins 30 percent and black wins 20 percent.
> -2 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, analysis, attack, defense
---


# Question
Title: Is there a refutation of the Muzio gambit?
Is there a 'refutation', i.e. a defense for black that leads to a guaranteed advantage assuming perfect play, against the Muzio gambit?

---

```
[StartPly "11"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3

```

# Answer
> 10 votes
First of all, I should point out that it's actually simplest to avoid the Muzio altogether with Black; i.e. meeting **1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4** with 4...Bg7 (the Hanstein Variation) or 4...Nc6! (transposing to a line of the Bishop's Gambit which is probably favourable for Black.

But that doesn't really answer your question, does it? :)

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4?! **g4!? 5 0-0 gf 6 Qxf3 Qf6! 7 e5!**, Black almost always plays 7...Qxe5, which has been analyzed for centuries, and the verdict is still unclear. However, in his recent book, John Shaw puts forth the view (supporting by the strongest engines) that **7...Qf5!** leaves White with doubtful compensation for the piece.

Conclusion : 4...Nc6! and 4...Bg7 give Black good prospects to play for an edge in a relatively simple position (which is a good practical choice given the rarity with which Black meets this variation). Speaking about the Muzio proper, things are much less clear, but 7...Qf5 should be better for Black (albeit complicated).

# Answer
> 1 votes
After achieving the state of the 'Muzio Gambit', White has a very distinct advantage via development. But at that point, the advantage is firmly established: Anything that Black could've done to prevent such an egregious advantage would've prevented the board from reaching the defined 'Muzio Gambit'.

The only thing that could save Black at that point, is if White does not maintain *constant* attack pressure, and allows Black to develop.

I have never come across any technique that Black could do to regain control from a very aggressive White player.

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


# Question
Title: What is the smallest possible size of Nalimov endtables?
I have recently found the following place, where I can find the outcome for any 6-piece endgame with Nalimov endtables.

I was surprised to see this, because I have recently read that **set of tables requires 1153 GB of hard disk space**. This is significant amount of space and also it is not so easy to search through it. But nonetheless this website can give you the result together with a mating series in \< 1 second.

My first guess is that they are not using all endtables. There is little point of searching the mate of lonely king VS 4 pieces. But at the very best it takes away 1/4 of all the size.

My vague question is: how can it be done? My normal question is: what is the smallest size of reasonable 6-pieces Nalimov endgametables (by reasonable I mean where the result is not obvious)? Also it would be nice if someone can tell where can I get this smallest size endtables.

# Answer
You can get a smaller 6-piece tablebase here, fully compressed.

https://github.com/syzygy1/tb

While I have personally not tried that, I know because of a friend that they are really good. If you were hoping for smaller stuff, this is as small as you can get. After all, there are lost of positions with 6 pieces.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As a matter of fact, they do *not* use the whole tablebase, as one may check by introducing the following pieces on the board:

White: Kg8. Black: Bc3, Bd4, Kf2, Pf3.

The thing is, some positions are considered "uninteresting" because of the inevitable and obvious outcome of the game. Some of them, like the the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces, are simply omited from the calculations. However, every user of a tablebase may reject certain positions as trivial, and I believe the restriction used by the website you mention has many (or at least a few) of this rejections.

They certainly reduce the size of the standard tableblases at least to a tenth of the size you mention, since not even some basic pawn and kings endgames are covered (try Kg7 for white and Kg2 plus Pg3 for black), and this goes for both sides. Moreover, provided they use a similar technology as @oleksii does, I doubt they have any problem.

@Jason Lepack on the comments to the question said that the computer needs them. I ignore that, but after reading the article on Wikipedia and what I've seen on the website you provide and a few tries, I'm pretty sure that one does not.

About the smallest size, I would consider how to decide wether a position is "trivial" or not. I guess that esentially all positions involving a lone king vs king plus any number of pieces should be eliminated. Plus, most of the endings of king vs king and pawns, even with pawns on both sides, can be "solved" on a decent time by a computer. I'd also leave out any position where the material difference is greater than 3, since this would mean a piece down or four pawns up, which cannot be drawn even with different colour bishops... Continuing this way, one may get pretty light on memory size, I guess.

And the generator provided by @MikhailTal looks pretty awesome, now that's condensed information.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, tablebases
---


# Question
Title: For long OTB games, what is the percentage of players who have a rating which is below X FIDE Elo?
I am looking for statistics on the FIDE Elo of chess players.

I would like to know what is the percentage of players who have a rating which is:

* Below 1000 Elo
* Below 800 Elo
* Below 600 Elo
* Below 400 Elo
* Below 200 Elo
* Higher than 2000 Elo
* Higher than 2200 Elo
* Higher than 2500 Elo

I'm making it clear that I am only interested in statistics for the FIDE Elo, not the USCF Elo. And I am only looking for statistics for OTB games (not correspondence) of long time control (not rapid, nor blitz).

# Answer
You can get the FIDE rating list here. I used R statistical software to analyse the data for the latest OTB rating list (of 15th Sep. 2014). At the moment there are 383543 active FIDE players. Among them, slightly less than one third (107320 players) are rated.

As noted by others, the FIDE rating floor is 1000:

> "Players whose ratings drop below 1000 are listed on the next list as ‘delisted’. Thereafter, they are treated in the same manner as any other unrated player." (FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2014, article 7.21).

From that I understand that players going below 1000 Elo are unrated at all effects. However, the list shows 14 people with a rating of 0 (I do not know what this means, though).

For rated players, please see the figure below. It shows the number of FIDE active rated players for different Elo intervals: 1000-1100, 1100-1200, etc. So, to answer your last three bullets, as of 15th Sep. 2014:

* there are 31603 players with Elo higher than 2000, or 8.2% of the total
* there are 10220 players with Elo higher than 2200, or 2.7% of the total
* there are 768 players with Elo higher than 2500, or 0.2% of the total
> 5 votes

# Answer
According to this site http://www.metrowestchess.org/Compete/FIDE/FAQ\_FIDE\_Ratings.htm, the absolute FIDE floor is 1000 so the answer to your first five bullet points would be 0.

I found the absolute number for each of your last 2 bullet points here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo\_rating\_system#FIDE\_ratings but have been unable to locate a figure on the total number of rated players in the world so I can't tell you percentages. According to that link, there are about 11000 players above 2200 and 800 above 2500.

