# Question
Title: In Chess, are there simple "mechanics" that amateurs can learn to improve their game?
In the board game Go, for instance, it is often of great importance whether or not a stone can be captured in a so-called "ladder" (an often complicated formation). One of the things that separates professionals from beginning and intermediate players is that professionals can solve with a glance a problem that others struggle with.

Are there similar "mechanics" in chess (most likely the end game), that amateurs would do well to learn to greatly improve their game? Examples might include the ability of a king, or other piece to "catch" a passed pawn; the ability of a king to gain the opposition against the opposing king halfway across the board; the minimum number of moves needed for a bishop or knight to reach a certain critical square, etc.

# Answer
> 25 votes
Good question, and I think that there are a lot of different common patterns/tactics that improving players would do well to learn:

(very roughly ordered from simplest to most difficult)

## "Simple" tactics and endgames

* **knight forks and bishop forks** \- get in the habit of just *seeing* the squares that would be forked instead of needing to spend time looking
* **rook and queen forks** \- very similar to the above, but sometimes these are more difficult to see for some reason (i.e. white king on g1, knight on g3, Rg2+ would fork the two if the rook is defended)
* **king and pawn endgames** \- as mentioned in your question, the rule of square is crucial. At the end of a long variation leading into a king and pawn endgame, just knowing whether or not the pawn will queen is often the difference between a win and a loss, and this trick will save a lot of time, often during time pressure.
* **drawn bishop and rook pawn endgames** \- again, if you know that a rook pawn and the wrong colored bishop will only draw, this will enable you to save time and half points.
* **drawn knight vs pawn endgames** \- sometimes a lone knight can fight successfully against the enemy king and pawn, sometimes not. At a certain level (1900+?) it's important to know when the king and pawn win and when they only draw. That's probably a separate question on its own...

## Rook endgames

* **Lucena position** \- the Lucena position is the most common method of winning with a rook and extra pawn vs rook. It's not terribly difficult to commit to memory either - spend 5-10 minutes and learn how to win when you get your king in front of your pawn!
* **Philidor position** \- the Philidor position is the most common drawing method if you are down a pawn. Again, doesn't take much time to learn the basic position, and a good investment if you want to save a few draws in your games.
* **cut off king** \- if the enemy king can be cut off along a file or a rank, usually the stronger side will win. However, learning the exceptions to this rule is important as well. This is far less common than other winning rook endgames though, so less important if you just want practical knowledge.

## Piece relationships and domination

* **bishop dominates knight** \- a picture is worth 1000 words...
* **king dominates knight** \- similar to king and pawn vs lone knight...

## More complicated endgames

* **queen endgames** \- learning how to win with an extra pawn in a queen endgame can be valuable, as can learning how to defend. There are few very common tricks (walking your king close to the enemy king to allow for cross-checks, deciding which corner to run to when you are on the weaker side, etc.) that are useful. Again, this might be worth its own question.
* **bishops of opposite color** \- many times bishops of opposite color are a quick draw. Not always though! Learning some of the patterns used to get a win with an extra pawn or two in this endgame will allow you to win as the stronger side, and avoid losing as the weaker side. Common patterns/tricks include two pawns vs no pawns separated by a single file (many times a draw), learning how to win with two pawns separated by 3+ files (hint: king helps the pawn barricaded by the enemy bishop), and learning how to draw these positions.

## Tactics and mating patterns

Learning some basic mating patterns or typical tricks can be useful as well:

* **Greek gift Bxh7+ sacrifice** \- if black doesn't have a knight on f6 and white has a knight on f3, queen on d1, and a bishop that is attacking h7, it's imperative to at least check this sacrifice. The Art of the Attack has a whole chapter dedicated to this common theme.
* **Checkmate patterns** \- spend an hour learning patterns - the wikipedia article is a great start, but Art of the Checkmate is the authoritative book and it is available fairly cheap on Amazon...

Well, that was a lot, please feel free to add or embellish this answer if you think of more patterns and tricks!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Maximum distance between knight and any piece. Distance between king and passed pawns. Distance between knight and passed pawns (has to be calculated because the knight can give a check to gain time). Recognize opposite colored bishop endgames that can still be won (by blocking the opponent bishop diagonal or preventing the bishop from taking a diagonal using your king). Taking the seventh rank with your rook. Stopping enemy passed pawns with your rook. Blocking enemy passed pawns with a knight. Learn all endgame wins by heart (K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K+Q vs K+R, K+B+B vs K, K+B+N vs K). Learn to use the R+N team to attack the enemy king. Also, I would advice to read and work with the book My System written by Nimzowitsch. It has a collection of ideas and goals that can guide you during the entire game.

---
Tags: tactics, patterns
---


# Question
Title: Looking for a good and non main line variation against the Sicilian
I am looking for a nice variation against the Sicilian, which is a little bit aggressive but mainly not part of the main line like `Nf3`, `d4`, `b4` or `c3` after `e4 c5`.

The thing is, I don't want to learn 20 variations, which I have to do if I play the main openings.

Which one do you like to play / recommend me?

