# Question
Title: Can Black defend in this difficult position?
Can Black reach solid and defensible position in the below diagram? I understand that Black will have to apply "equalize over time" method, so to help posters keep the analysis brief, I am interested in position that offers realistic chances to reach equality over time.

```
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r3kb1r/ppp1pppp/n4n2/1N1P5/8/4B3/PPP1NPPP/2KR3R b kq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
I'd like to point out that I tend to post Stockfish's entire tree of moves, but anything past the first 4 or 5 full moves is likely fiction.

*To answer the OP's question, the answer is "with perfect play, Black looks lost. However, Black is not so lost he can't offer resistance." Giving up on the game makes no sense to me since imperfect play got Black into this situation to begin with. With staunch resistance, perhaps White will err as Black did previously.*

EDIT - 1... Nxd5 2. Rxd5 c6 3.Re5 and black is lost\` variation shows White's advantage dropping to .5

The ever-practical Stockfish sees the following after several minutes. It decides that the `d5` pawn is the problem and removes it. In the main line, White ends up with a 1 point advantage. The good news is that Black is well positioned to defend.

In the `1...Nxd5` variation, Stockfish says White is slightly better than the main-line. I'm going to have to look at this one a bit more. It's... odd.

In the variation at move 3, Stockfish rates the final position as -.5, but I don't see how Black's extra piece is going to save him from the pawn onslaught.

```
[Title "Black to move (Stockfish)"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r3kb1r/ppp1pppp/n4n2/1N1P5/8/4B3/PPP1NPPP/2KR3R b kq - 0 1"]

1... e6 (1...Nxd5 2.Rxd5 c6 3.Rd2 (3.Re5 cxb5 4.Rxb5 b6 5.Rd5 Nb4 6.Rd2 e6 7.Nc3 Rd8 8.Rhd1 Rxd2) cxb5 4.Rhd1 b4 5.Bxa7 e6 6.Bb6 h5 7.Rd7 h4) 2.dxe6 fxe6 3.Rhe1 ( 3.Nxa7 c6 4.Nd4 Bc5 5.Ndxc6 Bxe3+ 6.fxe3 bxc6 7.Nxc6 Rf8 8.Rhf1 Ng4 9.Rxf8+ Kxf8 10.b4 Nxe3 11.Rd3 Nd5 12.Rf3+ Ke8 13.a3 Kd7 14.Ne5+ Kd6 15.Nc4+ Ke7 16.Kb2 Nf6 17.Rg3 g6 18.Rd3 Nc7 19.Ne5 Ncd5 20.c4 Nf4 21.Nc6+ Kf7 )Kf7 4.Ng1 c6 5.Nd4 e5 6.Nb3 b6 7.Nf3 Re8 8.Kb1 Nb4 9.Nbd2 e4 10.Nd4 Rd8 11.a3 c5 12.Nb5 Nc6 13.h3 Be7 14.Nc3 h6 15.Ndxe4

```
> 1 votes

# Answer
Can't Black just win a Pawn?

1... Nxd5 2. Rxd5 c6 3. Rd2 cxb5

Then White can try to regain his Pawn back with 4. Nc3 or 4. Nd4

Probably Black can't defend the Pawn with 4...Nc7 because White can attack it with 5. Bf4

But Black can try just 4...b4, and then have you got enough compensation for the Pawn White? Probably yes, more than enough compensation. But I think Black can hold this.
> 1 votes

# Answer
Black's going to have a hard go of it, for sure, though no plan for White stands out

1...g6 2. Rhe1 Bg7, now what? Can White bring any more pressure to bear on c7 or e7? Will a gradual expansion on the queenside do?

I think the second is more likely, because I think Black might opt to give up the a-pawn or the c-pawn because it's the only way to complete his development. Then White surely would have good winning chances.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, scandinavian-defense, novelties
---


title: Can Black equalize?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Black equalize?
I am working hard on improving certain line, and no matter how much I try I get no headway. I am forced to delve into risky lines, so I am asking for help to determine if Black can equalize in the following position:

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "rn2kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/1q1P4/2N5/P1P1NPPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
First of all, let's see how this position is arrived at. This itself will help us evaluate the position and tell us whether Black can equalize, without even performing any detailed analysis.

```
[Event "Queen moves around, wasting time"]
[FEN ""]

      1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qe5+ 4. Be2 Bg4 5. d4 Bxe2 6. Ngxe2 Qa5 7. b4 Qxb4

```

If we see Black's play, Black played a very peculiar **3...Qe5+**, forcing White to develop a piece (**Be2**). Then Black attacked that piece with **4...Bg4**. White continued development with **5. d4**, chasing away the queen, gaining a tempo. Black was now forced to exchange the Bishop with **5...Bxe2**, but White used that to his advantage by bringing his **g1** knight into the game with **Ngxe2**. Now, **f3** would be the best square for this knight, so Black gained something from this exchange. However, Black is tremendously lagging in development. Two of White's pieces are already developed, White has a strong pawn center, the Black queen has to move. After **6... Qa5** **7. b4!** White opens another line for his rook to come into the game at the cost of a pawn. Analysis will show that Black cannot hold on to the material advantage, but even without analysis we can simply assess this position as good for White because the Black queen's position is quite bad, the **b7** and **c7** squares are weak and White's piece activity is tremendous.

Now, here's some complementary analysis with Houdini 1.5 and Stockfish 4.2 which proves the above point. After **7...Qxb4**, I initially thought of **8. Rb1**, but it seems that after **8...Qc4!** the Black queen finds a safe refuge. Hence the computer move **8. Qd3!**, developing the queen and preventing **Qc4** is quite strong.

```
   [Event "White's lead in development is too much for Black"]
   [FEN ""]

   1. e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qe5+ 4. Be2 Bg4 5. d4 Bxe2 6. Ngxe2 Qa5 7. b4 Qxb4
   8.  Qd3 Qd6 9. Rb1 b6 10. Bf4 Qd7 11. Qf3 c6 (11...  Qc6 12. Nb5!)
   (11... Nc6 12. d5 Na5 13. Nb5 Rc8 14. Nxa7 Rd8 15. Nb5 Rc8 16. O-O Nf6
    17. Rfd1 Nc4 18. Nec3 Nd6 19. Re1! Nc4 20. Rb4 Nd6 21. Bxd6 cxd6 22. Ra4 h5
    23. Ra7 Qd8 24. Qg3 h4 25. Nxd6+ Qxd6 26. Qxd6) 12. d5 Nf6
   (12... cxd5 13. Nxd5 Na6 14. Nxb6) 13. Bxb8 Rxb8 14. dxc6 Qg4 15. c7 Rc8
   16. Qb7 e5 17. h3 Qe6 18. Nb5 Bc5 19. Nxa7 O-O 20. Nxc8 Qxc8 21. Qc6

```
> 2 votes

# Answer
Here's the main-line so far.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "rn2kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/1q1P4/2N5/P1P1NPPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Qd3 Qd6 2.Rb1 b6 3.Bf4 Qd7 4.Qf3 c6 5.d5 Nf6 6.Bxb8 Rxb8 7.dxc6 Qg4 8.c7 Rc8 9.Qb7 e5 10.Nb5 Bb4+ 11.c3 Bc5 12.Nxa7 O-O 13.Nxc8 Qxc8 14.Qxc8 Rxc8 15.Rd1 Rxc7 16.Rd8+ Bf8 17.Kd2 Ra7

```

A wild game with the position being rated 1.36. While I think this is harder for Black to defend than for White to win, there are chances, I think.

Here's a line for ALNS's `Rb1` idea. White ends up being +.68, down from 1.36. It's still a wild game.

```
[Title "White to move"]
[fen "rn2kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/1q1P4/2N5/P1P1NPPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Rb1 Qc4 2.Rxb7 Qc6 3.Rb5 Qxg2 4.Rg1 Qc6 5.Bf4 Nf6 6.Rc5 Qb6 7.Bxc7 Qb7 8.Be5 Nc6 9.Rb5 Qc8 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.c4

```
> 0 votes

# Answer
This looks like one of those Mieses Gambits? 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. b4?

In the first position given, White has more than enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but there's a *lot* of chess to be played. Asking if Black can equalize is a silly question. Of course Black can equalize. Anything can happen in a real game of chess.

Chessplayers today are in the habit of thinking each side will play perfect chess, as though everyone is a 3300-level computer. Most players are 300-rated humans.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, scandinavian-defense, novelties
---


# Question
Title: How should Black defend against the Steinitz attack?
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. e5

```

This line of attack seems to break so many opening theory principles (don't move same piece twice, don't overextend, develop minor pieces ASAP) that I am surprised it's not immediately punishable.

# Answer
> How should Black defend against the Steinitz attack? This line of attack seems to break so many opening theory principles (don't move same piece twice, don't overextend, develop minor pieces ASAP) that I am surprised it's not immediately punishable.

Why should you defend, at the first place?? **All of your observations are correct**, so we can conclude that `e5` is a bad move. Black is better here, but the only reason you do not see a question mark behind this move are following facts:

1. Pawn at `e5` is White's only weakness;
2. **Black has no open lines or diagonals that can be used to attack the `e5` pawn;**
3. White can defend `e5` pawn with `d4` which means that black will have to attack it with `d6/f6` at some point-this will give White the chance to **get himself rid of his ONLY weakness by exchanging it.**
4. No matter how Black reacts, White will still have **small spatial edge**-`e5+d4` pawn chain vs `e6+d5` pawn chain, or `d4` pawn vs `e6+c6` pawns. **For better understanding of these middle-games** consult book *Andrew Soltis-Pawn Structure Chess*;

Still, Black can gain his fair amount of space in the center and **equalize gradually** like in any other viable semi-open game.

Since White played twice with a pawn and has overextended himself, the best would be for us to continue developing **using initiative against `e5` pawn to get `tempo`.**

Below are the variations that demonstrate what I have stated so far:

```
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.e5 Nc6!? ( 2...d6!? ) 3.d4 d6 4.exd6 ( 4.Nf3 dxe5! 5.dxe5 ( 5.Nxe5? Qxd4 6.Nxc6 Qxd1+ ) Qxd1+=) ( 4.f4? dxe5! 5.dxe5 Qxd1+ ) ( 4.Bb5?! Bd7 5.exd6 ( 5.Nf3 dxe5 6.Nxe5? Nxe5! 7.Bxd7+ Nxd7-+ ) Bxd6= ) Bxd6 5.Nf3 ( 5.Qg4?! Nf6! 6.Qxg7 Rg8 7.Qh6 Nxd4 8.Bd3 e5 9.Bg5!? ( 9.Bxh7? Rh8!-+ 10.Bg5 Rxh7 11.Qxh7 Nxh7 12.Bxd8 Nxc2+ 13.Kd1 Nxa1! 14.Bh4 Bf5-+ ) 9...Ng4! 10.Bxd8 ( 10.Qxh7?? Qxg5-+ ) Nxh6 11.Bh4 ( 11.Bxh7?? Rh8-+ ) Bf5-+ ) Nge7 6.Bd3 e5 7.dxe5 Nxe5=

```

I was trying to find this line and the only thing I found was a main line from above, given by *Lev Psakhis*. His line starts with `2...d6` and transposes to the main line given above. The move `5.Qg4` shows my own analysis, since it was not mentioned anywhere but I believe it can be tricky. Notice the traps that I have shown in the above sidelines-they can be very useful to you during play. Also, notice how in time Black frees himself from Whites small spatial advantage and equalizes.

If you do not like these you can always transpose into normal *French defense* with `2...d5` and `2...c5` is also viable here.

If you have further questions leave a comment and I will reply as soon as I can. Hopefully this answer helped you.

Best regards.
> 9 votes

# Answer
2. ... f6 is a valid way of challenging the e-pawn right from the start.

Thinking strategically, it is known that having a 2 v 1 advantage of centre pawns means you have good prospects, so Black trying to exchange an f-pawn for an e-pawn is a good way of proceeding in this position.
> 3 votes

# Answer
@TKR is right - I ran into this OTB, and had never even heard of it. But, I'm a dedicated French player, and I understand the concepts of opening theory.

Here, the situation is clear: the white pawn on e5 is overextended. It *must* be supported by d4. So, Black prevents this with 2...c5.

White spent the next 15 moves trying to hang on to his e-pawn while I just kept adding pressure. I could see him squirming, thinking he'd made some kind of terrible opening mistake.

Since White often has a pawn on e5 for most (and sometimes all) of the game in a French Defense, players of the black pieces are not fazed in the least by the pawn.

I was eventually able to overpower and win the pawn for nothing, but another strategic option would have been to launch a queenside initiative while his pieces were tied down defending that pawn.

Incidentally, in a database of 7 MM games, I found 136 games with players over 2000 ELO who played the French Steinitz. Of the games with 2...c5, White had a 20% win rate, Black won 50% of the games (that's a 5:2 decisively winning ratio), and there were 30% draws.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Since White will presumably try to defend that advanced e-pawn with d4, an immediate ...c5 seems to make sense for Black here, to prevent that possibility. (But then, I'm a complete novice, so take this with a grain of salt.)
> 2 votes

# Answer
The pawn isn't considered a piece in chess, so it doesn't break the rule of moving the same piece twice. Also, many books and engines have 2. ...d6 as a good reply. However 2. ...c5 is the best move.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is immediately punishable with 2...d6. White doesn't have a good way to protect the e-pawn.

3. f4 is going to get crushed by dxe5 followed by Qh4+
4. d4 is just bad. After 3...dxe6 4. dxe5, Qxd1 5. Kxd1 black is better
5. Nf3 is probably best but after 3...dxe5 4. Nxe5, Bd6 white doesn't really have anything other than moving the knight back to f3 and now black is ahead in development
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, theory, french-defense
---


title: Reversed openings

text:
# Question
Title: Reversed openings
Reversed openings, as in ones for Black that are played by White, have a characteristic that usually main lines for Black are obscure in White, and vice versa. How would this be true, since White is only one tempo up?

# Answer
> 6 votes
When Black plays a first move, it's usually directly related to White's first move.

1.d4 means White can't play d2-d3, so e4 is more up for grabs, which makes 1...f5 palatable. If White plays Bird's 1. f4, then From's 1...e5 2. fxe5 d6 is promising. White doesn't have that type of reply against the Dutch.

Take the Budapest. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5, and if 3. dxe5, Black typically goes 3...Ng4 with a long-term view of keeping a knight posted on e5. But if you try that in reverse with Tennison's Gambit, 1. Nf3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Ng5, there's a little less to like about it. In the Budapest given, a knight on e5 has the c4-pawn to target, while that same knight for White in Tennison's gambit isn't as fortunate.

For a long time, we looked at the English Opening like this: If 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5, and so on, in a Dragon-Sicilian-in-reverse way, it turns out that the extra tempo White has is usually spent wondering what to do with the queen bishop. Bc1-d2 was hardly a great use of that 'extra' move. I think the view on this has changed over the years, but you see what I mean.

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Why is my tactics spidey-sense not working?
I have done over 5000 puzzles on chesstempo but still can't sense any tactics. So for the past few days I've been making a mental note each time a signal appears (loose pieces, exposed king, potential for double attack, etc.) and try to think of a way to exploit it but to my surprise, I can't find any. What I envisioned when I started doing tactics was that I would reach a point where the tactics would come automatically to me whenever I play a game but that point never came. Although I started doing the mental note thing a few days ago, is there anything I can do to improve it?

# Answer
Developing tactical ability is a long process. At first you expose yourself to new patterns, try to understand how they work when they are already on the board. You will still not spot it every time it appears in your games. But sometimes you will. And sometimes you will see that you or your opponent cannot play a move because it fails due to a tactical motif you know.

The next step is seeing the potential motif long before it appears and setting it up. It is good that you note weaknesses in your opponent's position. This is the first step towards setting up tactics. You see a loose piece, you position your pieces so that eventually you can exploit that.

It takes a very long time from knowing a pattern to setting it up yourself. Be patient. Sometimes I see a tactic by GMs and I can barely solve it with all the pieces already in position, and then I realise they saw it 10 moves ago and played towards it and all I can do is hold my head.

It may be the case that your training method is not suited for you. Studying random puzzles, not sorted by patterns or some overarching theme, may not be good for you. It is good for pure calculation, but not when you are trying to develop your pattern database.
> 12 votes

# Answer
I think if you a looking for puzzle solutions in-game you are going to have a lot of difficulty off the cuff. I find that because puzzles just drop you in a position, you aren't put in with context, or your own bias (eg; your development ideas).

The above being said, I find that when i look at puzzles they comprise of 4 key materials which are extremely beneficial to game play;

* Mate in N
* Forks
* Pins
* Win Material *(There are more but these are good beginnings)*

I find focusing on Forks, Pins and Winning Material when in game I often fair a lot better.

I have won 4 or 5 games in the last 24 hours (in the first 10 moves) by people just over extending their Queen and me being able to pin their queen between my attacking piece and their King. I find that i can often get a knight to get some solid forks, and i usually just look for overloaded pawns and pieces and try to target them.

Puzzles are great for Mid and End Game tactics however probably aren't a great basis for "training". If you can look at the board objectively without history , bias etc and view the board as a puzzle looking to find the "Best Move" then maybe puzzles might make a good training solution.

The other issue you will find is that the tagging sucks. The amount of Chess.com puzzles that are tagged as "Battery" that has nothing to do with "Battery" is ridiculous, my personal favorite are the Mate in 1 when they are clearly mate in 3 puzzles.

Suggestions; do a few lessons or videos on tactics. I am not suggesting torenting but the Chessmaster XI Grandmaster Edition has a fantastic series of lessons presented by Josh Waitzkin which I find are fantastic at teaching tactics, particularly end game tactics. The amount of games that People stale mate because of poor end game tactics is disturbingly high.
> 6 votes

# Answer
You aren't developing pattern recognition because you aren't seeing the same patterns over and over.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Puzzles are great practice, but one issue with them is that they drop you directly into a position where a tactic is available. That is, you're given a position and asked to find the best move knowing that it will involve some trick to win material or deliver checkmate. In a real game, tactical opportunities show up rarely, and very often the best move (if there even is a singular best move) is just some simple development, making an obvious threat, or defending an obvious threat. There's no indicator that pops up and alerts you that some tactical trick is present.

I think what you said, regarding making note of common scenarios that lead to tactics, is great. The fact that you can't often come up with a tactic is simply due to the fact that tactics aren't usually available. But taking inventory of king safety and potential attacks is a very good thing to do.

Another way to frame it is to always consider all possible checks and captures (both for you and your opponent, of course). Even the ones that look nonsensical, because very often those moves will suddenly become available as the game evolves. This will cover most tactics, and then you can add "moves that threaten a piece" to the list (this is really just "captures" but one move ahead, but you need to think like this to spot/avoid forks). Finally, being aware of when pieces are lined up will help you spot/avoid pins/skewers.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The human brain finds it much easier to recognise patterns that have a name. This is how everyone from Casino card counters to professional Memory competitors develop their skills - they use mnemonics.