I'm ~2050 FIDE and about 55000th in the world if that helps at all for the 2000 Elo question.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rating, statistics, elo, otb-chess
---


# Question
Title: chess variants similar to retrograde gameplay
Two players could start from any checkmate position ; the one player taking black , the other white, they could play chess backwards with the goal of trying to get all of ones pieces to their original positions first. Could there be a way to make this feasible?

# Answer
This is just my opinion, as I doubt the question can be objectively answered, but I don't think this is feasible.

There are a few big problems arising from the idea of going backwards in the game of chess, and not only that the pawns' movement must be inverted, but also concerning the captured pieces. How to decide when a captured piece can "emerge" from the graveyard is, IMO, quite challenging. One can't simply set that every time an opponent's piece moves, you can put a captured piece on the square just left empty, since this would mean that a player has the right to "move" twice: to choose which piece to put on said position and then to move another (not necessarily different) piece. And this same problem applies to pawn promotion, when a player could choose to transform a piece on the last rank to a pawn on the seventh (or second). This doesn't happen in normal chess and I find it a little of an abomination.

Moreover, assuming all the pieces are already on the board, none of them can be captured (including the king, who now can enter into check but cannot be checked by an enemy piece). Plus, there are several strategies that any of the two players can adopt as to win almost immediately, one of them being to put a knight on the last rank, for example on a bishop's square. It would be impossible to a black piece to dislodge it, but if all the pawns are on their starting squares, the knight can go back to his place while the bishop can never trespass the pawn "chain".

This would lead to problems concerning what moves are legal and what are illegal. If, for example, we assume that a player must be capable of completing his objective, that is, any move that impedes the opposing player to complete his task is illegal (like forcing him to put first all the pawns on their squares but leave out the queen), would mean that one can enter a never-ending discussion of *when* a knight shall leave the last rank (the pawn has to be two squares advanced, or one, but what if the knight has all the other exits blocked and can no longer move, is it illegal to move the pawn thus A wins or the knight is in an illegal position thus B wins...). Or maybe we shall decide that if a player cannot attain his objective, he directly loses.

Well, I have to accept that maybe it is plausible to make such a game, but that would not resemble much the chess rules, and they would be so complicated that I don't think the game could be playable.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: How much time did Capablanca have / use on the clock to refute Frank Marshall's Marshall Attack over the board?
Capablanca's over the board refutation of Frank Marshall's deep home preparation, in what was later called the *Marshall Attack*, is widely regarded as one of the great defensive masterpieces of all time.

The question is, is it known how much time Capablanca had on the clock to do so and how much time he actually used for the game?

Here's the actual game -

```
   [FEN ""]
   [White "Capablanca"]
   [Black "Marshall"]
   [Date "1918"]

   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O
   8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 Nf6 12. Re1 Bd6 13. h3 Ng4
   14. Qf3 Qh4 15. d4 Nxf2 16. Re2 Bg4 17. hxg4 Bh2 18. Kf1 Bg3 19. Rxf2 Qh1
   20. Ke2 Bxf2 21. Bd2 Bh4 22. Qh3 Rae8 23. Kd3 Qf1 24. Kc2 Bf2 25. Qf3 Qg1
   26. Bd5 c5 27. dxc5 Bc5 28. b4 Bd6 29. a4 a5 30. axb5 axb4 31. Ra6 bxc3
   32. Nc3 Bb4 33. b6 Bxc3 34. Bxc3 h6 35. b7 Re3 36. Bxf7

```

# Answer
I am currently doing some research on the subject and hopefully can provide a more complete answer later, but apparently Capablanca did not invest much time. As he said (extracted from this compilation) about his tenth move:

> I thought for a little while before playing this, knowing that I would be subjected thereafter to a terrific attack, all the lines of which would be of necessity familiar to my adversary. The lust of battle, however, had been aroused within me. I felt that my judgment and skill were being challenged. I decided that I was honor bound, so to speak, to take the pawn and accept the challenge, as my judgment told me that my position should then be defensible. – Jose Raul Capablanca

**Edit 1:** The tournament time controls on the late XIX and early XX centuries were similar (but not exactly the same) to the Classical time control, that is, 120 minutes for 30/40 moves, plus an additional 60 minutes for the next 15/20 moves (with obviously no time added back then, and occasionally 15 extra minutes were added for the rest of the game once the final control was reached). This is backed up by a few links to tournaments like Vienna 1898, Paris 1900 (1), Paris 1900 (2), Ostend 1907, St. Petersburg 1914 and Carlsbad 1929 (and I'll stop the counting here). There were surely many more with this 30 moves on 120 minutes plus 15 moves on 60 minutes or similar time controls.

Thus, I think it's reasonable to assume that Capablanca and Marshall were playing this time control. Now, the opening phase of the game is mainly an automatic one, where if still on book you simply blitz the lines you like. As my coach says, when you know a theoretical line, you don't waste much time thinking about the correctness of such line, you just play it out. Based on actual games from GMs, they invest around 15-30 seconds per move on the opening, that is, the first 10-15 moves (sometimes even more if they enter a big theoretical line). So we can safely assume that Capablanca's time had been reduced by more or less 5-10 minutes by the time he faced the decision to take or not the pawn on the tenth move.

If we assume this reasoning correct, I think that Capablanca had 110 minutes for the remaining 20 moves.

**Edit 2:** As the member batgirl of Chess.com pointed out to me, the information about the time controls for the tournament is available in the tournament book "International Masters' Tournament of the Manhattan Chess Club, October-November, 1918". According to it's 11th page, the rules governing the games at the event were:

> THE CODE AND SUPPLEMENTARY RULES.
>
> The following is a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the players and committeemen, held the day before play was scheduled to begin, and at which a number of special regulations were discussed and adopted to supplement the Revised Draft of the American Chess Code:
>
> At a meeting of the competitors and committee (Messrs. Marshall, Morrison and Whitaker being absent), held at the Manhattan Chess Club on the afternoon of October 20, it was voted to adopt the Revised Draft of the American Chess Code (British Chess Code) as the Code to govern this tournament, insofar as its terms do not conflict with any of the special regulations adopted at this meeting and hereinafter mentioned.
>
> After a discussion of the advisability of the adoption of the rule providing for the moving of the King as a penalty for illegal moves, it was voted to apply this rule (or "Penalty C" of the Code) only to such instances where the illegality affects sealed moves.
>
> It was decided that a game may be declared drawn at any time by mutual consent of opponents.
>
> Where any player sets up a claim (as for a draw because of a threefold repetition of position), which, upon investigation, turns out to be false, such player making false claim shall have charged against his playing time on his clock so much of the time as may be required for examination and demonstration of the claim, provided, however, he is not penalized more than thirty minutes for any one such false claim.
>
> There shall be no analysis by any of the competitors of pending games, either their own or those of other competitors, during the regular sessions of play and the evening intermission, within the confines of the Manhattan Chess Club rooms.
>
> **The time limit shall be Thirty (30) moves in the first two hours and fifteen (15) moves each hour thereafter.**
>
> Any claim for exceeding the time limit must be made before the player, against whom the claim is directed, has completed his 30th, 45th, 60th, 75th (etc.) move. It shall be the duty of the Umpire to declare forfeited any game the moment a player has exceeded the time limit.
>
> In the event of a player's withdrawing from the tournament, the games played by him up to that time shall stand as scored, if at the time of his withdrawal he shall have completed his schedule of games for the entire first round, in which case all of his other scheduled games shall be forfeited to his opponents; if he has not completed the first round (meaning half of the tournament), all of the games played by him shall be cancelled.
>
> Adjourned games shall be played on Mondays in the order of the schedule. All adjourned games must be played to completion before any games of the second round (or half) of the tournament are begun.
>
> The regular hours for play on six days of each week, exclusive of Monday, shall be from 2.30 P. M. to 6.30 P. M. and from 8 P. M. to 11 P. M. On "Mondays the same hours shall obtain for adjourned games.
>
> Appeals from decisions of the umpire shall be submitted to the referee by the tournament committee of the Manhattan Chess Club and at the discretion of the said committee.
>
> The entry fee shall be $20.00 for each player and shall be returned upon completion of his schedule of games, and forfeited if such schedule be not completed.
>
> The prizes shall be: First, $300; second, $200; third, $100; fourth, $50. Non-prize winners shall receive payment at the rate of $5 for each point scored.
>
> Prizes for the most brilliant games: First, $30; second, $20.

Thus, there were 60 minutes added to the clock for every 15 extra moves on the board after the 30th one.
> 8 votes

---
Tags: capablanca, time-control
---


# Question
Title: Draws, castling rights, and the FIDE's 2014 rulebook revision
A question of rulebook pedantry:

Effective July 2014, the FIDE has revised its *Laws of Chess.* As you know, the *Laws* have long allowed a player to claim a draw by repetition. The July 2014 *Laws,* sect. 9.2, however append this curious sentence:

> When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.

Sect. 9.2 does not explicitly link this sentence to the draw by repetition. The sentence floats alone.

Because there seems to be no other reason for the sentence to be in sect. 9.2, one tends to read it to imply that, at game's start, four *castling rights* exist—White's kingside, White's queenside, Black's kingside and Black's queenside—and that these castling rights are as much features of the position as, say, a white pawn on b3 is a feature of the position. White's kingside castling right vanishes when Rh1 or Ke1 is first moved, or when Rh1 is captured (though, actually, sect. 9.2 does not mention the rook's capture), and cannot vanish at any other time or in any other way. Specifically, White's kingside castling right vanishes neither (a) when White is temporarily prevented from castling kingside nor (b) when no legal continuation exists in which White could castle kingside.

In other words, a castling right exists even if it can never be used; and this affects when a draw can be claimed.

Could one read sect. 9.2 in any other way?

For example, this (nonsensical but technically illustrative) game is not yet a draw:

```
[Title "White to open, illustrating sect. 9.2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 b6 6. Bxa8 Bd7 7. Qh5 Qxh5 8. Rb1 Nc6 9. b3 e6 10. Na4 Bd6 11. c3 O-O 12. Nh3 Qe5+ 13. Kf1 Qf5 14. Ke1 Qe5+ 15. Kf1 Qf5 16. Ke1 Qe5+

```

After 12... Qe5+, three castling rights have already vanished, but White's kingside right remains, *even though no continuation exists in which White might eventually castle.* On the other hand, after 14... Qe5+ or 16... Qe5+, all four castling rights have vanished. Therefore, triple repetition has not yet occurred.

Is my understanding correct? Or is an alternate, reasonable interpretation possible?

Further reading:

# Answer
> 4 votes
My interpretation of the rules (which in this aspect I believe to be correct) is the same as yours. Although the example you provide with castling rights is conceptually a little more challenging, the problem is exactly the same as the one arising when the "en passant" rule is allowed on the first move:

```
[Title "White to open, illustrating sect. 9.2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Result "1/2 - 1/2"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. d5 c5 {First time this position happens.} 4. Qf3 Ng8 5. Qd1 Nf6 {Second time this "position" happens, but now white cannot take the pawn en passant, thus making actually this the first time this position happens.} 6. Qf3 Ng8 7. Qd1 Nf6 {Second time this position happens. This is not yet a draw.} 8. Qf3 {EDIT: As the OP pointed out, technically this is the first time a threefold repetition occurs in the game.} Ng8 9. Qd1 Nf6 {Now this is a draw.} 1/2 - 1/2

```

However, nowadays the FIDE rules are very clear and misinterpretations on this subject should (fortunately) no longer be a problem. Article 9.2 now covers both cases, and reads:

> 9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
>
> * is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
> * has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
>
> Positions areconsidered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
>
> * at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
> * a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

So, your (our) interpretation is the correct one, and there is no other possible alternative interpretation.

---
Tags: rules, draw, fide, castling
---


title: Plans in the Petroff Defense

text:
# Question
Title: Plans in the Petroff Defense
What are the typical middlegame planes for black/white in the Petroff defense, more specifically in the variations:

1. Petroff three knights: 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3.
2. Classical Variation: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5.

2.1. Classical Variation with 5. Nc3.
3. Steinitz Variation: 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4.

# Answer
This is really really wide and there are entire books written on this topic. But a few words of comment from me:

ad 1: First of all, it's not necessarily Petrov's anymore. `3. ... - Nc6` transposes into Four Knight's / Scotch for example (yeah, entire books here as well). `3. ... - Bb4` is a bit more "Petrov's" move. Then something like `4. Ne5 - 0-0 5. Be2 - Re8 6. Nd3 - Bc3 7. dc3 - Ne4` and we have a kind of Ruy Lopez with a tempo more.

ad 2: a) I think there's no point in typing here whole lines of theory. In this variation, IMHO, you need to prepare `c4` sooner or later. Otherwise it's unlikely to get advantage. The second line you mentioned `5. Nc3` is about getting ahead in development. The cost of it isn't that high. It's doubled c-pawns which are not an issue as long as there are pieces on board. (Fortunately, black has `d-pawn`. With `e-pawn` those structures might be problematic when it comes to endgames. So a tip from this sentence might be "rather don't exchange on e5 letting black capture with d-pawn"). Usually White is able to launch some attack on black's kingside castle.

ad 3: I have never played those lines in my life. Sorry.