# Answer
> 6 votes
It's a bit difficult to recommend an aggressive line that doesn't fall into the variations that you listed. However, I believe there is an option that may suit your tastes. The Rossolimo with `2. Nc3` is venomous choice that's played at the highest levels and contains many lines that are quite dangerous for black. Here's one of the opening traps:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Bc4 e6 5. Nge2 Nf6 6. d3 a6 7. O-O d5 8. exd5 exd5 9. Nxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd4 cxd4 11. Qh5 Be6 12. Re1

```

I recommend that you look more into the opening yourself and discover some more interesting lines.

# Answer
> 6 votes
It looks like you are looking for a line that is aggressive, but does not require you to jump into tactical lines right away. If this is the case `1.e4 c5 2.b3` is worth consideration.

* It is hard to predict where the game will go, but usually the fact that white's dark-squared bishop is aiming at white king via `a1-h8` diagonal gives pretty good attacking chances.
* You will build up first and attack later. This requires more understanding than memorization.
* If black is more accurate in the opening; it is fairly easy for them to become the aggressor.
* Open Sicilian is objectively stronger, though this is not a big deal at non-professional level.

# Answer
> 4 votes
I've been playing the Smith-Morra for many years now.

> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3

I generally get a good game even at the USCF expert level.

# Answer
> 3 votes
I would actually suggest the grand prix attack with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 I've never played the white side of it, but lots of strong players like it as an alternative weapon. The "idea" is to try for an attack where you play Qd1-e1-h4, f5, Bh6 and Ng5 in some combination, ready to play Nd5 or Rxf6 to dislodge the main defender on f6.

# Answer
> 1 votes
The Sicilian defense is an excellent weapon to fight for the initiative with the black pieces. Perhaps 1.d4 is better if you want to learn a smaller volume of variations. Having said this, I think that 2.b4 is an interesting option. With the same idea, you can try 2.a3 followed by 3.b4. If you want a slow game, you can try 2.d3 followed by c2-c3, Be2, Nbd2, 0-0, Qc2, a4, Rf1-e1 with some ideas like Nd2-f1-g3 that are similar to the Spanish system. Still, my recommendation for a sharp play while avoid the main lines is to try 2.b4 or 2.a3 followed by 3.b4

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.b4 (2.a3 then b4)

```

---
Tags: opening, analysis, sicilian-defense, aggressive-play
---


title: Take away which pawns?

text:
# Question
Title: Take away which pawns?
In a hypothetical variant of chess, before the start of the game black is allowed to remove one white pawn and one black pawn. Which pawns should they remove? The pawns don't have to be on the same file.

My hope is that the answer should give some insight into opening dynamics and the relative value of pawns in normal chess.

# Answer
If you are trying to remove the pawn to cause the *most* damage to the starting position, I'd go with the `f` pawn. Since `f2/f7` is already a tender spot, as it is only covered by the King in the early parts of the game, it's a bit more likely to cause overall positional damage.

You could make the argument that removing the `d` or `e` pawn could be worse, as they are important for central control. However, removing them does add a certain value, in that the pieces can develop more quickly from the starting position.

If you are trying to cause the *least* damage to your own position, definitely either the `a` or `h` pawn. They have the least influence on the board, and there is something to be said for having that open file for the rook.

As to which one to remove...if you followed the above advice and removed the `f` pawn of your opponent, I'd remove my own `a` pawn, so that they don't feel comfortable castling on either side of the board.
> 6 votes

# Answer
did the following experiment using Fritz

1. setup the board at the start and removed one black pawn at a time (a7 --\> h7).
2. the computer evaluation was strongest (for white) when the f7 pawn was removed.

similarly repeated the experiment for white. Again the evaluation was strongest for black when the f2 pawn was removed.

What i found interesting was that there was significant first move advantage for white if the f7 pawn was removed for black and non F file pawn was removed for white.

*Please note that these tests were done at very shallow depths.*

I guess a strong chess player like yourself can make a better evaluation of these tests.
> 1 votes

# Answer
As black, I would remove the white f2 pawn and the black e7 pawn. This way, the dark squares around the white king are weakened, while black's dark squared bishop and queen are ready for action. Optionally, I would remove the white g2-pawn and the black h7-pawn. This would leave white with an isolated h-pawn already under attack by the black Rh8. Optionally, I would remove the white d2 or e2 pawn against either of black's h7 or a7 pawns. In this way, white would have traded a center pawn against a flank pawn, which should give black a stronger control in the center.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, chess-variants
---


# Question
Title: How can one determine the opening or transposed opening from the existing pawn formation/structure?
I was once told that you can determine an opening or transposed opening just by how the pawns are structured on the board. Is this the method normally used to determine if an opening was transposed into another through a sequence of moves? I have found it interesting how top players can usually see a transposition very quickly.

# Answer
In one sense, I would simply say, "Yes, the pawn structure would be the first indicator that one has entered/transposed into a given opening." But since there's no other answer here as of yet, I'm going to take the liberty to say a bit more, pushing a little further than the question as you asked it.

---

Not to put too fine a point on it, but here's one way to look at this matter: it is not so much that the pawn structure allows you to recognize what opening you're in (or have transposed to), but rather that the pawn structure *nearly defines* a given opening. In fact, while at certain playing levels very precise knowledge of opening lines is definitely crucial, one can get quite far without focusing too much on particular *openings*, but instead just on particular *structures*, and understanding the sorts of plans and piece developments that are appropriate for given structures.