It's the same in Chess. Rather than thinking "Hmm, the position this Knight is in seems advantageous in some familiar way", you train yourself to say "Great, I got an Outpost".

As other's have said, you get this from study, not from puzzles or even casual play
> 2 votes

# Answer
Consider the possibility that you might not be seeing tactics because there might not be any tactics available to see. Just because your opponent has an exposed king or a pinned piece doesn't necessarily mean that there's any way to attack the king or to exploit the pin.

You should still definitely check to see whether there are any tactics available in such a position, but you should not be surprised if, nine times out of ten, there aren't any.

Remember that if your opponent is of a similar skill level to you, he or she will also be examining the position for possible tactics. You opponent might have consciously allowed you pin his piece because he couldn't see any bad consequences for doing so. In such a situation, it should not be terribly surprising that you also cannot find any tactics. Possibly the tactics are too deep for either of you to discover at your skill level, and possibly there are simply no tactics to be discovered.

Remember that the opportunity for tactics also depends on your skill level (and, of course, your opponent's). When beginners play, there are blunders galore and many opportunities to execute tactics. When experts play, there are very few piece- or game-winning tactics of the sort found on chesstempo.com. The better you and your opponents get, the fewer tactical opportunities you will discover.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning, tactics
---


title: Writing chess moves on paper

text:
# Question
Title: Writing chess moves on paper
Is the FIDE rule for writing chess moves with pen and paper by both players discarded or not mandatory in World chess championship games?

In case yes, why it is discarded or not mandatory to write chess moves?

If i am not wrong, the players were writing the moves on paper.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Most major tournaments (including the World Championship) are commonly played on DGT Boards which automatically record the notation for the players. This has some distinct advantages;

* Legibility
* Improved ability for broadcasting
* Reduces need to transcribe games after the fact into a digital format.

That being said I believe it is still a requirement for players to manually record there games. I don't believe these records are discarded as they are submitted to the tournament organisers who technically own them.

In regards to why pen and paper. It minimises opportunities and accusations of cheating. If I was playing over the board to you and was entering in each move onto a computer (through something like chess base) who is to say I didn't enable an engine to quickly analyse a move?

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: Hide the moves when clicking on a game the "games" pane of a database in ChessBase 15
I would like to hide the moves (circled in red), and arrows as well, in the "games" view of a chessbase (I am using chessbase 15) database when I clicked on one of the games, but I cannot find how to do it :

# Answer
> 2 votes
Would suggest performing a quick search via google All information can be found at: http://help.chessbase.com/CBase/15

**Hide Notation:**

View Tab \> Notation \[Untick\]

**Hide Movement Arrow:**

http://help.chessbase.com/CBase/15/Eng/index.html?moves\_highlighted\_with\_a\_yello.htm

---
Tags: chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Issue with ChessBase results when filtering by "Good Games"
I'm trying to determine if I'm doing something wrong or if there might be a bug in the program.

One thing I was experimenting with was the search mask called "Good Games". The documentation describes it as follows:

> "Using this parameter the results can be greatly be improved by considering the quality of the games in the list. For instance, this function only considers games in which at least one player has an Elo rating above 2350 or one player had an IM or GM title. **This function excludes blitz, rapid and simultaneous games \[emphasis added\]**. It also excludes games with less than seven moves and drawn games with less than 20 moves."

But I've found many instances of blitz and rapid games in my test searches. I've already created the good/bad game set as described in the documentation by clicking the "Create good/bad game set" button. I've also tested with different databases, including the Mega 2020 and the This Week In Chess DB with similar results. Additionally, while it excludes games with less than 7 moves, drawn games with less than 20 moves appear as well.

Am I just doing something wrong, or does anyone else have this problem too?

Here's what steps I took, if you want to try:

1. Open a somewhat large database (this example is the Mega 2020, but I tried several others and experienced the same issue). A few thousand games, some including high level players (IMs or GMs) should be enough to illustrate the issue, especially if they are recent.
2. In the "Games" tab on the Ribbon, click the "Create good/bad game set" button. After it finishes, go back to the Home tab on the Ribbon.
3. While viewing the game list, click the "Filter List" button (icon with magnifying glass).
4. Using the advanced dialog, check both the "Good Games" check box and the "Blitz" (or Rapid, whatever you prefer) radio button. You can also just check "Good Games" and then manually scan the result list for short games, but this works as well.

When I ran this on the Mega 2020, it returned over 101,000 blitz games. If I uncheck "Good Games", simply searching for every Blitz game in the database, I get around 199,000, so clearly it's doing *some* filtering. From what I can tell, it seems to do the following:

1. Include games in which at least one player has an Elo rating above 2350 or one player had an IM or GM title (i.e., works as described).
2. INCLUDE (not exclude) blitz, rapid and simul games, provided they meet condition 1 (not working as described).
3. Exclude games with less than seven moves (works as described).
4. INCLUDE (not exclude) drawn games with less than 20 moves, provided they meet conditions 1 and 3 (not working as described). However, I noticed a decent number of 10-move draws, so maybe this was implemented as "drawn games with less than 20 *plies*?"

Other things I tried:

* Checking the database integrity
* Deleting/re-creating search boosters
* Updating to latest Service Pack (currently 15.27).

I'm on Windows 10, using 64-bit ChessBase. Any suggestions? If this happens for other people I'll feel less crazy. It's not a huge problem, as I can just create a clone of the existing database, call it the "Quality Games Database" (or whatever) and then delete the rapid games from it, it just seemed odd that the feature to do this doesn't seem to function for me.

# Answer
> 3 votes
The issue isn't with the software but more with the database itself. I rebuilt the Good Games Index, and that appeared to fix the issue you are facing for me.

That being said many of the Blitz Games that would often get captured in your scope are actually really pretty solid games and worth reviewing.

---
Tags: software, programming, database, chessbase
---


# Question
Title: Chess movies in Hollywood & Bollywood with GMs in them
Are there any movies about chess in which World Champions or grandmasters have played actually any role? For example, have Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik, Polgar, Fischer, Tal or etc acted in the movie?

# Answer
Check out Grossmeyster. Mikhail Tal exchanges a few words with the main character. Keres, Kotov, Taymanov, Averbakh have cameo appearances. Victor Korchnoj plays the main character's coach.

I don't know if the English version exists.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The 1993 American drama film “Searching For Bobby Fischer”, based on the book with the same, has a few cameos by grandmasters. Here is a list of them per Wikipedia.

1. Anjelina Belakovskaia, who has the title of Woman Grandmaster and has been the U.S. women's champion three times.
2. Joel Benjamin , an American grandmaster.
3. Roman Dzindzichashvili, an American grandmaster born in the USSR.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: grandmaster, world-championship, famous-players, film
---


title: Initial FIDE rating Question

text:
# Question
Title: Initial FIDE rating Question
According to FIDE, if I win half of my games in my first FIDE tournament, then my rating = the average of my opponents ratings.

If a tournament has 10 rounds, and I can only play the first 3 (and in this example let’s say I win 1.5 points), will my initial rating become the average of these 3 opponents or will this not count as a part of my full initial rating?

Looking through the handbook, I see no rule that says I can’t just leave a tournament after drawing the first round against a 2000 and my rating becoming 2000 (because the average of 1x2000 player/#of players = 2000.

Can anyone clarify from the rules exactly what determines an initial rating given one does not fully finish a tournament?

# Answer
> if a tournament has 10 rounds, and I can only play the first 3 (and in this example let’s say I win 1.5 points), will my initial rating become the average of these 3 opponents or will this not count as a part of my full initial rating?

No and no.

The FIDE rating regulations say

> 7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
>
> 7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3, **a minimum of 5 games**.
>
> 7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
>
> 7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods of not more than 26 months are pooled to obtain the initial rating.
>
> 7.14d The rating is at least 1000.
>
> 7.14e The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

So, if you only play 3 games you will not have a rating. However if you later play another tournament then the results of those 3 games will be carried forward.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: tournament, rating, fide
---


title: Two Rooks vs Queen endgame

text:
# Question
Title: Two Rooks vs Queen endgame
Is an endgame with Queen and King vs. two Rooks and King a win for the Queen, a win for the two Rooks, or a draw?

# Answer
Generally speaking, it's a draw. Most pawnless endgames are drawn, unless one side has a material advantage of more than a minor piece. Either side can win if there are short-term tactics. To check the outcome of a position, you can use an online tablebase. In particular, it's nice to view the longest wins for either side, which are (according to this page) are