Anyway, Petrov's defense is rather logical and quite easy to play. You don't even have to know theory very well to get slightly advantageous position by thinking at the table. As I mentioned before, you should narrow your question a bit. To get a really valuable answer we would have to rewrite whole books here :)
> 4 votes

---
Tags: middlegame, petroff-defense
---


# Question
Title: How do I play against this kind of position with double c pawn?
Continuing my question on double `c`-pawn.I am studying on this topic and I came to this position.

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Qe7 9.Re1 Nd8 10.d4 Ne6 11.Bc1 c5 12.Bf1 Rd8 13.d5 Nf8 14.c4

```

In my opinion, black's position is better here due to the double knights. However, I couldn't find any concrete continuation in this position for black.

1. `Ng6-Nh4-Nf4` seems intuitive but then, I don't want to give up knights easily.
2. It's hard to exploit the double `c`-pawns.
3. `Bg4` swapping the knight for bishop seems appealing but I don't know if this is good as this gives white double bishop advantage in endgame.

**My question is that**

1. Is my analysis true?
2. Is `11. ...c5`,the pawn break good (or are there any mistakes in the previous move)?
3. Are there any other ways to break this position?
4. Who stands better here?

# Answer
This reminds me of this article by Jeremy Silman. The position you discuss is difficult to evaluate, as both parties have assets and drawbacks.

The first thing to notice is that the position is closed. Thus, if it doesn't open up, certainly black is not standing worse because of the two knights. However, these knights are severely restricted, and if you play:

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Qe7 9.Re1 Nd8 10.d4 Ne6 11.Bc1 c5 12.Bf1 Rd8 13.d5 Nf8 14.c4 Ng6!? 15. g3!

```

This last move deprives the knights of many good squares, and they do not seem so useful now. Moreover, we shall not forget that white already possesses the bishop pair, and any plans involving `b5` will open the position for the `Bf1` to come to life. Other plans for white to consider at this point are `Rab1` and at some point `f4` to blast the position open. Black needs to find active play to avoid getting excessively pressured by the bishops. This can go via `h6-g5`, since all black pieces are on the kingside and it makes sense to start an attack there (plus, has the advantage of discouraging `f4` and keeping the position closed).

Now that we have outlined the main characteristics of the position, to your questions:

1. Your analysis is correct as long as the position remains closed: black has more or less equalized. However, he cannot sit and wait, he needs active play to avoid getting too much pressure on the `b7` pawn and having the position uncontrolled when opened.
2. The move `11. ... c5` is correct, but the pawn break `b5` is probably not the move you are looking for, since it opens files for both the `Bf1` and the `Rb1`, that will inevitable end up there.
3. The GM Akiba Rubinstein followed a very original play, by keeping a knight and the position closed, he benefited from the fact that the `c5` square is extremely weak, and a knight there is not easily dislodged. You can learn more about it on the above referenced article, but in general, black does *not* want to open the position.
4. The position as it is is basically equal, black might have a slight advantage concerning the activity of the minor pieces (those two nice knights) but white has this same advantage about the major pieces, with the semi-open `b`file. It is up to the players to choose a good plan and implement it correctly, but white is easier to play from a practical point of view.
> 2 votes

# Answer
ad 1: Partially, yes. Ng6 is a good move but it will get surely met by white's g3. That's natural. Still u want to move your knight from f8, this square is for your rook.

ad 2: Of course c5 was a good move. You played the opening correctly!

ad 3: Yes, the natural plan is to prepare f5 break. Something like Ng6, Rf8, Nh7, f5

ad 4: I would say rather equals. White has pair of bishops but c-pawns might be an issue later on. Good position to evaluate players' strength. Good luck!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: strategy, doubled-pawn
---


title: Worth of a piece in time

text:
# Question
Title: Worth of a piece in time
Let us say that two players are playing each other. The are supposed to be in the same level (You can take that as an equal longtime ELO). They might be playing blitz, or rapid. But suddently, one of them blunders a pawn. Too bad. But the guy with one less pawn has more time. Is he compensated?

So to clear this out:

Is there a formula, supposing that the pieces have the following values:

* Pawn - 1
* Knight/Bishop - 3
* Rook - 5
* Queen - 9

And that there is a time difference between both players.

Regarding all factors, so remaining time for both players, increment, is there a formula that calculates what a piece is worth in time?

Increment will be a very important factor to consider. Because increment can save you if you have a very small amount of time.

Also the results cannot be precise to the maximum. We will suppose that the position would be equal if the lost piece was suddenly there. So 0.00.

Please ask me in the comments if you need any extra details.

EDIT:

In the comments it was noted to me that a passed pawn position could be fatal. So I am adding this condition:

The position will be valued by an computer program as 1.00 if a pawn is lost, 3.00 if a knight/bishop is lost, etc. This is to limit the search to games where the win is still unclear.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This question can hardly have an objective answer, as the time controls and the strength of the players both matter a lot while valuing material and time management. A partial answer would be given assuming a time control of 1 minute. For this time control, regardless of the strength of the players, we can safely say that on lost positions the knight is the most valuable piece (after the queen). This is stated many times by IM Daniel Rensch on his Bullet Brawl Series.

When the player possessing the knight has more time, this difference is accentuated as he may look for tricks and swindles to try to make his opponent blunder or even lose on time. The forking ability of the knight is what makes it such a good piece in bullet, as some times the fork occurs and the knight cannot even be captured after he wins one of the forked pieces. This advantage is almost completely nullified when there is some kind of increment, allowing the players to take their time and think a bit more about the position.

---
Tags: blitz, point-value, pieces
---


# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Declined: Why 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 rather than 2..Bf5?
Why has it become standard to decline the queen's gambit as below:

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6

```

which blocks the bishop, rather than:

```
[fen ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5

```

?

By analogy to the king's gambit:

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5

```

# Answer
First, as @RemcoGerlich pointed out extremely well, the analogy is not exactly the same:

> And the analogy to the king's gambit is flawed because there `3. Kg3` isn't a move ;-), and `3. fxe5` is not a threat because `3. ... Qh4+` is devastating. That means in the QG white actually has pressure on the `d5` pawn, and in the KG he doesn't, at least not yet. Someone should combine these comments and make an answer, I don't have time... – RemcoGerlich Sep 9 at 7:38

But the most important reason why this is not played is that there *will* be too much pressure on the `d5` pawn by the natural move `Nc3` and even `Qb3` in some cases. This means it's not a good time to start developing pieces, not to say breaking the "principle" of knights getting developed before bishops, as the pawn has to be supported.