This kind of approach is very much in the proverbial spirit of being taught to fish, instead of being given a fish (read: an opening line). One can't be ignorant of particular lines entirely, as one could get "move-ordered" into positions/structures one does not want to play; my main point, though, is that I think many beginning and intermediate players overemphasize knowledge of particular opening lines, and can sometimes get too caught up on labels/names that, ultimately, don't really matter, and distract from more useful considerations.

Here's an example of what I mean. Consider a game that starts with a Trompowsky Attack move order, `1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5`, which then proceeds with `2. ... e6 3. e4 Be7 4. Nc3 d5 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4`, reaching the following position:

```
rnb1k2r/pppnqppp/4p3/3pP3/3P1P2/2N5/PPP3PP/R2QKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

```

This same position is reached *much more often* via a French Defense move order: `1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4` (in my database, there are only 23 games which include the previous move order, but 4050 which include this one). So, though we started off with a Trompowsky, we've ended up in a position that would now be termed the Steinitz variation of the French Defense. But what's in a name, really? If the Trompowsky was as old as the French, maybe it would be the other way around and we would say that in the latter case what started as a French transposed to a Trompowsky.

Here's my point: how we got here doesn't matter once we're here, and what we call it doesn't matter either for our chess playing. I have actually heard players say, in analogous situations, something along the lines of, "Oh, so now I need to learn the French Defense too." But this doesn't really make sense, any more than it would for a French Defense player who goes for this position to think that she suddenly needs to start picking up books on the Trompowsky. What each player really needs is to understand the structure that arises, regardless of what move order is used to get there, and regardless of what name for an opening the position receives.

---

Having said all that, I should probably say something about "learning to fish." One good resource is Andrew Soltis' classic *Pawn Structure Chess*, which examines appropriate plans in given structures via many illustrative games, in chapters that are broken down by opening families, with titles like: The Caro-Slav Family, The Open Sicilian-English, The King's Indian Complex, The Panov Formation, etc. You'll find that the reader reviews in the link generally solidly endorse Soltis' book; so do folks like Jeremy Silman.

Another book which uses illustrative games to explain certain kinds of pawn structures is Dražen Marović's *Understanding Pawn Play in Chess*. One difference from Soltis' book is that the chapters are broken down by the concrete aspects of various pawn structures, with titles such as Isolated Pawns, Doubled Pawns, Pawn-Chains, Pawn-Islands, etc. John Donaldson gave a very positive review of Marović's book.

I'll also mention Hans Kmoch's older work *Pawn Power in Chess* from 1959, because I bought that book early on when I got into chess, and though I wasn't really prepared for it at the time, I think it has a lot going for it. You can get a good sense of the book and its worth from the preview and the reviews in the link. But as everyone who ever mentions this book will say in one way or another, Kmoch tries to be overly "scientific" in his approach and introduces *a lot* of unfortunate terminology that does more to obscure than enlighten. (For instance, *leucopenia* and *melanpenia* are coined for light-square and dark-square weaknesses, respectively.) But if you get past that kind of jargon, by just ignoring it best you can, there is truly useful information in the book, and it comes in the form of a typically inexpensive Dover edition.
> 9 votes

# Answer
In Andrew Soltis' book Pawn Structure Chess, he goes into great detail on the types of pawn positions you run into with specific openings, how they relate to other openings with similar structures, and when the transpositions are common.

I'd look into that resource and others like it for the specifics you're searching for.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Consider this example

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.e5 Nc6 5.c3

```

Here, we see a transition from the Sicilian system to the French system. Black decided to transpose by playing 3...d5 instead of 3...cxd4. White could accept the transposition in different ways. White got extra options compared to the normal French variation, where

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3

```

would be unwise since the e4 pawn is hanging. Therefore, white could probably get the better of the transposition shown in the first diagram, by choosing something different than 4.e5 (e.g. 4.exd5 followed by Bb5+ and O-O). All in all, the more opening systems you are familiar with, the better you become at transposing between them as well as recognizing transpositions. While an opening system is often defined by its pawn structures, since pawns cannot move backwards and therefore the pawn structure has a defining impact on the rest of the game. Every system has its own inherent pawn exchanges, e.g. c5xd4 in the Sicilian system, c4xb5 in the Volga gambit. Also, there are typical pawn formations (e.g. the d6, e6, f7, g6, h7 of the Sicilian Dragon). So there is actually no magic to it, other than memory and pattern recognition!
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, transpositions, pawn-structure
---


title: A chess player's weakness assessed

text:
# Question
Title: A chess player's weakness assessed
How can I discover my weaknesses in chess and order them from biggest to smallest? I'm guessing a strong GM could analyze a couple of my games and do this for me. But I'm not sure it's worth the economic investment. Is there another way for me to do this?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Made two self-assessment book recommendations to a related question (How to automatically evaluate a player's performance in a game?). Igor Khmelnitsky's Chess Rating Exam is pretty thorough at evaluating every aspect of your game.

BTW, really like that you are approaching this in a analyzing/organizing your "biggest weaknesses" manner rather than embarking on the fairly commonplace *it must be the openings, so I need to study openings* knee-jerk/inefficient study plan.

# Answer
> 3 votes
This is a matter of your personality. If you are a type of person who can objectively assess own weak and strong sides, then the same skills can be used for chess. In this case you need to analyze your games, which part of games are your weak sides, in which openings or end games you feel uncomfortable or good, whether you prefer tactical type of games or positional and how you manage to deal with them. Just do two columns for pros and cons then you might understand you weknesses and strengthes.