```
[FEN "k2q4/7R/8/8/8/8/8/2K3R1 w - - 0 1"]

```

(White to move, mate in 29)

and

```
[FEN "4r3/8/5Q2/8/5r2/1k6/8/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

```

(White to move, mate in 49)
> 14 votes

# Answer
As ever, it depends.

In general, given adequate king shelter, the rooks have good chances when there are targets to coordinate against.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: endgame, queens, rooks
---


# Question
Title: Can I improve my chess? Or am I too old?
I am 25 years old. I have been interested in playing chess since my school days but I never played seriously. One year back I realized that I want to become good chess player and I started. Most of the time I play online games on chess.com. I am a very poorly rated player, about 1100 on chess.com. I have two concerns here.

1. Am I too old to start chess? I have been playing for almost 1 year but I didn't find much difference in my chess rating. How many days will it take for me to become a good player like 1800+?
2. Whenever I lose my game, I lose my confidence and I am very afraid to play the next game. I sometimes feel bad after a loss, especially if I lose against a lesser rated player than me. Does anyone else get this feeling?

# Answer
> 92 votes
There is never too late to learn anything (chess, phd, new job, skateboarding). Also you have really small chances of being new superGM :-).

* Analyse, not just play. Each game you lost you should review and try to understand why exactly have you lost. Your analysis should depend on your chess level.
* Learn standard openings (first starting moves and be sure that you know how to reply to them as well as easy traps to avoid and exploit). No need to go too deep (trying to memorize 15 moves if you are on 1100 level), start with 5 moves and try to understand the reason with them. While doing this look how to reply to standard opening that people use against you.
* Solve puzzles
* Learn standard endgames like mating with Q or R, to be able to win in easy situations

And do not be scared (you aren't in a boxing match where you can have some problems if you lost). All you are losing are the imaginary points on the imaginary server to an imaginary guy whom you most probably will never see again. There are things in life more scary than that.

# Answer
> 45 votes
You can still improve, 25 years is not old. At 40, I'm rated about 300 points higher than at 25, and I hope to improve further (although that isn't realistic as I'm not spending any time on the game...).

This article in Dutch is about a (strong, 2200 or so) player who started playing again at 60 and scored an IM norm with a huge overscore a few years later, and I know several people who went from 21xx to 23xx or so later in life.

**But**, 1) You have to work seriously at chess, and play serious tournament games, and 2) you can't really expect to go up more than 100 points per year, or maybe 200 early on. From 1100 to 1800 will take five years or so, it's not a matter of days.

About your other question -- completely forget about your rating and the rating of your opponent, and don't focus on results. Focus on playing good moves. After each game, think really hard about what you could have done better, and why you didn't think of that during the game, regardless of the result. The moment you start thinking about the result of the game while playing it, is the moment you spend too many thoughts on things other than finding the best move.

Forget about ratings, focus on finding good moves.

# Answer
> 18 votes
It's never too late for you to start or improve in chess. I used to play in several FIDE and USCF chess tournaments. I played against a wide age range, from 5 year olds to 70+ year olds. There are many chess players of all age ranges and skill levels.

I played chess for about 10 years before I actually joined a chess club. At first, I was not able to beat the better players... but I did a few things that made it possible to easily beat even the ones that used to be hard for me to beat.

Back in the 1990s, before Internet access and online chess was widespread, I had one of those roll-up chess boards that included pieces. I got some of Yasser Seirawan's books that taught me about chess strategy and tactics. The instructions are very clear cut. I suggest reading those in order:

1. Winning Chess Strategies
2. Winning Chess Tactics

Setting up pieces with a physical board to follow diagrams in the books can take up time. If you have an iPad, you can download apps like Chess Pro and it will let you set up position and take back moves if you have to. There should be programs available for your PC that can do that too.

Getting to 1800+ rating does not usually happen overnight (but can take months or years), unless you beat a lot of high rated players while your rating is provisional. Provisional means there's a number of games you're allowed to play to establish your rating for the first time. Your rating moves up and down faster during the provisional phase. USCF and FIDE have different numbers of provisional games to establish initial rating.

I have never let losing a game bother me too much, even before I knew good chess strategies and tactics. **It's a lack of knowledge of chess strategies and tactics that usually causes you to lose when you are new to chess.** For example, some chess strategies you may not yet know are:

* Know the value of each chess piece; don't sacrifice higher value pieces in exchange for your opponent's lower value pieces. You'll lose fast if you don't know the value of your pieces
* Try to control the center of the board if you can
* Use your opponent's mistakes to your advantage
* And more

Winning Chess Strategies teaches you how to do those. Do not be discouraged if you keep losing games. Just pick up one of those books and learn. You'll have an easier time then. There are many good resources out there but Seirawan's books are very straight to the point.

Everyone has great suggestions... you definitely may want to look into joining a local chess club. It's pretty fun to play casual chess or blitz with the other players and having a coach to teach you can also come in handy.

# Answer
> 13 votes
I have played chess in my school days and didn't play afterwards for a long time. Then I started playing games on chess.com and the experience isn't the same as playing with a real person. Like you have said when playing on chess.com, since I'm shown a rating, I tend to play the game with the intention of improving the rating. And to do that as quickly as possible. So then I play a 10minute game and get through it quickly and then play another one and so on. This way, the things you learn will be very little.

So I would suggest that you join a Chess club in your area and play with people face to face. When playing at school we didn't use clocks as often and we discussed the game after its finished which helps you to improve. And if you join a chess club you will get good guidance on what to learn at different skill levels etc.

**So my suggestion is, join a Chess club and play with actual people** (this is in addition to what others have mentioned)

# Answer
> 12 votes
There are already great answers to your question - I just want to add a few notes. If you were to begin playing the guitar at age 25, would you expect to play like Eric Clapton within 6 months? 1 year? 10 years? Maybe not impossible, but highly unlikely, and nobody who takes up the guitar should expect this to be achievable. Eric Clapton has probably been practising and playing guitar seriously - and by seriously I mean in the order of 6 hours a day - since he was a kid. Sure, one day you *may* be able to play like him, if you put in the same amount of time and effort as he did back when he was 6, but it is generally unlikely that you will find the time to do so as an adult with work and family responsibilities.

And so it is with chess. I think many people make the mistake of thinking about chess as a *mental trick* rather than a skill that requires years of toning, practice and maintenance. The process of learning chess is very similar to the process of learning to play a musical instrument - your brain's neural network needs to be configured in order to produce optimal performance, and that takes years. But don't give up! Many grandmasters have been playing serious chess since their early childhoods - to expect to play like a GM within a few years is just as impractical as in the case of playing guitar.

If you are looking for some consolation after losing a game - I think about Capablanca who said something to the line of: You learn more from losing that from winning - you can only become a master at chess once you have lost hundreds of games. I don't know if it's true, or if he even said that, but it sure makes me feel better.

# Answer
> 11 votes
Great questions.

> 1) Is it too old for me to start chess. Because I have been playing for almost 1 year but i didn't find much difference in my chess rating. how many days will it take to me to become good player like 1800+?

25 is not too old at all. Advancement in chess just takes a while. You have to learn the game and learn to think in the game's terms. I don't know what an 1800 rating is on the chess.com site.

> 2) Whenever I lose my game, I lose my confidence and very afraid to play next game. and I feel bad sometimes If I lose by less rated player than me. does anyone get this feeling?

All the time. No one likes to lose. But consider that most tournaments pair people of equal strength together. So you can expect to lose half your games. Ratings are *approximations* and people aren't perfect. I have drawn USCF masters on more than one occasion... and lost to "C" players. My advice is not to worry about rating points, or winning or losing. Just play the best game you can. The rest will follow.

Also, playing online is great, but join your local chess club and play face-to-face. It's *much* better and people will help you learn.

# Answer
> 9 votes
I'll answer by relating my own experience. I started playing chess at 34. It was pretty frustrating at first but once you start making progress it gets really exciting. My recipe for progress is to train in phases. In one phase I do tactics puzzles. Chess.com is decent for that, Chesstempo.com much better. I have subscriptions for both. Then after a few weeks, I get tired solving tactics and stop improving. That's when I switch to the next phase which consists of actually playing games. In a playing phase, I exclusively play fast games, to train fast visual analysis, or slow games to train strategy. And then when I get tired of that, I come back to tactics. Switching phases is always pretty exciting because usually I make a decent jump forward in one phase by applying the stuff that I learned in the last phase. Another phase is the study phase in which I read books -- I love all of Silman's books -- and watch video's on Youtube. But these phases are typically shorter because I have to apply stuff to make it stick. Using this strategy of alternating phases I'm making more or less linear progress. My progress is not terribly fast but fast enough to satisfy me. Am I going to be a GM or win competitions? No. Do I have fun? Hell, yes!

# Answer
> 8 votes
It's never too late :)

1. Becoming a good player like FIDE 1800+ takes time, but in time it will come.
2. Of course this feeling is completely natural, it happens to everyone, the way to overcome this is to take each game one at a time and analyze your losses. Never lose faith in yourself! Determination, motivation and hard work will ultimately be what will cause you to prevail in the end.

Tips for improvement:

* Basic Endgame Study
* Tactics Training
* Basic Opening Principles

Book Recommendations by Dan Heisman

Chess Tactics Website

Chess Video Site

# Answer
> 7 votes
You mention "I am 25 years old... Am I too old to start chess".

Emphatically, no. You can resume playing at that age and continue to improve your skills. Chess is not a physical skill; as others have stated, it requires mental training.

I cannot find a page currently due to network blocks, but I would suggest learning the so-called 10 Commandments of chess. 1. Do not move a piece twice when opening (the idea being it is better to develop two pieces that move one twice) 2. Move to control the center of the board. 3. Knights before bishops. I struggle with this one and it is likely a tactical blind spot on my part (we all need to continue learning). I think that it relates to the knights being more versatile when controlling the center, which plays into 2. 4. Trade when ahead. If you ever are up in material (knowing this as stated by other answers is critical), continue to offer trades. If your opponent takes them, you push your advantage. The opponent who refuses must generally spend a move to get away and thus is not able to advance a plan.

I cannot recall the others, but initiative is also key and is an underlying backbone to much of this. If you retain initiative and freedom of movement, you are more likely to succeed. Constantly having to react to an opponents attacks is generally a disadvantage.

As for ratings, once past the preliminary period (as mentioned by others) it becomes increasingly difficult to change your rating. To increase it you must play (and for maximum effect, beat) players who are more advanced than you are. Winning will require you to learn new skills and tactics.

"Whenever I lose my game, I lose my confidence and very afraid to play next game and I feel bad sometimes, especially if I lose against a lesser rated player than me. Does anyone get this feeling?" Yes, I would venture to guess that it is fairly common, but remember, the ratings are not exact and everyone has good and bad games. Don't let yourself become fixated on your (or your opponent's) rating. Learn and practice basic strategy and tactics to improve your gameplay.

Two things in closing. One, I find it extremely difficult to focus on an electronic board, to the point that playing online I will often set up a physical board and move the pieces on it to keep perspective. Two, simple algebraic notation (a-h, 1-8) will help you document your games so that you can look over them later, figure out where things turned for the win or went off the rails. This can help a coach look over a game and suggest changes and help you learn more about how you play.

# Answer
> 5 votes
I'm 26 years old. Just like you, I always liked chess but only recently started playing "seriously". 18 months ago my rating on online (turn based) chess was ~1100 and on live chess (blitz) ~850. So I was definetely a very poor player.

Now my rating is 1450+ on online chess and 1100+ on live (blitz). While nothing extraordinary it shows improvement. Just like you I aim to reach 1800+.

The thing is, I didn't improve by just playing. I actually read a lot and solved a lot of puzzles. So, my advice is:

* Solve puzzles (Try the Tactics mode on Chess.com).
* Read openings/defenses and through trial and error pick the ones that suit your style. Learn them by heart and build your strategy on them.
* Play different modes. I found out that playing live chess helped me greatly on online chess as it made it easier for me to notice patterns.
* **Most Important**: Set realistic goals. You can't expect reaching a high rating fast. I've said to myself that I'll be a 1800+ player in ten years. This might sound a long time but it's not. We have a lot to learn.

# Answer
> 4 votes
**Straight answers to you questions in the title**

*Can I improve my chess?* **Yes!!!\***, cheer up now :)

*Am I too old?* **No!!!**, you are young chap.

**My guesses, why you might be losing games**

* You are still not playing seriously
* You might be playing with cheaters. This is hard to conclude but there is a chance.
* You might playing with same player over and over. Don't play with same player more than 4 games if he is completely dominating you. You should be playing with this kind of people to improve your game but avoid until untill you feel confident out your skill progression

**My Tips to improve your game**

* Best way is keep playing
* Try playing offline with your family members/neighbors/schools mates(online gamers might be cheating you using help of computer/chess engine). May be there is a chess club near you which is best way for improving your game.
* Read chess books (especially the titles with Chess Openings For beginners, apologize for not suggesting a particular book which I might do later)
* Understanding Chess Notation is not must but it really helps a lot in the learning by analyzing old popular games or online games or for yourself for post game analysis.
* Forgot about youtube. (I am bit jealous about the luxuries/technology/resources you guys accessing at your age) there are some good youtube channels teaching chess especially about book openings
* Solve Chess Puzzles which can be found in some of the News Papers, Online sites etc.,
* Last and least (yes... not, 'not the least'), Buy/Download a free chess program which can help. May be you can download app if you have access to tablet. There are some good tutor apps which will aid you improve your game. Make sure you play longer formats such as 45 minutes 60 minutes or more.

# Answer
> 3 votes
We have so many learning tools now. Internet is the first one, you used it to ask this question, why don't you try this website:

http://primamossa.it

It's all about openings (aperture in italian), you will find in the *Enciclopedia aperture* section more than 2 milion records of the best players in the world. You have quiz as well. I prefer the learn-by-smile approach. XD

Try to play against the computer and find the best response based on the enciclopedia. After 100 games I m sure you'll be at a good level. XD Hope this helps

# Answer
> 2 votes
you can always improve as long you keep practicing. The first thing the comes to mind is smartphones apps or online chess websites.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Maybe you won't belive this but I have started chess at age of 25, just like you. I was playing in online in the chess.com, my rating at the begining was not more than 800!!! I was very weak. When I reached a rating like 900 to 950 I was feeling great and I was thinking that I have accived an increadible succes. But now Im 26 and a half, and now my rating at blitz chess is 1500 to 1550!!! That means I have earned 700 points in 1 year 5 mounts. But I dont think that I can become a GM. Because Its too late for doing that. But I know If I will play the game like 10 more years I can become a player who is rated more than 1800! So ofcourse you can become a very good chess player if you play as much as I did(I have played more than 5.000 games). 25 is never too late for becoming a serious player. Or maybe you can become a GM if you are talented who knows.

# Answer
> 0 votes
"Am I too old to start chess?" Anyone can play chess. You're probably too old to ever challenge for the world championship but that doesn't mean you can't play and enjoy it and maybe someday be pretty good.

"How many days will it take for me to become a good player like 1800+?" An 1800 on chess.com isn't that good. Maybe 1400-1500 in real life. The average person could reach 1800 in under two years if they studied the right things. Most of that is tactics.

"Whenever I lose my game, I lose my confidence" i don't have that problem. I mostly lose games games because of lapses in concentration or dumb moves Maybe its all the work I put in studying tactics and the endgame.

# Answer
> 0 votes
You may be too old to become a Grandmaster, but one is never too old to learn anything. And in the scheme of things, you're a veritable youngster. Play regularly, do a basic amount of study from a chess manual to have a general understanding of the game, and analyze your games to find your mistakes. Just keep playing regularly and you'll improve in the normal course of events. Even when you lose, it just means your opponent knows more about the game, either from study or experience. Capablanca said you have to lose 10,000 games to become good. But it's a game and should be enjoyable, so don't make being the "best" your ultimate goal. Even if you're good at it, there'll always be someone better. And even being the "best" is no guarantee of happiness. Do you think Fischer was happy? I'm 83 and have played all my life. I peaked at the rating level you indicate some 30 years ago, but I don't let that stop me from continuing to play and enjoy this geatest of all games. Just be happy when you make a good combination or don't make any overt blunders. That in itself is intellectually satisfying. Enjoy!

# Answer
> 0 votes
You're too old to earn a title, but you've got time enough to learn to appreciate and understand a masterly game. That's the best reason for chess improvement.

---
Tags: learning, training, psychology
---


title: ...Nd8 vs ...Nb8 in the Bogo-Indian

text:
# Question
Title: ...Nd8 vs ...Nb8 in the Bogo-Indian
My question relates to lines which in general are covered by Avrukh (2015). However, Avrukh doesn't explain the phenomenon I noticed in the following lines. These lines are classed as Bogo-Indians, but I've kept the Catalan move order preferred by Avrukh.