A good example was provided by @kahen:

> @AlwaysLearningNewStuff `1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5 3. Qb3 e5!?` is quite messy though. White gets the upper hand more easily with the simple `3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3` or `3. cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ Qd7 5.Qxd7+ Nxd7 6.Rxb1 Ngf6` – kahen Sep 8 at 21:15

Taking a look at the mentioned lines:

```
[StartPly "4"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5 3. Nc3 (3. Qb3 e5!?) (3. cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ Qd7 5.Qxd7+ Nxd7 6.Rxb1 Ngf6) e6 4. Nf3 {This is the main answer to black's second move. Notice how the black bishop can be easily exchanged by one of the knights if white wants to (and gaining the bishop pair in the process), and also how the b7 pawn can be subjected to attack by Qb3, putting further pressure also on d5.}

```

The thing is, this line gives white too many options concerning developing with tempo and forces black to catch up to him on every move. While not directly losing, it's understandable that modern chess players prefer to avoid such problems by leaving the bishop on its starting square, and seizing the initiative otherwise.
> 3 votes

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


title: Busted openings

text:
# Question
Title: Busted openings
http://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-busting-the-king-s-gambit-this-time-for-sure

The link is to a chessbase article speaking about a group of researchers who claim that that king's gambit is busted. While this was an April Fools prank, is this technically possible? With modern software(Stockfish 5, open-source at that), new software, and the fact that it has worked before, has there been any similar research? Have openings such as the Fried Liver Attack been disproved by a chess engine evaluation?

A small clarification. Not disproved by a GM who has some small support by an engine, but by a full on Rybka(Or other chess engine) analysis, like in the article. I am also interested in projects that are still running, or even have just started.

# Answer
There are no complete openings refuted by computer analysis from scratch as far as I know. There has been computer assistance in the analysis of more than a few gambits, here you can look for more details. However, in modern opening theory, computer evaluations (running on powerful software) are given a very high regard by the top players, and this has caused some openings to fall in use, as being thought to not provide any advantage. One of these opening is the Italian game:

```
[Title "Italian game - drawing line"]
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4 7. Bd2 Nxe4 {This was considered to be a greedy line that lead nowhere for black, since white gets active play and centralizes his pieces effortlessly. Nowadays, this has become a drawing line for black.} 8. Bxb4 Nxb4 9. Bxf7 Kxf7 10. Qb3 d5 11. Ne5 Ke6! {This was the discovery of the computer.} (11...Ke8 12.Qxb4 {This was the old line, with a very comfortable game for white.}) 12. Qxb4 Qf8! {And now the black queen attacks both the white queen and the f2 pawn, forcing the exchange.} 13. Qxf8 Rxf8 {The position is absolutely equal.}

```

The problem is the huge number of variations the computer has to calculate. This number of different chess positions is considered to be around 10^50, and these positions can be achieved via many different move orders. Thus, the current algorithms that involve MinMax and similar weight-based methods can hardly cover a fraction of those variants.

An enlightening example is to see how the endgame tablebases are generated. They start from the mated position and go backwards, they do *not* use the tree-search that characterizes computer engines because it has too many branches for an efficient computation. This is a reason why a computer sometimes gives advantages in theoretically drawn positions: he does not see the end of the variation.

IMHO, it doesn't really make sense to have a project to solve an opening (at least not operating in polynomial time) due to the enormous number of possible lines and the time that takes to analyze them all.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, engines
---


title: London Chess Classic 2013 Format

text:
# Question
Title: London Chess Classic 2013 Format
I have never been into watching live chess, and I found it strange that anyone disagrees with me, but the format of London Chess Classic 2013 was just perfect.

Like the rest of the civilized world, I grew up watching the Football World (known as soccer to Americans), and group stages followed by knockout phase is perfect in my opinion.

The length of each game is perfect 25 min. + 10 sec. I have always thought that thinking too long is cheating (because I can't), and why not just watch two Deep Blues tie after a few hours if you have that classical game fetish?

The scoring system is a no-brainer. Everything should be like football (though I might accept 2 points for being white/home-court and 3 for black/away).

So, after this rant I would ask this to you smarter chess fans: Where I can find similar events?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There are other two very important events that follow a different scoring system for the games than the usual W - 1, D - 1/2, L - 0. The first is the Bilbao Masters, you can find information about it on their main site. Although they do not feature short games, the points awarded are W - 3, D - 1, L - 0. The other is the Zurich Chess Challenge, also interesting information is available on their main site. This event features several blitz, rapid and classical rounds, the blitz pgames only count for the initial standings, while others receive different points (W - 1, D - 1/2, L - 0 for the rapid and W - 2, D - 1, L - 0 for the classical) according to the time controls.

There are very few events that feature a distribution of points per game different to the classic one. But if you are only interested in watching rapid chess, I would consider the first part of the Tal Memorial, the Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships and the tiebreaks of the World Cup. All of this events are held anually.

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


title: On rapid /Armageddon tiebreakers

text:
# Question
Title: On rapid /Armageddon tiebreakers
Do these playoffs count as official matches? So do you lose win ELO in playing rapid tiebreakers? Also in blitz playoffs, such as the one in Norway Chess 2014, do they count towards official rating?

# Answer
In general, yes, all of the games played in an official event count and can make you lose or win rating points.

For example, rapid tiebreaks in the World Cup count for the rapid FIDE rating, while the Armageddon tiebreaks count as blitz. In the Norway Chess, the classification process via blitz games also counts for the FIDE blitz rating.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: elo, blitz, rapid
---


# Question
Title: Is it poor form to win a drawn position on time?
I was playing a 3-minute game, my opponent had around 15 seconds to my ~50 seconds when he managed to cancel out the last pawns to make it so we each had a king and a rook. I let his time run out and he accused me of poor form. Should that have been a draw?

# Answer
> 18 votes
This is opinion based and therefore not a great fit for the Stack Exchange format, but here are my thoughts anyway.