However if you can't really assess yourself then help of a GM or IM can be handy! And, it will be handy anyway :)

# Answer
> 1 votes
To discover your strong and weak skills requires you to also understand what types of skills that are relevant for your chess strength. I think the process of understanding the complete skill set is a gradual process over a long period of time. Having said this, you don't really need to know all your strong and weak skills in order to improve. Instead, you can focus on one skill at the time. For instance, calculation of variations, rook endgames, positional play, etc. Pick an area that you think will have a clear positive effect on your results and start working with only that skill. Of course, the ideal situation is when you have a skilled mentor that has a deep insight in your skills and guides your development. It is indeed rare to find such a mentor free of charge. If you think that improving in chess is important, consider finding a mentor.

# Answer
> 0 votes
As @Andrew pointed out you should look at your previous losses (and blown wins), and find the root cause. Try to be as honest as possible with yourself (this is easier said than done!). You might want to do this for all your losses, maybe make a spread sheet of all your losses, with an illustration of crucial position. You might start to see patterns that you were not aware off, for example, you might see that you lose all your games in even knight endgames, or it turns out that you lose all the games against the Scandinavian.

---
Tags: analysis
---


title: Scotch gambit: 4... f6

text:
# Question
Title: Scotch gambit: 4... f6
```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6

```

How should I play from here? This move seems to head off the main ideas of my kingside attack; what is the best way to proceed with the plan of quickly developing and attacking?

# Answer
> 6 votes
I think f6 is an uninspiring move. It doesn't force anything, blocks the Knight on g8, and exposes the King.

365chess.com says that Black's win percentage is wretched after f6; in fact it's the weakest reply with Black winning only about 16% of the games.

Good continuations include the trade of Knights in the middle with `5. Nxd4 Nxd4 6. Qxd4` or `5. O-O`.

Stockfish sees

```

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6 5.O-O Nge7 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Nc6 8.Qd1 Ne5 9.Bb3 Bc5 10.Nc3 c6 11.Na4 Be7 12.a3 b5 13.Nc3 a5 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh6 Bf8 16.Qe3 Ba6 17.Rd1 Qc7 18.Qf4

```

...with a pawn-plus advantage to white.

Here's a sample game from 2001, Wolfgang Kuhn is White, Heinrich Lehr is Black. I don't know the strength of these players.

```

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6 5. O-O Nge7 6. Nxd4 Ne5 7. Be2 N7g6 8.  f4 Nf7 9. Nc3 Bc5 10. Be3 c6 11. Na4 Qe7 12. Nxc5 Qxc5 13. Nf5 Qf8 14. Qd3 d6  15. Nd4 Bd7 16. Rad1 O-O-O 17. Qb3 Qe7 18. Bc4 Rhf8 19. Be6 Rde8 20. f5 Nge5  21. Bxd7+ Nxd7 22. Ne6 c5 23. Nxf8 Nxf8 24. Bf4 Qxe4 25. Qxf7 1-0

```

# Answer
> 5 votes
Basically, `f6` is a blunder, hands down. Take the pawn in the middle, keep your light bishop on the diagonal preventing Black from castling, and ride that positional advantage into the home stretch.

Here is what stockfish sees after a few (note that it is important to wait and allow stockfish to get to at least 20 moves of analysis - it can make a difference).

White to move, suggested Qd3 +1.57

```

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6 5. Nxd4 Nge7 6. Nc3 Nxd4 7. Qxd4
Nc6 8. Qd2 Ne5 9. Bb3 c6 10. f4 Ng6

```

# Answer
> 2 votes
First of all, 4...f6 is not the strongest option for black. The move f7-f6 weakens the light squares around the black king (e6, f7 and g6). Also, it occupies the f6-square where the Ng8 is headed. Having said this, my advice is to grab on d4, castle kingside and attack the black king. White has a solid plus after f7-f6. For instance, how will black castle kingside when the g8-square is guarded by white's Bc4? For example

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 f6 5.Nxd4 Ne5 6.Bxg8 Rxg8 7.O-O

```

To find out more about black's options, have a look at this sharp line

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5

```

---
Tags: opening, theory, gambits, scotch-game
---


# Question
Title: Sicilian Scheveningen versus Najdorf: What are some of the characteristics that differentiate the two openings?
I would like to compare the Sicilian Scheveningen

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6

```

with the Sicilian Najdorf

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6

```

Please note that I am only concerned about positions where the two openings share a common pawn structure; meaning Black has pawns on e6 and d6 and not on the positions in the Najdorf where Black has played an early `...e5`. In the lines where these two openings share a common central pawn structure, what are some of the characteristics that differentiate the two openings regarding piece placement and Black's minority attack on the queenside with `a7-a6` and `b7-b5`? I am mostly interested in contrasting different middlegame plans and tactics based on piece placement such as the knight at b8 going to either d7 (typical of Najdorf) or c6 (typical of the Scheveningen) as an example.