```
[FEN "..."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Nc3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 d6 9. d5 Nxc3 10. Rxc3

```

Here out of 271 games in my database there are 160 with 10...Nb8 and 106 with 10...Nd8.

```
[FEN "..."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Nc3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 O-O 9. Bg2 d6 10. d5

```

Here out of 768 games there are 264 with 10...Nd8 and 69 with 10...Nb8. However, the most popular move (434 games) is 10...Nxc3, which leads us to the following position

```
[FEN "..."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Nc3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 O-O 9. Bg2 d6 10. d5 Nxc3 11. Rxc3

```

Now there are 535 games, of which 370 go 11...Nb8 and 146 go 11...Nd8.

**Why is there a distinct preference for ...Nb8 in the first and third positions, and a distinct preference for ...Nd8 in the second position?**

Avrukh, Boris (2015). *Grandmaster Repertoire A1 – The Catalan*. Quality Chess.

# Answer
While the king knight remains on the board with options to move to c5 or f6, ....Nb8-d7 is an overlap.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: bogo-indian-defense
---


# Question
Title: Bishop and queen endgame from a computer chess game
```
[FEN "8/6pk/p4b1p/2B5/P3q2P/6P1/5P2/3Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ba7 (1. h5)

```

This position happened in TCEC Season 15 Superfinal Stockfish vs Leela. In the game Stockfish played Ba7 and the game steered toward a draw , though in the end Stockfish won because a late Leela blunder. Can Stockfish win by force this ending? Crystal (7 man tablebases Stockfish , albeit with a slightly lesser depth) suggested h5. I am unable to analyze it with the modest instrument I have. May someone telling me if it is winnable by White , and , in case , with what move, please?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Queen endings are among the most difficult.

We usually say "win by force" when there's a definite winning line. You're asking if White is certain to win, not at all certain.

A human player would look first to winning the queenside pawn and then with an advantage on both wings, many chances to win. But while that pawn sits on a black square White can't coordinate force against it.

And I don't think White can try for a kingside initiative while the a-pawn has to be tended to. White doesn't want to move it to a5, where it's fixed and can be coordinated against, and it's always exposed to threats on a4.

---
Tags: analysis, endgame, queen-and-bishop-endgame
---


title: Benoni Defence Theory and Ideas

text:
# Question
Title: Benoni Defence Theory and Ideas
I have played the Benoni for a while, and I frequently play bad moves in the opening. How could I play the Benoni - Pawn Storm Variation safely?

# Answer
You shouldn't give a fig about "variations". Players don't lose games in the opening because they're bad at this variation or that system, they lose short games because they're bad at tactics (and that's your experience, yeah?).

Forget the dumb names of things. Pawn Storm This, Big Attack That. You have to learn enough tactics first.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: theory, modern-benoni
---


# Question
Title: Bela Berger and Blindfold Chess: What do players "see" on the board?
I was looking at the interesting career of Bela Berger. On this oral history site, Bela Berger talks in an interview.

Here is a quote from the site:

> "Berger, international chess master, speaks about learning to play chess as a child in Hungary; becoming a professional chess player; coming to Australia in 1957; becoming an international master in 1963; playing in Philippines, 1967; correspondence, blitz and blindfold chess; preparing for tournaments; personality of chess players; and the future of chess."

I was particularly interested in his comments about blindfold chess where he says he did not see the board and pieces as such, but experienced them as "pulsating energies".

I had previously heard comments from Ivanchuk along similar lines. Not very enlightening for me!

Berger comments that he could play as many as 10 games at a time blindfolded.

Could anyone who experience with, or knowledge of, such feats tell me what blindfold players "see" on the board?

# Answer
> 1 votes
That's pretty much what I "see". I don't have a mental picture of pieces, I have a "feel" for their mobility.

One of the interesting thing about blindfold players is that they each have their own way of seeing the board.

# Answer
> 1 votes
When i play blindfold, the board is dark for me. I see one part of the board with a kind of flashlight with a small spot. Then i move back and forth with the spot and the figures appear in my imagination. By moving the focus slowly, i understand which figures are attacking which.

I'm not very good at it. If I "see" that I can simply take an unprotected piece away, I go through the entire game again very quickly in my mind and note the positions of the pieces that have something to do with this attack to make sure that the position is correct.

---
Tags: history, blindfold-chess
---


title: Benoni setup defence

text:
# Question
Title: Benoni setup defence
In the Benoni, there is a certain setup for White where there is a knight on g3, and a bishop on d3. White then starts a pawn storm with f4-f5, with a large attack. How am I meant to play against this setup? Do I just trade the g3-knight off?

```
   rnbq1rk1/pp3pbp/3p1np1/2pP4/4P3/2NB2N1/PP3PPP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 5 9

```

Black to move.

# Answer
The thing about the Modern Benoni is that White is usually trying to run you over on the e- and f- files. Black adopted a very small stance in the center (d6), and White's pawn play is the price to pay.

The difference between these two plans for white:

Bb5+, f4, Nf3, with a view toward e4-e5

and the one you describe here Bd3, Ne2-g3 with a view toward f4-f5

is that the f4-f5 plan is more likely to give Black the counterplay he desires with a knight on e5. You know that's why you play the Modern Benoni in the first place, yeah?

Go about your queenside business, and take their best shots on the f-file. If they crash through because you overlooked a tactic, you lose. If you hold them off and then jump all over the a1-h8 diagonal with your pieces, your Benoni is a success.

In other words, you're fretting over the plan for White that you should prefer to face as Black.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In this position, White king is still in the center.

I would go for Re8 (with ideas of Nxe4 followed by f5 in-case he has not yet castled; this in itself is a moral victory for Black, since White's center has been dismantled now)

If White castles immediately, then Nbd7 to add additional defense to e5 square and then look to expand on the queen side.

Also, always be on the look out for tactics in the Benoni (especially b5! or c4! or Nxe4!) I play this often and gives great winning chances even if I go a pawn down.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening, analysis, theory, defense, benoni
---


# Question
Title: Can Black punish a provocative h-pawn push against fianchetto setups?
This question might sound ridiculous, but I think it needs to be discussed.

```
[fen ""]
1. c4 g6 2. h4!? (2...h5 3. d4 Bg7 4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 Nh7 (6...O-O) 7. Be3 O-O) (2...e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Qxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Qe3+ Qe7 7. Qxe7+ Kxe7 8. Bg5 {White still maintains pressure}) c5 3. h5 Bg7 (3...gxh5 4. Rxh5 d6 (4...Nc6!? 5. Rxc5 e5 {Looks promising})) (3...Nf6 4. hxg6 fxg6)

```

Doesn't really get earlier than this. All of us know this is not good play by White. But engines still think White did nothing wrong. And (in my opinion) White gets too much out of it.

Meeting 2. h4 with 2...h5 seems like a hard decision. On one hand the h-pawn is stopped, but fixing the structure also gives White all the intel he needs to coordinate an attack after opening up the kingside and it is unclear if Black's king can evacuate from the center to any other place than kingside. After ...O-O in the lines given it looks like Black will have to withstand a vicious attack.

Another idea might be to argue that White just wasted a move in the opening and play 2...c5, very pricipled. But then 3. h5 is annoying. If 3...gxh5 4. Rxh5 I think White achieved too much for "free". In some openings, like the Dragon, White gives pawns or pieces to open the h-file. Here it is just there on move 5 and it is not really clear what Black has in return.

Usually, while White is pushing his h-pawn, Black tries to organise a counter attack on the queenside or in the center with his pawns and pieces. But Black has no pawns and pieces on the queenside or in the center this early and thus White can freely exert his pressure.

It seems that the best way to deal with 3. h5 is to play around it and develop as if it was not there, but it is looming there and very unpleasant.

# Answer
> 7 votes
First off, I think you want to play 2...Bg7. As a general rule of thumb, you should always finish your fianchetto on the next move. It also protects the rook on h8 if the h-file opens. I don't think 2...c5 is a very good move because it locks up the pawn structure and is going to make counterplay in the center more difficult. (2...Nf6 and 2...e5 are probably playable too)

If white continues with h5 then 3...e5. Another rule of thumb: Counter wing attacks in the center. 4.hxg6, hxg6 6. Rxh8, Bxh8 is not a threat.

The h-pawn advance wastes a developing move and does nothing in the center. As long as you're developing and playing in the center you should be able to equalize. I would just say delay castling until the position clarifies itself. Since you're ahead in development you should be able to build an attack which may negate the need to castle. You might also want to castle queenside if white spends too much time on the kingside.

# Answer
> 6 votes
You can punish them all you like, but the players who make these rushes want to mix it up. When they play h2-h4-h5, they're ready and willing to throw the rook on it after ...Nf6xh5.

Players who play incorrect, unsound chess are usually pretty good at tactics, and have lots of practice in positions where the material imbalance favors the other side. See, they don't *feel* punished. They want you to throw them into the briar patch.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Some points:

1. First forget the engine evaluations. We are humans (hopefully) and are only interested in practical play
2. In practical play, yes an early h4 as in this case is something to think about (but not scared). This is the reason why people usually delay fianchetto at least till the second move in almost all decent openings (like KID or hyper-accelerated accelerated dragon). Even in KID, one could further delay the fianchettoing by going via the old-Indian move order, so that any early h4, black need not fianchetto and instead play in the center with ...e5 or ...c5 or ...d5 accordingly.
3. The idea to counter early h4 is to preferably stay away from fianchettoing and play in the center for black and castle appropriately (i.e., one could castle queenside or king side or just have the king put in the center and also delay the castling a bit)
4. In general have flexibility while playing. Do not be determined that you are always going to fianchetto irrespective of what your opponent does.

# Answer
> 2 votes
White, indeed, has done nothing wrong. Because Black is not developing their centre, White can simply ignore it too. Their play in this game is considering that Black are continuing this passive approach with defensive positioning. Rook has high value, so freeing it would be a huge bonus, so in this play when White are not pressured to develop middle, that works. The whole point of fianchetto is to pressure middle of the map, so with refusing standart early Nf3 or d4, White can still develop its Nf3 and e4 which lets them keep tempo even after spending time at h-line. Best answer to this h-line is to not take that exchange in a rush.

I think this is kind of standart line to continue. When White choose a moment to have an exchange, I would just not let them open h-line fully, because for Black side lines are very important, but C and F lines not so.