The lower the time limit, the more acceptable it is from a sportsmanship view. In standard long time controls, this is really poor form. In 1-minute ("bullet"), anything goes, including this. The reasoning is that in these really fast forms of chess, the clock is as much a part of the game as the board is (so 15 vs 50 seconds is actually a type of winning position), whereas in slow chess the clock is more of a necessary concession to tournament organizers, not something equal games should be decided on.

I'm in doubt about 3 minute chess. It's very fast, but I'm not sure on which side of the fence it is, that'll be different from person to person.

Personally I always offer a draw when this position arises, but then I only play for fun, not for big bucks.

K + B vs K + B with bishops on opposite colors is even worse, it's hardly even possible to make a blunder in that. At least with rooks you have to watch out for skewers.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Though in long time controls, there is a slight courtesy, quick time controls is perfectly okay to win on time.

---
Tags: draw, etiquette, time-control
---


# Question
Title: What are the official rules if your opponent makes an illegal move?
I heard that they lose some time or that they lose the game. I'm not sure what happens.

# Answer
By the FIDE Laws of Chess, article 7.4:

> 7.4

> * a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3 and 4.6 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.

> * b. After the action taken under Article 7.4.a, for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

That is, on the two first illegal moves of your opponent, you gain time on your clock (two minutes, which likely does nothing), but on the third illegal move of your opponent, they lose the game (unless it was already impossible for them to lose it).
> 6 votes

# Answer
When it comes to Blitz games (5 minutes or 3 minutes + 2 seconds) first illegal move loses the game on the spot. Other solutions (like adding 2 minutes) would lead to total confusion.

Keep in mind, after your oponent has made an illegal move, you are obliged to:

* stop the clock
* call the arbiter
* explain what happened

(btw, you must have time on your clock, if you are already at 0:00 then you can't do anything)
> 3 votes

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


# Question
Title: What are the characteristics of a good chess board?
I just read the question: What are some good quality magnetic chess sets? and I was left with a few more general questions:

1. What is a comfortable board size for home vs travel?
2. What height of chess pieces are most common?
3. What type of wood indicates a quality board?
4. What board companies are most reputable?
5. Are magnetic boards good to have for home tables?
6. Any other important things to consider when purchasing a board?

# Answer
> 3 votes
1. home - 3.75" king on 2.25" squares. Travel - no opinion. But the USCF used to sell a chess board 'wallet' that would fold up (with the pieces) and go in your pocket. Perhaps they still do.
2. 3.75" King for me. No more, no less.
3. Any hardwood. I like maple and walnut.
4. House of Staunton, but you'll pay top dollar. While you are there, check out their Reykjavic II chess set. Ah, the board and set combo (with a box!) is on sale. I prefer boxwood and ebony, but boxwood and ebonized boxwood works for me too.
5. It is unnecessary.
6. A vinyl board just rolls up - easy to store, easy to take to the club. Another option is to make your own. Here's one I made. And here's another, with the steps I took.

---
Tags: chessboards, chess-set
---


title: Resources on the caveman Caro-Kann

text:
# Question
Title: Resources on the caveman Caro-Kann
The caveman Caro-Kann goes:

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bg5!?

```

Any anotated games, resourses, books, etc, are apreciated.

# Answer
There is some analysis at the Kenilworthian blog. See http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2007/caro-adv-h4.htm http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2011/cavewoman.htm http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2013/complete-caveman.htm http://kenilworthian.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-complete-caveman-caro-kann\_20.html

Download for the PGN: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/kenilworth-pgn/complete-caveman.pgn

and also analysis by Dennis Monokroussos here: http://www.thechessmind.net/storage/chess-posts/anand\_shirov\_leon2011\_day3.htm
> 7 votes

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


title: Tricks to force stalemate?

text:
# Question
Title: Tricks to force stalemate?
When playing against a novice player, how can you attempt to force stalemate (please don't ask how you would get there against a novice player)

# Answer
> 7 votes
I assume you are asking how to force your opponent to stalemate you, rather than vice versa.

1. Get rid of almost all of your pieces, except for your queen or rooks, or pieces that are pinned against your king.
2. Make sure all your pawns are blocked and can't move.
3. Make sure your king has no legal moves.
4. Check his king relentlessly with whatever pieces remain, feeling free to place the pieces where they can be taken, such as adjacent to his king.
5. Ideally, you are now in a situation where either he will be subject to perpetual check or he will take all your remaining pieces and you will be stalemated.

Keep in mind that this is not an actual strategy that ever works except 1) against novices, 2) in blitz games, or 3) in very rare circumstances in serious games. But those circumstances do exist. Generally you find that two of the first three steps in this process have already happened and start looking for ways to engineer the rest. Evans-Reshevsky is the most famous example of a stalemate swindle in top-level play.

---
Tags: stalemate
---


# Question
Title: Queen's Gambit Accepted, but Couldn't Capitalize
```
[StartPly "8"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 Ba6

```

White to move.

How to capitalize on this variation of Queen's Gambit Accepted for white? I've never seen this counter before.

Couldn't get pawn back and couldn't develop properly due to cramped queen-side.

# Answer
You can play `5. axb5` and transpose to the answers to this question (Queen's Gambit Accepted with black trying to defend the `c` file pawn with `4... Bd7`).
> 5 votes

# Answer
Following from the last line:

```
[StartPly "8"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 Ba6 5.axb5 Bxb5 6.Nc3 {If black tries to defend the pawn:} Ba6 7.Qf3 c6 {The only reply that doesn't instantly lose the rook.} 8.Rxa6 Nxa6 9.Qxc6+ Qd7 10.Qxa8+ Qd8 11.Qc6+ Qd7 12.Qxa6

```

Killing him.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, queens-gambit, queens-gambit-accepted
---


title: About possible chess variations

text:
# Question
Title: About possible chess variations
Is there a chess variant for a 6x6 board that has interesting possible game-play just like regular chess obviously has? Maybe one that has real competitions and is not as long an intense chessgame (that is not speed- chess)

# Answer
> 2 votes
6x6 chess exist. See this page from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess#6.C3.976\_chess.

---
Tags: chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: Does black have an advantage if white plays 1. h4
White would playing as if they are black, but with the insertion of h4. Does this insertion give enough advantage to white to at least equalize? Does the insertion of h4 weaken white's position even more than if white skipped his first move.

# Answer
Imagine a variation that there is white's Bg5 or Ng5 which should be met h6. I mean theoretical lines. And then play with black as you were white. I think that `1. h4` makes white worse than black usually is.

* White has difficulties with castling short
* g4 instantly weak
> 3 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Does black really have a disadvantage?

text:
# Question
Title: Does black really have a disadvantage?
Most people say chess is a draw, and it is quite believable, white is but a tempo up, and skill plays a lot of part in the game. But even the most skillful agree that blunders are made, in some games more than other.

How have blunders affected black losses? Have games where black lost been only played best or second best moves?

How many games, out of the ones that white won, ended because of blunders, and could have been saved otherwise? Is there a statistic for this?

# Answer
We have no way of knowing this, chess isn't remotely close to being solved. We only know that as opening theory digs deeper, it finds it harder and harder to find advantages for white, so the game is probably a draw. But that's no proof.

*If* the game is a draw, then any game that is won by either side must involve at least 1 wrong move. But we don't know which move was wrong. It is *likely* that most games involve quite a few bad moves. Mine do, anyway.

Using a computer doesn't help -- they're nowhere near strong enough. A match between the two strongest computers on really strong hardware gives many decisive results, so they're not playing perfectly, and they look much deeper than 10 ply. Their scores (+2, -2, etc) are merely estimates and not the final truth.

White does have a *practical* advantage, proven by the fact that white consistently scores a little bit better than black on all levels. Apparently, white gets positions that are *easier to play right*.
> 11 votes

# Answer
Imagine a game of Tug Of War played where Black starts twice as close to the dividing line as White does. If both teams "play perfectly", it will be a draw and neither side will be drawn over the line. But in practice the Black team has a lower margin for error than White does and is more likely to lose than White is. That is the case in chess. Black doesn't lose more because he blunders more often, he loses more because he has less room for error.
> 6 votes

# Answer
**Yes.** In chess, white has the advantage.

**Why?**:

1. Cause they play first, so they can narrow the huge amount of possible lines, by choosing the initial movement (one in twenty possible) what causes the game start being a little predictive.
2. The second movement (first by black) depends largely on this white's initial movement. So, we can say that already (in black's first movement) they are restrain to a fewer set of moves (not in the legal way, but in the tactical or strategic way).
3. Because we are humans, and we do get distracted by little psychological advantages. Like playing first. I do agree, that if played perfectly, chess should always be draw. But humans or computers, due to the incredible large amount of possible games, are so far away from a perfect game of chess, we should not consider chess as a theoretical finite game, and we should take deeply in consideration all the human variables that get's in play.
4. Math!. Statistics shows that. If you take a look at statistics, white does wins more than black, enough to say that there is a relation between who moves first and who wins.
5. Theory. Much material by Grand Masters who have spend their lives in chess, do get a clear advantage to white, and spend whole chapters/books on: for white, how to use the advantage to win, for black, how to draw.
6. White can even play relaxed in the begging, like playing 1. Nf3 or similar, so it can pass the initial stress to the opponent.

---

I will edit, to show some references, and review my English.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Black is not necessarily disadvantaged ie You want to play Ponziani's Opening or the Scotch Game or other similar e4 game. Black replies with a Modern or a Pirc or something similar none open game,or even the Petrof defence! White is now disadvantaged as he has to steer away from his 'favourites' and into the KIA. You have to know far more games openings on the Kings side than on the Queens side,- fact. I have seen stats that say that more white wins come from the queens side,despite all the forore about the attacking Kings side. Apart from that, common sense tell us that if there were a 'forced win' in chess, for either side,then simply nobody would play the game. Less room for error, in Blacks case - Yes I agree with dfan. Thus we have the answer we seek, and that is this:- YOU WIN OFF OF YOUR OPPONENTS MISTAKE. Cheers.
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is a theory that white would have the disadvantage, because he's the first to ruin his/her position. This is based on the concept of zugzang:

"Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced \[ˈtsuːktsvaŋ\]) is a situation found in chess and other games, where one player is put at a disadvantage because he must make a move when he would prefer to pass and not to move. The fact that the player is compelled to move means that his position will become significantly weaker. A player is said to be "in zugzwang" when any possible move will worsen his position.\[1\]"

Although this has not actually been proven.

For more information on zugzang:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang
> 0 votes

# Answer
Yes, black does really have a dissadvantage. This is because white always goes first allowing white to be able to gain a checkmate
> -4 votes

---
Tags: theory, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Is it legal to use a chess database in correspondence chess?
Someone told me that you can use a chess database for correspondence chess, but this seems a little like cheating. Does anyone has some information on this subject.

# Answer
According to the official rules of the International Correspondence Chess Federation, you are allowed and encouraged to. It is regarded as learning an opening. Of course, there are different rules for some sites, but most sites follow the ICCF rules.
> 8 votes

# Answer
In accordance with the reference to the ICCF, I think that it's also placed upon you and your correspondent to agree to such things: It's not something that should be kept secret from your opponent.
> 2 votes

# Answer
My teacher always said that using engines and suchlike didn't matter, as generally players in correspondence chess can analyse deeper than a computer can. That was a few years ago, so the state of technology might have changed now. Also, this probably only applies if you are above certain level of ability.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: learning, database, correspondence-chess
---


# Question
Title: How much worse would I play if I played blindfolded?
Suppose I played a chess game with 60 minutes on both side. I play blindfolded while my opponent does not. Assuming that my rating is 2000 fide, what rating would my opponent have to be so that the expected score is a draw? Is this dependent on a person's rating? This question might be hard to answer. I am interested to know if anyone has any insight from their experience playing blindfolded.

# Answer
I think it is ridiculous to assume that someone's normal rating would in any way be indicative of their blindfold rating. Your understanding of chess and ability to play with the chess pieces in front of you has little to do with your ability to hold all of the information in your head.

The only assumptions you can make are:

**A)** a person isn't going to be better at blindfold chess than they are at regular chess

**B)** someone with a higher rating in regular chess is *more likely* to be better at blindfold chess than a lower rated player.
> 4 votes

# Answer
My suspicion is that your blind strength increases in some relation to your **sighted strength** as well as your **experience with blindfolded play**, but I very much doubt that there's a specific (or even vague) formula. For instance, this article (actually a review of *Blindfold Chess* by Eliot Hearst and John Knott) mentions that "Some of the strongest blindfold chess masters claim that the strength of their blindfold play is similar to that of their sighted play."

Answering this question "definitively" would likely require a dedicated study on the topic (an idea also mentioned in that review), pitting players of varying strengths against one another multiple times, alternately blindfolded and not, and comparing all the results. It would be a very interesting study, I think!
> 2 votes

---
Tags: elo, blindfold-chess
---


title: Scotch Opening - How to play

text:
# Question
Title: Scotch Opening - How to play
Does anybody have some indication of a book, site, video, etc,, which explores this variation of Scotch Opening for Black?