# Answer
I just adore the Najdorf. So I cannot help favoring it over the Scheveningen. Yes, these two variations differ. They differ because white uses a bit different attacking strategies. The great thing about the Najdorf is that there are excellent ways of counter-attacking. Black does choose between e7-e6 and e7-e5 in the different lines. For example, here is a line where black chooses e7-e6

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6

```

I think that by looking at the main lines of each variation will answer your question in the best way. For Najdorf, I can say that the Nb8 usually goes to d7. Yet the exact placement of pieces and plans depends fully on the plan that white chooses. For example, white has the classical attack with Bg5, f4 and Qf3.

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 h6 8.Bh4 Be7 9.Qf3 Qc7 10.O-O-O Nbd7

```

In general, the sharp variations lead to concrete positions, where the best options differ from position to position. If white chooses to be aggressive in either of the two variations (Scheveningen or Najdorf), you will get sharp and dynamic positions where a single error will be fatal. If white chooses more calm paths, I think the two variations are very similar in their piece placements and typical ideas (e.g. the exchange sacrifice Rc8xNc3). My advice is to get a solid overview of all the lines in the two variations and go through at least ten grandmaster games for every line.
> 4 votes

# Answer
Probably the biggest difference is the availability of an early `g2-g4-g5` bayonet attack by White. As I recall, this attack is very nearly a bust to the traditional Schevenigen move order. However, with Black's `... a6` in the Najdorf order, he has more freedom to play `... e5` in response to White's flank attack, without losing time or fearing an annoying bishop check.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: strategy, tactics, sicilian-defense, middlegame, najdorf
---


# Question
Title: What are the qualification criteria for the world team championship?
The world team chess championship concluded recently and Russia won the Gold. But there were only ten countries that participated in the event. What are the criteria followed to select the countries participating in this event?

# Answer
> 3 votes
From the FIDE Handbook:

> 1.4.1 Teams Qualification for the FIDE World Team Championship according to the following criteria:
> a.The previous event's World Chess Team Champion
> b.The three highest-placed teams in the FIDE Olympiad prior to the event.
> c.The four Continental Champions. The qualifiers will be the winners of the ultimate, respective Continental Championship organised at least six months prior to the World Team Championship.
> d.A team from the organizing federation.
> e.A team to be nominated by FIDE President.
>
> If any team would have already qualified according to one of these criteria, this place will be given to the next highest ranked country, in the Olympiad preceding the World Team Championship.

---
Tags: world-championship, tournament
---


# Question
Title: What is the purpose of 3...a6 in the Ruy Lopez?
It doesn't kick the bishop off that diagonal, and playing ...b5 later puts the bishop on another great diagonal and is supposedly bad for black (an explanation of this would be great too). So why is 3...a6 in the main line for black?

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6

```

# Answer
> 9 votes
Playing ...b5 later is not bad for black. Playing it immediately isn't so great, but Black almost always plays ...b5 at some point (unless White plays Bxc6 first!).

The main reason to play ...a6 early is that you can now play ...b5 any time you want to if you decide that you don't White to take the knight on c6. If you don't play ...a6, and then later decide that you want to kick the bishop away and start by playing ...a6, White can go ahead and play Bxc6. If you've already played ...a6, you can go straight to ...b5 and White doesn't get a chance to capture your knight in response.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Both diagonals `a4-e8` and `a2-g8` are good for white's bishop. Ruy-lopez strategy is to pressure on black's position by `a4-e8` diagonal. Ruy-lopez claims this diagonal is more dangerous and annoying for black. Indirect pressuring on black's king and then on the knight on `c6` is the idea.

The pawn on `d7` is going to advance and after that the knight on `c6` which is protector of `e5` will be pinned by the bishop. It can reduce the speed of black's developing. After `a6` white shall decide to exchange or backward the bishop. After backward, black has the ability to play `b5` and escape from pinning.

Also, playing ruy-lopez without `a6` is possible but history shows, it's better to play the main variant.

# Answer
> 3 votes
After ...a6, white has to make a choice to either play Bxc6 or Ba4. If Bxc6 then black has enough resources to protect his e5 pawn and maintain a stable position (if 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5?! Qd4 and black will regain his pawn with good position. And if white doesn't play 5.Nxe5 then black has the bishop pair and simple development; black aims to prove that Bxc6 was premature).

Thus white tries Ba4 instead to try to maintain some edge, he still threatens Bxc6 but waits until he protects his own e4 pawn first before doing so. Seeing all this, that's the reason why black plays ...a6 immediately. Black can play ...b5 when necessary to help protect his e5 pawn when time comes. Yes the bishop goes to another good diagonal, but black doesn't lose any tempo with ...a6 and ...b5 so it's even ground. If black plays ...a6 later instead, white can -under good circumstances- immediately play Bxc6 (trying to win the e5 pawn, which is what he was threatening to do anyway) but without losing a tempo by retreating to a4 first.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The idea of 3. .. a6 is to **force** white player to make a **decision about** own **black Bishop** already in this part of the game.

For example:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bc6

```

or

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4

```

Its two different variations with tons of theory in each of it.

If you want the evaluation of 3. ... a6 move - it is neutral one, not aggressive. In the same category is for example 3. ... d6

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6

```

Not aggresive not mean weak - it is a solid one.

In contrast to 3. ... a6 or 3. ... d6

moves like 3... f5:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5

```

3... Nf6:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6

```

3... Nd4:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4

```

forces the combination game.

To show the example of passive move in this position is 3... Nge7:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7

```

waiting for white action even creating some minimal troubles for own black bishop here.