```
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp4bp/2np2p1/2p1p3/2P5/2N1PN2/PP1P1PP1/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]
1. c4 g6 2. h4 c5 3. h5 Bg7 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e3 e5 6. Nc3 d6 7. hxg6 fxg6 {taking with F pawn is also possible}

```

PS. Do not understand why you even consider 2..h5 move at all. Surely you are not losing a game, Black is advancing a pawn to make a chain, but that chain has no development. So it is kind of "a wasted move". Your Nf6 or Nh6 are not protected squares. And if you make a sequently Bg7, it will be a lot weaker, because F7 is unprotected square with very unreliable defenders as K/Q.

About "trade of rooks" continuation 7.hxg6 hxg6 8.Rxh8 Bxh8 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qa4, engines show that Black wins by that idea, making the play more even, but I don't see how Black are going to abuse it clearly. White are free to continue attacks on Queen side and Black have less clutches they could exploit with less pieces.

---
Tags: opening, analysis, strategy
---


# Question
Title: Wrongly placed chessboard - what happens?
What happens if the chessboard is kept with black square on right hand side instead of white square? I think that the notations *will* change.

In the new positon, the White king will be positioned on a white square and the Black king will be positioned on a black square. The White queen will be positioned on a black square and the Black queen will be positioned on a white square.

Why this is considered a wrong placing of the chess board? Addtionally, does White or Black have an advantage, and will strategies and tactics change?

# Answer
It's wrong because the rules say so:

> 2.1 The chessboard is composed of an 8 x 8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the ‘white’ squares) and dark (the ‘black’ squares).
>
> The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square to the right of the player is white.

Of course, those rules are based on what has been common practice for a very long time. Apparently, an incorrectly placed board happens often enough to warrant a rule for what to do when that happens:

> 7.2.2 If during a game it is found that the chessboard has been placed contrary to Article 2.1, the game shall continue but the position reached must be transferred to a correctly placed chessboard.

Since the pieces have the same position relative to each other, it doesn't affect strategy and tactics. Notation won't change; the column of the starting positions of the queens is still column 'd'. If you have a board with numbers/letters, it's even easier to spot the problem.
> 34 votes

# Answer
I don't think there's anything in the game that's strictly tied to the colors of the squares. You can still number the ranks and files from the bottom-left corner and e.g. Bishops would start on opposite colors than usual, but the diagonal moves still work the same.

Though, if you set the board up using the mnemonic that the queens are placed on squares matching their color, i.e. white queen on a white square, black queen on a black square, then the setup would be different and the game along with it. But not by much, what you'd end up is this:

That's just the regular starting position flipped. Since all moves are also symmetrical with regard to left and right, it still technically makes no difference other than that now you'd have to number the squares starting from the lower *right* to match the notation of a regular chess game. (Counting from lower right, the kings here are at e1 and e8 as in a normal game.)

<sub>(Castling is the one move which works differently to the left than to the right, but it's defined by the sides where the king/queen start at, and anyway basically reduces down to "king takes two steps and the rook jumps to the square the king passed" which is direction-independent.)</sub>
> 5 votes

# Answer
It makes no difference at all in any way, even if the kings and queens are reversed left to right, or if Black goes first. It's just convention, the thought process, how to play, etc. It's identical other than the callout above about psychologically. Which bishop means more in the French is the example cited, but that's just because that player has that "rule" memorized The reasoning is no different, however.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: rules, chessboards
---


# Question
Title: Unusual sequence of opening moves in the Open Ruy Lopez with 6.d4 Be7
As title above,could someone kindly explain the tactical highlights of the rather unusual sequence of moves arising with the recent interpretation of the Open Ruy Lopez with 6.d4 Be7?

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 Be7 7.Re1 b5 8.Rxe4 d5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.Rxe5 bxa4

```

For example, why isn't White simply retreating the Bishop to b3 with 8.Bb3 ? Why 9.Nxe5 instead of simply retreating the Rook with, for example, 9.Re1 ? Why isn't Black taking the Rook with 9...dxe4 ? And so on.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think the first step is to look at the analysis of the first 9 to 10 moves; It is all pretty standard for the first few moves.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
2. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6
3. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 Be7
4. Re1 b5
5. Rxe4 {\[#\] And now Bb3 would win. C84: Closed Ruy Lopez: Unusual White 6th moves.} d5
6. Nxe5 Nxe5
7. Rxe5 {Threatens to win with Bb3. White is better.} bxa4

**So looking at the logical developments;**

```
   [FEN ""]
   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 Be7 7. Re1 b5 8. Rxe4 d5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. Rxe5 bxa4 11. Qe2 c6 12. Bd2 Be6 13. f4 g6 14. Nc3 a3 15. b3 Bd6 16. f5 gxf5 *

```

**11.** *Qe2* {Adds an extra defender to the e5 rook. Provides a potential battery into blacks territory on the open e-file.} *c6* {adds a defender to the isolated d5 pawn.}

**12.** *Bd2* {Unable to develop to g5to target the e7 bishop. Black can easily counter with f6 bother attacking and defending. Idea to develop to Bb4} *Be6* {Adds and extra barrier to whites e5 rook and e2 queen. provides additional support for central pawns as well as being supported / supporting the f7 pawn. This also unpins Be7 which has good attack opportunities on f6 primarily.}

**13.** *f4* {Adds an additional defender. Can be pushed to harrass Be6} *g6*

**14.** *Nc3* {Try to capture some lazy material on a4} *a3* {White can capture but doesn't want to open up the b file or stack pawns on the a file}

**15.** *b3 Bd6* {Blacks bishop finally back in the game. Threatens capture of the e5 rook}

**16.** *f5* {Stalling move. If black plays Bxe5 white can capture fxe6 which forces black to respond fxe6 followed by Qxd5. Material is largely even} *gxf5* *

**End Result:** Positions are equal , arguable that white has minor advantage. Considering white had a slightly better position at move 10, and is only down a pawn I believe. Is an interesting

**Some Master Games from this position**

First Notable game I can see in my Database.

*Lasker vs Tarrasch (1916)* \- https://www.chess.com/games/view/15756559 : In fact theres two games with this exact position from the same year.

More Recent Games;

*Caruana vs Carlsen (2018)* \- https://www.chess.com/games/view/15606031

*Nakamura vs Caruana (2019)* \- https://www.chess.com/games/view/15656519

---
Tags: opening, 1.e4, ruy-lopez, opening-traps, open-games
---


# Question
Title: Mastering: Openings, Middlegame or Endgame
Which of the following is better to master: The openings, middlegame or endgame? Also, which is worth mastering?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Thats an extremely opinionated question.

Example, I study end games more and generally ignore openings. Middle games to me is largely tactics driven. I find studying end games easier than openings which seems purely rote in learning. I know folks who can recite openings , love studying them and think studying openings is easy. They are horrible with end games and hate studying end games. Its far to subjective.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The opening.

It's common sense. Is it easier to manage something with 32 moving parts, or 5?

Purdy said that it's relatively easy to play a fair opening (though impossible to play a perfect one), because one or two slips in the opening won't kill you, whereas one or two slips in the ending swing wins into draws, draws into losses.

Chess players do better to study the ending first. How can you play a middlegame unless you can judge the ending on the horizon? It's easier to learn with fewer pieces on the board, and the mistakes there are far more costly than at other times.

---
Tags: opening, endgame, middlegame
---


# Question
Title: Is this the correct way to analyze games before checking with engine?
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 {0} c6 {0} 2. d4 {19} d5 {0} 3. e5 {1} Bf5 {0} 4. Nf3 {1} e6 {0} 5. Be2 {
20} Nd7 {0} 6. O-O {4} Bg6 {0} 7. Nbd2 {53} Nh6 {0} 8. c3 {4} Nf5 {0} 9. Bd3 {
24} Ne3 {0} 10. fxe3 {7} Bxd3 {0} 11. Rf2 {7} Nb6 {0} 12. Ne1 {3 Should'nt
have bothered to take his bad bishop maybe Nd2-f1-g3 was better} Bg6 {0} 13. b3
{7 did'nt wanted his knight to come at c4} Be7 {0} 14. Qf3 {6 i thought maybe
threatening mate} f6 {0} 15. Nf1 {13} Qd7 {0} 16. Ng3 {1} Rf8 {0} 17. Qe2 {8}
fxe5 {0} 18. Rxf8+ {2} Bxf8 {0} 19. Bd2 {6} e4 {0} 20. Nc2 {3} Be7 {0} 21. Rf1
{1} a5 {0} 22. Nh5 {15} O-O-O {0} 23. Nxg7 {2} Kb8 {0} 24. Nh5 {39} Rh8 {0} 25.
Nf4 {2} Bg5 {0} 26. Nxg6 {2 should've not taken his bad bishop,maybe Bd2-e1-g3
was better} hxg6 {0} 27. c4 {3} Qd6 {0} 28. g3 {6} e5 {0} 29. Bxa5 {3} Nc8 {0}
30. Rf7 {19 rook on 7th,maybe Qf2-f7 was even better} b6 {0} 31. Nb4 {19} exd4
{0} 32. Na6+ {8} Ka8 {0} 33. Bxb6 {21} Bxe3+ {0} 34. Kh1 {4} Nxb6 {0} 35. Qg4 {
4} (35. Nc7+ Kb8 36. Na6+ Ka8) 35... Qa3 {0} 36. Nc7+ {11} Kb8 {0} 37. c5 {13}
Qc1+ {0} 38. Kg2 {2} Qg1# {0} 0-1

```

**I am new to analyzing games,is this the right way before checking on engine or am I missing something?(I am playing white)**

# Answer
Works for me. Review that game with a person, someone who'll tell you why you should do or not do things, for whom one-millionth of a pawn isn't an issue. For instance, getting the bishop to d3 in one step instead of two. 4. Nf3 and 5. Be2 are grandmasterly, not as simple.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: analysis
---


# Question
Title: How to look up my games based on specific opening in lichess?
This question is not related to chess as such and is more related to the chess website lichess. I tried asking in their forum but haven't yet got an answer.

I would like to look at **my** games based on a specific opening, say B20. The search doesn't allow me to search **my games based on a specific opening**.

Is there a way to do it?

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'm afraid you cannot filter your own games based on a specific opening on lichess.

You can, however, aggregately analyze the results you achieved on a certain opening by exploiting the **Chess Insights** feature, which is available in your profile page (on the right-hand side of your rating graph).
After clicking on it and feeding your own games, you can go on the *Filters* tab, choose the specific opening you want under the *Game* window and then select the metrics you want to analyze. At the bottom there is also a set of games used to generate the insight.

---
Tags: opening, lichess
---


# Question
Title: What's the difference between SCID and SCID vs PC?
I've got two files installed on my site from SCID & SCID vs PC - Scid vs PC-4.16.x64 & Scid-4.6.2. How are they different ? Or are they just the same ? Which one should I delete if it is a replica? Thanks!

# Answer
> **Shane's Chess Information Database** (SCID) is a powerful Chess Toolkit, with which one can create huge databases, run chess engines, and play casual games against the computer or online with the Free Internet Chess Server. It was originally written by Shane Hudson , and has received strong contribution from Pascal Georges and others.
>
> **Scid vs. PC** began with bug-fixes for the computer-versus-player features of Scid (hence the name), but has evolved into a solid alternative with many new features and interfaces. The project is authored by Stevenaaus and numerous contributors.

So they are not the same. *Scid vs. PC* is a *SCID* variant.
> 8 votes

# Answer
If you are first-time user, difference is negligable. One is a fork of another. Both using Tcl/Tk toolkit to implement interfaces. Both support UCI/XBoard engine interfaces. I am personally more inclined to the second purely our of historical differences. There was a moment when scidvspc had more novelty, but now basically all of the functions are the same.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I personally use SCID over SCID VS PC just because you can store more games on SCID(Unlimited) than SCID VS PC(10 Games) on a single database.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: database, scid
---


# Question
Title: A list of all authentic games that have happened so far
I am looking for a database of chess games for a research purpose. I found that chessgames.com is one such site where the data for games of strong players would be available (I don't expect it to be free of course!). However, I am not at all interested in the actual moves made in a particular game; I simply want a list of two players and a result of the game. Does anybody know how and where such data would be available? It would be great if the data spans over several centuriesa as chessgames.com has.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't think there is any such database that only gives your names and results. But there are some mega databases you can download and script to anything that you want.

and others.

All you have to do is simply take a PGN file and script off the names of the players