```
[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 6.c3

```

I have lost a lot of games playing 5...Qf6. Does there exist some good continuation for black here? If not, what should be the alternative to 5...Qf6?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I'd recommend Starting Out: The Scotch

It covers everything the Scotch has to offer, and it is written by an expert player in it.

Like the rest of the Starting out Series, it explains everything you will ever need to know on the opening. It offers great tips on whatnot.

There are lots of sources for minor stuff. Chess Caffe is a great source.

Also playing makes you understand it more. Hope it helps!

# Answer
> 4 votes
I suggest you also have a look at The Scotch Game by Yelena Dembo and Richard Pallister. This is *not* a book for people wanting to discover and learn the ideas of the opening, but rather a complete repertoire for white to play it. Thus, it offers several possible continuations for white in almost every variation, all explored in depth and detail (which suits your needs as black, as you'll know what may be played against you).

Concerning the line you ask for, it is a main line, so it is deeply covered. Bear in mind that the Scotch Game is almost a gambit (and a completely different one to the Scotch Gambit, the sacrificed pawn is e4 and not d4. This leads to quite different positions), so many times you don't "lose" the e4 pawn (or "win", as you are black), you are (at least at high level chess) sacrificing it for a very strong attack if black accepts it (which he usually does not, it is very dangerous).

The main line you ask for is:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 (5. Nb3 {Is a very reasonable and interesting sideline that offers good prospects (even attacking chances!), both in the middlegame and endgame. However, it is regarded as offering only a tiny edge for white.}) Qf6 6.c3 Nge7 7. Bc4 (7. g3 d5 8. Bg2 dxe4 9. Nd2 Bxd4 10. cxd4 Bf5 {The d4 pawn is taboo, as the knight comes to e4 with tempo on the queen and double attacking d4.} 11. Nxe4 Bxe4 12. Bxe4 O-O-O {This is a sideline that, if I remember correctly, is also looked at in the book.}) Ne5 8. Be2 Qg6 9. O-O  d6 {In the main line, black does not want to accept the pawn. The danger is quite real.}

```

Now, of course, these lines have some theory, despite being quite linear. Moreover, any slight misstep by any of the players usually result in the lost of the game, as the line is razor sharp. This is why some grandmasters now are playing `5.Nb3` against it.

And a proof that the whole setup sacrifices the e4 pawn is:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4 {Where white loses the pawn by force.}

```

Now, if you want a quick look at the book, you can download it from here, but if you like it, I suggest you buy it. After all, the authors have spend many hours of work on it and deserve compensation.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The book the scotch game explained by Gary Lane has a chapter that covers the variation in question.

Looking here Qf6 is played in the majority of games from the line up until that point. If you are not happy with the line maybe look at a different reply to the scotch.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Instead of Bc5, black can play Bb4+. This is what is recommended by chessexplained(youtube channel).

---
Tags: opening, learning, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Do chess masters think with the board flipped when playing black?
Or do they always keep white on the bottom, as is the case with most historic games? Wouldn't it be easier for them to spot patterns from old games if they always oriented the board the same way in their minds?

# Answer
In *Blindfold Chess* (Hearst-Knott; reviewed and summarized here), a natural beginning place for studying the thought processes of chess masters, the authors discover this (quote from the link):

> blindfold chess masters consistently report that what they visualize are not images of pieces or chessboards, but abstractions of these with minimal or no physical features.

And later, they describe their mental state in a variety of telling ways:

> “no mental pictures,” “abstract knowledge,” “I know where the pieces are,” “only an abstract type of representation,” “only relationships,” “no real picture,” “the significance of a piece,” “knowing what combination or plan is in progress,” “lines of force,” “pieces are only friend or foe, carriers of particular actions,” “sort of formless visions of the positions,” and so forth. Many of the masters report that they have no mental image at all (p.151).

This suggests that your question is actually based on a faulty premise: that chess masters explicitly visualize a board while contemplating a position. Instead of colored pieces "visualized" on a board, they seem likely to think about the position in a more abstract fashion.

The source covers blindfold chess, naturally, but I would be astonished if the same concepts were not true for most masters in general.

---

I'm not master level myself, but for what it's worth, I would also describe my mentalization process in similar, abstract terms. I almost never "picture" the board.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: analysis, grandmaster, psychology
---


title: What do I do next?

text:
# Question
Title: What do I do next?
So I've been playing chess for about 7 months regularly. I learned basic movements years and years ago but tactically there was nothing. Over the 7 months tactically I've learned basic moves, beginner tactics and things. I slowed my game down and I've noticed significant improvement. I'm ready to take the next step. I have not studied any openings, mid game or end game strategies. What comes first, or does there need to be a balance?

# Answer
I heard that Russian professional players start by studying endgame, then middle game, then openings.

If you think about it, that makes sense: if you don't master winning or forcing draw with 2 pieces against 1, how can you know how to play correctly with 16 pieces against 16?

A lot of things in openings don't make sense if you don't consider things like pawn structure, which can determine win or loss in the endgame, and determine whether your advantage is in exchanging material or ensuring mobility for your pieces during the middle game. That's one example among many.

In general, if you know which endgames are good for you and which are bad, you know what to look for during the middle game. Same reasoning applies with openings.

That would be my advice. Besides, play with stronger players who can teach you things.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Tony has it right in his comment. The only way that you're going to proceed beyond beginner level is to start playing regularly in person against people stronger than you. If you play with the same group often they will also be able to identify holes in your game which you can fix during your study time.
> 5 votes

# Answer
In my opinion: you need to play a lot, and you need to know what great chess looks like, as a source of inspiration. Chess isn't a school subject, it's a beautiful game.

I would get *one* really great chess book, of the "instructive game collection" type. So that you can replay the games, try to emulate them, and come back to them lots of times and learn a new thing each time.

For many players who started in the 70s, Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" was that book, but a lot of heavy competition has come out since then.

My recommendation would be Polgar's "How I Beat Fischer's Record". It's the first book of three, she wrote them as a collection of her games that are also teaching books. They got ridiculously good reviews. She wrote them together with Mihail Marin, who is one of the best instructive chess writers alive. Her story is inspiring (best female player ever, youngest GM ever at the time she became GM, etc), but most of all she's one of the most attacking players ever and attacking chess is the way most people wish they could play. Let Judit guide you!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: learning, beginner
---