**To summarise it:**

the purpose of 3. ... a6 in Ruy Lopez is to become more information about enemy black Bishop and as a result the whites plans for this game.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Here's a common variation:

```

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3

```

The white Bishop is on a decent square. It attacks a center square (d5), the weak f7 pawn, and the square to which the Black King will likely retire (g8). However, that's all this Bishop can do. Its influence is limited to 6 squares and it has little mobility. Black has gained space on the Queen side. Bb7 is a nice move. Black can be thinking about playing c5 followed by Qb6, or Bb5.

In short, the position is very flexible for Black. Watch that `f7` square, though!

# Answer
> 1 votes
The point of a7-a6 is to enter variations where white's light squared bishop will be kicked back to c2 and black will grab space in the center with c7-c5. See for instance this variation:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.d3 O-O 8.c3 d6 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Bc2 c5

```

It is a popular variation for black and black has plenty of ideas. A complicated battle lies ahead. The short term point of a7-a6 is to kick away the bishop from the a4-e8 diagonal. The long term point is to get these types of positions where both sides have plenty of ideas and chances to fight for the initiative.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The reason a6 is good is because it "puts the question" to the White Bishop. If White doesn't immediately play B(b5)x N(c6), it gives Black the later **option of** kicking White off the a4 to e8 diagonal by playing b5 later on.

Yes, White gets another good diagonal on a2...g8. But one of the diagonals is better (or less bad) for Black than the other, meaning that Black's option of playing b5 is a valuable one. Also, unless White chooses to stay on this diagonal instead of a2...g8, the bishop goes off the f1...a6 diagonal when he retreats.

In his prime, world champion J.R. Capablanca was the hardest person in the world to defeat (he once went eight years without a single tournament loss), even though he was not always victorious (earned many draws). The reason is that he made as many moves as possible to take away his opponent's options. This is one example.

One of the few people to beat Capablanca (in 1914, just before this time) was Emanuel Lasker, who took the knight immediately. Most people playing White don't want to do this immediately, because this limits their options. But a6 prevents White from doing this at a later, more favorable time.

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


# Question
Title: Existence Flanking against Center Control
as I learnt at School of Chess, there are 7 different school with unique 'accentuation',

1. **Philidor**, believed that maintaining the mobility of pawns was the most important strategic factor of chess
2. **Modenese school**, emphasized rapid development of the pieces for an attack on the opposing king, aiming for checkmate or winning material in the process
3. **English school**, allowed attacks after strategic advantages were obtained when the position was prepared – control was gained over the center and key points
4. **Romantic chess**, characterized by brash sacrifices and open, tactical games
5. **Steinitz**, strengthened defensive techniques and advocated strategic maneuvering to gain enough of an advantage before launching an attack
6. **Hypermodern school**, emphasizes control of the center by attacking it with pieces especially from the periphery
7. **Soviet hegemony**, believed that a weakness that could not be attacked was not a real weakness

So I 'separated' them then I have two condition, Center Control and Flanking.
When I played with my houdini, Top 3 as first move is always represent and replied (White view) with \[`d4` or `e4` or `f4`\] which means that houdini rules implement Center Control.
And if I used Flanking method, I always seem to lost too quickly
\[or maybe just because my stupidity.. ^^\].

Are there real Flanking advantages against Center Control (some official game and/or proved calculation) since 'it' born after Center Control??

Thanks,
Ahmad

# Answer
This is a hard question to answer because you take a very broad, abstract, historical concept (the existence of "schools" in chess, with a particular list that I've definitely not seen before) and then you connect that with a very concrete, peculiar little thing (the moves Houdini suggests in the opening position if it doesn't have an opening book).

I'll just write a bit about both and then I hope you'll understand the difficulty. This is all completely my unsourced opinion and impression of current chess, I'm not going to give sources.

Those schools are a broad overview of the history of the development of chess strategy. First people thought one thing, then that got refined, then someone wrote a book claiming the opposite... That's interesting to read, but there are lots of reasons why it's not that useful to someone currently learning chess, in my view:

* Reality wasn't as black and white as those "schools" make it seem. In the end, all of them played chess, they were good, and often if a strong move was available, they would play it. Some players used some techniques more often than other players did. And when they wrote books, they would argue vehemently against other books, because that sells.
* That said, most of these discussions were pre-WWII, and the thinking nowadays is closer to what is "Soviet hegemony" in your list: if it works, it works. And since the coming of computers and their great defensive skills, we've found that there are way more things that work than we used to think. Flank openings, classical openings, extremely deep tactical lines, very quiet endgame openings, they all turned out to be playable. Both "hypermodern" and "classical" openings are extremely popular nowadays, and most players play both!
* A discussion of "schools" is at such a high level of abstraction that you to wonder if that could ever help you find the best move in some concrete chess position during a tournament, which is in the end the only thing that counts when you're trying to get better at chess.

Then, Houdini. Chess programs aren't very good at the opening, compared to established opening theory. Some reasons why that is:

* They don't need to be good at opening theory, because they use opening books. So they are tuned so that they perform best at the later stages of the game.
* Opening theory is the compiled knowledge of *hundreds of years* of human research. Computers are strong, but not remotely close to strong enough to recompute the equivalent of that research in a couple of minutes.
* Even if they were, thousands of people have computers running continuously to work on openings, and your single Houdini is up against that too.

So, forget about using Houdini in the opening position. Look at what is popular among strong players. And they use a broader selection of openings than ever.
> 7 votes

# Answer
Do Hypermodern techniques work? Certainly. Hypermodern openings include the Pirc, Nimzo-Indian, Grunfeld, the Catalan Opening, King's Indian Defense, Alekhine's Defense, and the Queen's Indian Defense. There are probably a dozen others. These are commonly played by GMs, especially the Grunfeld and KID. Surely this is proof enough that the Hypermodern ideas are valid.

The definition of what is playable also depends on a player's skill level. Non-masters can pretty much play what they want because their opponents will not be able to punish them for small mistakes.

Other observations:

1. There is no silver bullet in chess except to make good moves.
2. Losing to Houdini is easy. It's a GM-strength program.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The center (e4, d4, e5 and d5) has to be firmly controlled before a flank attack can be initiated. The reasons are many. A piece in the center can quickly enter the battle on either flank, while a piece on one of the flanks takes a long time to enter a battle on the opposite flank. Also, having pawns in the center will allow to kick back the opponent's pieces, e.g. e4-e5 to kick back a black knight from f6. Having said this, there are opening systems for black with the three row concept, where white is allowed to dominate the center, while black is ready to strike at a later point. I am thinking about the Hedgehog variation:

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3 Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O b6