```
[Date "1992.11.04"]
[Round "29"]
[White "Fischer, Robert J."]
[Black "Spassky, Boris V."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

```

In this example, you'll just need to look for "White", "Black" and "Result". This is not a very hard scripting problem, you can even do it with unix commands. If you don't know how to write a script, please consult online documentation or post a question to stackoverflow.com.

# Answer
> 1 votes
There's no one singular database with all games recorded- it is fairly simple to see this is impossible. Say, a top player played a casual game against their second or trainer, perhaps for training purposes or to test out an opening variation or something. We may record the moves for our future analysis, but would it end up in any databases? No, because we would not want to reveal any information to possible opponents.

You can, however, get very big databases - SmallChess made an excellent post but I would add CaissaBase to the list.

Probably, if you get all of the databases suggested and combine them (using a script to remove duplicates etc), you would have a very good and large record of pretty much any game that would make its way to the public/be in a database.

---
Tags: database
---


# Question
Title: Maximum number of knights populating a chess board so that no knights are attacking one another
The 8 queen's puzzle is a well-known puzzle involving placing 8 queens on a chessboard so that no queen attacks another queen. It is more or less obvious that 8 is the maximum number of queens that can populate a chessboard so that no queens are attacking each other.

But what if we use knights instead? How many knights can we maximally place on a chessboard while still satisfying the stipulation of no piece attacking another piece? So far the maximum I've achieved is 24, attained by placing a cluster of 4 knights in the center, and on every square on the edge of the board except for c1, a3, a6, c8, f8, h6, h3, and f1. I cannot see how this number is improved, although I haven't proven that 24 is the theoretical maximum yet.

Additionally, what happens if we use bishops? The maximum I've achieved is 14 at the moment, placing as many as possible along the edges. But this one I haven't really tried to optimize very much.

# Answer
> 20 votes
**14 non-attacking bishops**

We may consider the white-square bishops and the black-square bishops separately.

At most 7 bishops can be placed on white squares, namely, at most one bishop on each of the 7 white diagonals parallel to the h1-a8 diagonal. In fact, we can put bishops on the 7 white squares b1, d1, f1, h1, c8, e8, g8.

The solution for black-square bishops is just the mirror image of the solution for white-square bishops. At most one bishop can be placed on each of the 7 black diagonals parallel to the a1-h8 diagonal, and this can be achieved with bishops on a1, c1, e1, g1, b8, d8, f8.

**32 non-attacking knights**

We can put 32 knights on the board by putting knights on all the white squares or on all the black squares.

One way to see the we can't have more than 32 knights is to consider a knight's tour. If we number the squares from 1 to 64 in the order they are visited by the touring knight, then it's clear that our non-attacking knights can occupy at most one of the two squares 1 & 2, at most one of squares 3 & 4, at most one of squares 5 & 6, and so on.

But a knight's tour is somewhat difficult, and not really needed for this problem. All we really need is to divide the 64 squares of the chessboard into 32 pairs, each pair being separated by a knight's move. Since the 8 x 8 board can be cut up inti eight 2 x 4 boards, it will be enough to observe that the 2 x 4 board admits such a pairing (and therefore can hold at most 4 non-attacking knights), namely a1 & c2, a2 & c1, b1 & d2, b2 & d1.

**Non-attacking knights on variant chessboards**

It can be shown that, provided m,n \> 2, the maximum possible number of knights on an m x n chessboard is ceiling(mn/2), that is, it's mn/2 if mn is even, (mn+1)/2 if mn is odd. This number can obviously be attained by putting all the knights on squares of one color. Proving that it's optimal is more work.

Let's say that an m x n chessboard has a "good pairing" if the set of squares can be partitioned into pairs (with one square left over if mn is odd), each pair being connected by a knight move. The existence of a good pairing follows from the existence of a knight's tour, but good pairings are easier to find than knight's tours. It will suffice to show that a good pairing exists whenever m,n \> 2. In fact, it will suffice to show that a good pairing exists for 2 x 4, 3 x 3, 3 x 4, 3 x 5, 3 x 6, 5 x 5, and 5 x 6 chessboards, since every m x n chessboard with min(m,n) \> 2 can be partitioned into rectangular pieces of those seven sizes, without using more than one piece with an odd number of squares. Constructing good pairings for those seven small boards is left to the reader. (The 3 x 4, 5 x 5, and 5 x 6 boards allow knight's tours.)

# Answer
> 14 votes
For knights, the maximum is **32.** Since knights can only attack the color opposite of the square they’re on, placing one on 32 squares of the same color is therefore optimal.

```
[FEN "N1N1N1N1/1N1N1N1N/N1N1N1N1/1N1N1N1N/N1N1N1N1/1N1N1N1N/N1N1N1N1/1N1N1N1N w - - 0 1"]

```

As for bishops, **14** is the highest possible.

```
[FEN "B7/B6B/B6B/B6B/B6B/B6B/B6B/B7 w - - 0 1"]

```

---
Tags: problems, knights, bishops, mathematics
---


title: Endgame theory question

text:
# Question
Title: Endgame theory question
Let us look at an endgame where White has 8 pawns, and Black has the e/d-pawn missing. How can White win this endgame if both sides play perfectly? I am having a little trouble.

# Answer
Just move your pawns and your kings up solidly, avoid giving counterplay. At some point you will get the opportunity to get a passed pawn, that you can then usually trade to get several pawns on a wing.

Two short game examples played against stockfish with just king and pawns in initial position while removing black d pawn. First one is very simple without any counterplay, second one is more creative with tactics.

1. d4 a5 2. Kd2 Kd7 3. Kd3 h5 4. e4 Kc6 5.c4 f6 6. b3 g5 7. a3 e6 8. b4 axb4 9. axb4 Kd7 10. c5 Kc6 11. Kc4 Kd7 12. b5 g4 13. d5 exd5+ 14. exd5 Kd8 15. Kd4 b6 16. d6 bxc5+ 17. Kxc5 cxd6+ 18. Kxd6 f5 19. Ke5 h4 20. Kxf5 h3 21. g3 Kc7 22. Kxg4 Kb6 etc.. Just created a majority on the Q side and eventually a passed pawn, while leaving three vs three on the king side. Only possible counterplay for black would have been to bring the three kingside black pawns to f4,g4,h4 with allows them to force the creation of a passed pawn. But it's easy to keep an eye on that resource and prevent it if it might become a threat.
2. e4 a5 2. Ke2 Kd7 3. Ke3 g5 4. d4 f6 5. f4 b5 6. h4 gxh4 7. Kf3 h5 8. c3 Kd6 9. f5 c5 10. b3 b4 11. cxb4 axb4 12. Ke3 e6 13. e5+ fxe5 14. dxc5+ Ke7 15. Ke4 h3 16. gxh3 Kf6 17. c6 exf5+ 18. Kd5 Ke7 19. Kxe5 h4 20. Kxf5 Kd6 21. Kg4 Kxc6 22. Kxh4 Kd7 23. Kg5 Ke7 24. Kf5 Kd6 25. h4 Ke7 26. Ke5 Kf7 27. Kd5 Ke7 28. Kc5 etc..

Gave the h pawn weakening black structure and staying with a majority on the a-f columns while black stays with 2 h pawns vs white g pawn on the king side. Eventually ended up the same way as first game, creating a passed pawn and grabbing black pawns thanks to it, after the tactics arising after 13.e5+. But 6.h4 was kinda just for fun and to show that being a pawn up allows a lot of things. 6.g4 would have been simpler, like in the first game.
> 2 votes

# Answer
A more practical form of your question relates to the Exchange Lopez and Tartakover Caro-Kann.

Euwe did a complete analysis of how White wins the Exchange Lopez pawn ending if you set up the pawn structure with no pieces on the board:

```
4k3/1pp2ppp/p1p5/8/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1

```

While the Tartakover Caro=Kann is the same thing on the other wing.

In this impractical 8-vs.-7 thing you envision, the side with the extra pawn would surely begin with the unopposed pawn two squares, as the first step toward creating a passed pawn.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: endgame, pawns, kings
---


title: SCID VS SCID VS PC Which is better?

text:
# Question
Title: SCID VS SCID VS PC Which is better?
I have both of them installed, but I don't know which is better. For me, I am using SCID instead of SCID VS PC because SCID VS PC you can only have 10 games in a database. If you know how to fix this issue I will gladly use SCID VS PC. Thanks.

# Answer
> 3 votes
"Which is better?" is a risky question to ask around here because it asks for opinions.

I used both. Couldn't tell the difference.

---
Tags: scid
---


title: Checkmate with 3 bishops vs 1 bishop

text:
# Question
Title: Checkmate with 3 bishops vs 1 bishop
I know that you can mate with two bishops, but I do not know whether it is possible if White has 3 bishops, and Black has 1 bishop. Is there a general method? If so, is it possible for White to checkmate in all cases, where he has *n+2* bishops and Black has *n* bishops?

# Answer
White must have two bishops of one colour and a bishop of the other to get checkmate. White can then attempt to pin Black's lone bishop, which is. easier as more pieces get on the board. Then, White can checkmate.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: endgame, checkmate, bishops, kings
---


# Question
Title: 4-2 vs 3-3 (only pawn) endgames arising from Sicilian/Anti Sicilian
I play Sicilian (mainly Najdorf) against e4. Sometimes (in anti-Sicilian or Sicilian openings) I end up with exchanging everything except 6 pawns.

So it becomes a 4-2 pawn (4 on the kingside) versus 3-3 end game. I am the side with 4-2 and most likely a6-b5 being the two.

I remember losing a few such games that I could have drawn or perhaps won.

Can you help me with the main strategies for black and and the opposing side white? Also in the specific game that I attached below, we reach to that position at move 28. But I appreciate any advice before move 28 as well.