```

White has more control in the center, while black has a clear idea to strike with b6-b5 or d6-d5, as well as a third idea with h7-h5-h4. White will strike on the queenside using the a-pawn and b-pawn and try to get a passed pawn on the queenside. I would not call this a flanking advantage. Rather, a strategy of giving the opponent more space and then striking the center at a later moment.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, center
---


title: Always capture toward the center?

text:
# Question
Title: Always capture toward the center?
```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3 5. bxc3 (5. dxc3)

```

I usually see `bxc3` in this position and the main reason given is to capture toward the center, but doesn't `bxc3` weaken the queen side and take the option of castling queen side away from white. What is wrong with `dxc3`? Doesn't this open up the file for the `Queen` and the `Bishop's` diagonal?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Either is fine. `bxc3` gives you a strong chance to push in the center successfully. It leaves a dangling pawn on `a2`, but by playing `bxc3` you should already have resigned this pawn's fate to some sacrifice for a tempo later in the game. Note you can not play `6. d4` right away since black's response will most likely be `5. ... d5` or `5. ... Nf6` putting pressure on the `e4` pawn which is awkward to defend for you at this point. You should most likely respond `6. d3` which dashes any hopes you had for a pawn charge to `d4`. Also, black can exert pressure on the doubled pawn at `c3` which is also a bit awkward for you to defend.

I personally would play `dxc3`. It is less committing. You no longer have to hope to pry open the middle with your pawn majority, and you have no dangling pawn you have to sacrifice eventually. You've opened up strong lines for all three of your white bishop, your dark bishop and your queen. Note this may seem not that important, but keep in mind your opponent just traded one of his bishops for your knight. If you can open up this game, you will have a strong edge on your opponent. Any attack on your `e4` pawn can now be refuted, such as `5. ... Nf6` comes in with a strong pin `6. bg5`. Also, it no longer looks silly for your white bishop to travel to `d3` to defend `e4`.

# Answer
> 5 votes
**`bxc3`** gives you a **majority of pawns in the center**, and support for the pawn break `d4!`, possibly pushing `c4` and *still* having d4 pawn-supported. Big advantages in the long-term.

With `dxc3`, you're right, the bishop is free, but with fewer pieces on the board, and Black to play, it's **not much of an advantage**. The file for the Queen, “attacking” the `♟d7`, which belongs on `d6` where it is well defended, is worth nothing, and the possibility of castling queenside is not very relevant either (e.g. Black traded his f2- and h2-threatening bishop)

Also keep in mind that the *c* pawns are doubled for the time being, and you don't want this situation to last until the endgame. It will be a lot easier to **trade the `♙c3` on the *d* file** than trying to support the *b* pawn, or merely blocking the *d* file for Black.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Capturing toward the center with pawns is a general guideline that should be followed when appropriately, however, just like all the other positional guidelines. It should also be *ignored* when appropriate. In the specific case of the Ruy Lopez: Exchange Variation (the opening you mention) it is more popular to capture with the d pawn because it gives your queen an open file, and keeps your pawn structure a little better (two pawn islands instead of three).

# Answer
> 2 votes
In my opinion, always capture towards the center when possible in the opening with your pawns. There are caveats to this of course, such as making sure to immediately capitalize on your advances by ensuring no pawns remain doubled. Also if there are attacks or tempos gained from not taking towards the center then by all means go the other way.

However, I would like to know why you would play `4. a3`. To me, it seems like a blunder. I think that you should probably play Nd5 there.

```

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nd5

```

I like this because it attacks the dark bishop for Black and gives White a nice tempo and some increased control over the center. More than likely Black will play Nf6 here, although Be7 would be possible to see as well. Either way it is beneficial to remove the bishop from the game.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Capture towards the center is often valid when the choice stands between the a-pawn and c-pawn (as well as f-pawn and h-pawn). For example, axb3 is often better than cxb3, hxg3 is often better than fxg3. In general, it is a good idea to look at the concrete position and make a practical decision. In the example you show, I prefer dxc3

```
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3 5. dxc3

```

The reason is because after bxc3, white's pawn structure is damaged for the rest of the game. While after dxc3, the pawn structure is perfectly fine. Opening the d-file increases white's control over d4 and d5. Also, the Bc1 opens up and is ready for action. I think black's plan is to go for a quick Ng8-f6 and d7-d5 to grab the center. White has to be a bit careful, otherwise black will grab the initiative. The reason is because a2-a3 was a passive move. It would have been better to try Nc3-d5 or Bf1-c4.