```
[Event "Rated Blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/wVcYyus2"]
[Date "2020.09.02"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2020.09.02"]
[UTCTime "18:34:04"]
[WhiteElo "2174"]
[BlackElo "2033"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+3"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-3"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]
[ECO "B22"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: Alapin Variation, Barmen Defense"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "54"]

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bxe2 10. Qxe2 Be7 11. Rd1 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 Qc6 13. Nd2 O-O 14. Nf3 Rfd8 15. h3 Rac8 16. Ne5 Qc7 17. a4 Nd7 18. a5 Nxe5 19. Qxe5 Qxe5 20. Bxe5 a6 21. Kf1 Kf8 22. Ke2 f6 23. Bd4 Ke8 24. Bb6 Rxd1 25. Rxd1 Bd8 26. Rxd8+ Rxd8 27. Bxd8 Kxd8 28. Kd3 Kd7 29. b4 Kc6 30. c4 g6 31. Ke4 b6 32. axb6 Kxb6 33. f4 h5 34. g4 hxg4 35. hxg4 Kc6 36. g5 f5+ 37. Ke5 Kd7 38. c5 Kc6 39. Kxe6 Kb5 40. Kf6 Kxb4 41. c6 a5 42. c7 a4 43. c8=Q 1-0

```

**EDIT**: Brian’s answer well addressed the case when my king’s position was inferior but I am actually more curious about the strategies in the case when they are the same or mine is superior. In the game below, I have a superior king position, but then I blunder. What should be the strategy of black in that case? Instead of pushing the a-pawn, I guess I should have done f6 to avoid g5. Then should I try pushing e5 to make it a passed pawn? But then wouldn’t it be an isolated, hence a vulnerable pawn? Again any comment before the start ply will be also useful.

To put it another way, considering the respective start plies in those games,in the first game, what to do to hold a draw, and in the second, what to do to win strategically?

**EDIT 2**: After Evargalo and David’s comments, I am more or less ok with the first game in the sense that there is no much more to say.

But as Evargalo pointed out in his comment, I don’t quite see why I had +0.9 in the very last position of the second game. To compare, I think both sides violated the second principle of Brian (don’t play in the minority side) and I think I had a better king position. My guess is that it could be due to losing the opposition or the g pawn blocking both f and h. But a deeper perspective could be better.

**EDIT 3** After Brian’s great answers and my analysis with Stockfish, I seem to get an idea. But even then pawn endgames are very sensitive to mistakes that might be hard to spot. Thanks to all the contributors.

```
[Date "2020.09.02"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2018"]
[UTCTime ""]
[WhiteElo ""]
[BlackElo ""]
[WhiteRatingDiff ""]
[BlackRatingDiff ""]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl ""]
[ECO ""]
[Opening ""]
[Termination "Normal"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "70"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O b5 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. a3 Be7 10. Be3 O-O 11. f3 Nbd7 12. Qe1 d5 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Nxd5 Bxd5 15. c3 Qc7 16. Rd1 Rad8 17. Qf2 Ne5 18. Be4 Qb7 19. Bxd5 Rxd5 20. Ne2 Rfd8 21. Rxd5 Rxd5 22. Nf4 Nd3 23. Nxd3 Rxd3 24. Bd4 Qd5 25. Qg3 g6 26. Re1 Bd6 27. Qh4 Bc5 28. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 29. Qf2 Qxf2+ 30. Kxf2 Kf8 31. Re3 Rd2+ 32. Re2 Rd5 33. f4 Ke7 34. Ke3 Kd6 35. Rd2 Rxd2 36. Kxd2 a5 37. g4 a4 38. g5 Kd5 1-0

```

# Answer
> 6 votes
King and pawn endgames are much easier than ones where each side also has a rook. The key principles are fairly simple. You want to try and queen a pawn. With pawns on both sides of the board and an imbalance as here there are two key points:

1. Getting your king to the middle of the board is very important.
2. The only pawns you are likely to queen are ones on the side where you have the majority. If the kings keep away then the further up your pawns get the easier it is to get a passed pawn and queen. So, don't move pawns on your minority side unless you absolutely have to! Doing so makes your opponent's task easier. Move pawns on the side where you have the majority.

In the position you show after move 27 you are already behind in the race to centralize your king. Whether that means you were already losing I doubt but it does make things difficult and it was your choice. Your king has taken 3 moves to go from g8 to d8. In the same number of moves you could have gone from g8 to d5 and that would have been a very different story.

Your transition into the endgame was very poor. Perhaps 20...a6 was already a mistake. You are breaking rul2 by advancing a pawn on your weak side. Better would have been f6 which as well as being a free move, because it kicks the bishop, frees f7, which is a much better square for your king than f8, and moves a pawn on your majority side.

After 24. Bb6 you are in too much of a rush to get all the pieces off with RxR and Bd8. You exchanged pieces in a way which was good for your opponent and bad for you. Bd8 was particularly bad. Your rook on c8 paralyzes white's queenside pawns.

Suppose instead it had gone something like this after move 20:

```
[fen "2rr2k1/pp2bppp/4p3/P3q3/3B4/2P4P/1P3PP1/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxe5 f6 2. Bd4 a6 3. Bb6 Rd6 4. Rxd6 Bxd6 5. Rd1 Rc6 6. Kf1 (6. b4 Bc7) Kf7 7. Ke2 e5

```

After 5...Rc6 you have a simple plan of bringing your king quickly to the center with Kf7, e5, Ke6. If white tries immediately to kick your rook away from the defence of the bishop by rushing forward the queenside pawns starting with b4 then Bc7 is a good response.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Without looking at those gamescores, I'm guessing that you're not taking charge in the center when it's there for the taking.

You know Sicilian players are supposed to win more of the endings, right? White wins the shorter, sharper games that get into magazines, and Black wins the longer ones after weathering the storm.

After weathering that storm, Black is left with a preponderance in the center (which you demonstrate in these endings), and then it's time to go back at them hard. If you don't have the tactical chops for that, cultivate them.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> and in the second, what to do to win strategically?

OK, I've just seen your second edit with another position. Strictly speaking it would be better as a new question, but I'll add another answer looking specifically at this.

The first two things that strike me looking at the final position are that black has a much better king position and white has 2 "reserve moves" to black's none. Whether or not white's poor king position is immediately fatal is a question that requires calculation.

First let me explain "reserve moves" and why they are important in the endgame.

Remove the kings and look again at the position and ask yourself how many moves each side can make before disaster strikes. Black can't move. Any move will result in the loss of a pawn. White has two moves before having to lose a pawn, h2-h3 and h3-h4. What this means is that in any one-off mutual zugzwang position white is going to win thanks to one extra reserve move. Furthermore, if 2 zugzwangs are required for victory then again white is going to win.

In the actual position although black has an optical advantage the queenside foolishness means the game is drawn. As part of the optical illusion of black superiority it looks like white's next move, Kd3, is forced, but such is the tragedy of black's queenside pawns (and the lack of reserve moves) that I think white can even play Kc2. If black responds with the obvious Kc4 then black can even play b3+! and because of the extra reserve moves this just accelerates the development of a passed pawn.

The problem for each side is that pushing their minority side pawns has accelerated their opponent's development of a passed pawn. Let's have a look at a couple of lines. In each case I think that if one side had kept their minority side pawns at home they would likely have won.

```
[fen "8/5p1p/4p1p1/1p1k2P1/p4P2/P1P5/1P1K3P/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kd3 (1. Kc2 e5 (1...Kc4 2. b3+ axb3+ 3. Kb2 Kd5 4. Kxb3 Kc5 5. h3 Kd5 6. Kb4 Ke4 7. c4 bxc4 8. Kxc4 Kxf4 9. a4 e5 10. a5 e4 11. a6 e3 12. Kd3 Kf3 13. a7 Kf2 14. a8=Q) 2. fxe5 Kxe5 3. b4 f5 4. gxf6 Kxf6 5. Kd3 g5 6. c4 bxc4+ 7. Kxc4 Ke6 8. Kc5 h5 9. Kc6 h4 10. b5 g4 11. b6 g3 12. hxg3 hxg3 13. b7 g2 14. b8=Q g1=Q) e5 2. fxe5 Kxe5 3. c4 bxc4+ 4. Kxc4 f5 5. gxf6 Kxf6 6. Kb4 g5 7. Kxa4 h5 8. b4 h4 9. b5 Ke7 10. Ka5 g4 11. b6 Kd7 12. Ka6 g3 13. hxg3 hxg3 14. b7 g2 15. b8=Q g1=Q 16. a4 Qc5

```

And finally,

> Instead of pushing the a-pawn, I guess I should have done f6 to avoid g5. Then should I try pushing e5 to make it a passed pawn? But then wouldn’t it be an isolated, hence a vulnerable pawn?

I think the idea of f6 is not to try and stop white pushing a pawn to g5, because that would be bad for white, but for black to try and try and push g5 to get rid of the white f4 pawn and leave the e pawn as a passer.

OK let's look at the position after 35 moves. White is going to recapture the rook. Then what are the plans for each side and how will the position look after they are implemented?

Both sides are going to try, and if they try hard enough they are going to succeed in creating a passed pawn on the side where they have a majority. So, white will have a queenside passed pawn and black will have a kingside passed pawn. What happens then?

Well, one side or the other is going to push their passed pawn and force the other side to undefend their passed pawn in order to take it. So white will end up with the king on the kingside and white's king will be on the queenside and the plans for both sides will be to take as many pawns on that side of the board as required to be able to queen a pawn, basically a race.

In this race the advantage will be with the side that has to move their king the fewest moves to achieve that together with having a pawn closer to queening. It looks like the starting gun for this race will be fired after black has taken a passed pawn on c4 and white has taken a passed pawn on e4 and black will be aiming to go on and take the white pawn on a3 and white is likely going to be aiming for a black pawn on h6.

It looks to me as if black is winning that race. If so then that is a scenario that white must try and avoid. If white does try avoid that I think that black can force that situation by first creating a passed pawn and then advancing the queenside pawns to paradoxically create a passed pawn for white.

Let's look at a few lines to see how it could pan out.

```
[fen "8/5p1p/p2kp1p1/1p6/5P2/P1P1K3/1P1r2PP/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kxd2 Kd5 2. Kd3 f6 3. b3 (3. h4 a5 4. b3 h5 5. c4+ bxc4+ 6. bxc4+ Kc5 7. Kc3 e5 8. fxe5 fxe5 9. Kd3 e4+ 10. Kxe4 Kxc4) 3... g5 4. fxg5 fxg5 5. c4+ (5. Kd2 a5 6. Kc2 e5 7. Kd3 e4+ 8. Kd2 a4 9. bxa4 bxa4 10. g3 Kc4 11. h4 gxh4 12. gxh4 Kb3 13. c4 Kxc4 14. Ke3 Kb3 15. Kxe4 Kxa3) 5... bxc4+ 6. bxc4+ Kc5 7. h3 a5 8. g3 a4 9. Kc3 e5 10. Kd3 e4+ 11. Kxe4 Kxc4 12. Kf5 h6 13. Kg6 Kb3 14. Kxh6 Kxa3 15. Kxg5 Kb3)

```

Caveat: I'm sure a good engine with tablebases will find lots of holes in this analysis but it gives a general idea of what black is aiming for in these kinds of positions. And I guess that these kind of endgames are what Sicilian players expect and are aiming for.

---
Tags: endgame, sicilian-defense, pawn-endgame
---


# Question
Title: Online chess with full disclosure of name and FIDE ID
I would like to play online chess via an interface where name and FIDE number are disclosed, mainly because I believe that this discourages engine users. A few questions:

1. I found the FIDE Arena application, and thought it indeed required disclosure of personal info, but after trying it out it doesn't seem so. Is that perhaps only a requirement for paying users? Any info what be appreciated on this.
2. Any other platform that enforces such a requirement?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Only FIDE could enforce that. Talk to them.

No other platform can or does do that.

---
Tags: online-chess, fide
---