---
Tags: learning
---


title: What is the significance of openings?

text:
# Question
Title: What is the significance of openings?
I am a beginner in chess and don't understand the concept of openings at all. To me they appear to be just moving one of the eight pawns or one of the two knights. But wherever I see there is talk about opening games and they have many names like Sicilian Defence, King's Indian Gambit, etc. What is the need to differentiate them with so many names, for after all as I mentioned earlier, it is going to be one of the eight pawns or one of the two knights?

# Answer
## **INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT INFORMATION:**

> I am a beginner in chess and don't understand the concept of openings at all. To me they appear to be just moving one of the eight pawns or one of the two knights.

This is the root of the problem, and the reason why you have asked the question-it is the consequence of your ignorance.

*POINT #1:*

You must understand that human being plays the game, and human beings have likes and dislikes. Some of us prefer sharp and fast struggle, and some of us like slow and safe maneuvering, and so on...

*POINT #2:*

You do not appreciate your turn to move, but in chess, this is very important to master. You see, when it is your turn to move, you **have a choice**, and this is really important. This is the moment where you have a say, and you can change the course of the game to your like ( see the *POINT #1* ).

This is one of many things that differentiates master from novice-master enforces the pace of the game, while beginner complies/plays any move without careful thinking, which results in him/her lamenting later " How did I get into such a horrible position??? How did I blundered a bishop?? " and so on. In chess, this is called **tempo**.

You must comprehend that you too are the factor in the game, and that this is collision of characters.You must comprehend that not only you play "against pieces" you play against another human being.

Your approach to the game is faulty, because you " dissect " the game, and probably in your opinion there are 3 parts of the game:

1. Opening
2. Middlegame
3. Endgame

This type of division is old and **inefficient**.

In order to understand my answer, and other answers provided from different members, you must change the approach.

**You open the game in order to develop pieces the best way to carry out your middlegame plan, and your middlegame plan is based on the possible events that might take place in the endgame ( chess rules can help you in this, serving as a beacon to follow, but true mastery comes when you learn when to break them-that comes with experience ) .**

This is the approach that is the most efficient, in my opinion.

## **ANSWER:**

> What is the significance of openings?

Openings help you to determine what type of opponent is playing against you-does he/she like fast, open battle, or slow and maneuvering one, does he/she aim for endgame or mating attack and so on...

Opening allows you to choose how to tackle those opponents, and **enforce** them your *style of play*.

A small example:

Let us say your opponent opened with 1.e4 and you do not want open battle.Let us assume that you like slow maneuvering battle, and feel comfortable playing endgames. In that case you would like to answer with a move that doesn't force early conflict but **allows you to choose the moment when the big battle will take place**. You could play 1. ...c6 and be confident that the further development of events will be suitable to you.

But what if you want the opposite? What if you want a fast, sharp, open battle? Then you could reply with 1. ...Nf6 for example. Notice the change of the rhythm: In the first example White had a choice after Black's 1st move, but now is forced to play with the e-pawn or to defend it.This small example fantastically illustrates *POINT#2* from the introduction ( in fact, the whole opening does, and is called *Alekhine's defence* ).

In open positions, you do not get static solidity and you have to adapt to the changes in the position "on the fly". In closed ones, your position is solid but you usually need a lot of effort to generate counterplay.

To resume: Opening helps you to reach the positions that **suit your stile ( style being your character/skill level... )** and their knowledge helps you **to prepare the position to transpose into middlegame** that also corresponds to your style, as well. Knowing the opening means that you will not be defeated in first 10 to 25 moves, and gives you certainty that you will have an enjoyable game with equal chances to win.

> What is the need to differentiate them with so many names, for after all as I mentioned earlier, it is going to be one of the eight pawns or one of the two knights?

The classification of the openings allows you to find the opening you wish to study, and the openings you wish to prepare against.

These are *generally* classified as follows: A ( unsorted ), B ( semi-open games ), C ( open-games ), D ( closed games ), E ( semi-closed games ).

There is an overwhelming amount of moves/move orders and so on, to study and so many openings **with the same general idea, but different implementation** so you might want to look at them all and choose the one that suits you the best.

Another small example to illustrate this: Let us say that you are slow, endgame oriented player. You need an opening that gives you solidity in the beginning, and an advantage in the endgame. Let us say that you want to prepare against 1.e4. You could choose 1. ...c6 or 1. ...e6, but although they have the same concept ( repel White's initiative and smash him in the endgame ), there are differences: The first choice offers harder time to generate counter play, but you have no weak pieces, yet the other one generates counter play easily at the expense of the weak piece ( the light squared bishop ). Two openings with the same idea, but the implementation of it is drastically different,and only one of them will suit to you. After you pick one of them, another question arises: Which particular variation in that opening suits your style? Now comes the strength of *POINT #2* into play! Let us say you have picked 1. ...e6, and let us start "studying" it for a while: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3

A "sharp, fast paced, open battle" player would choose 3. ...Bb4 here **forcing the matters**, while the slow, solid one could try with 3. ...dxe4, for example, simplifying and slowing things down a bit.

Let us assume that you decided that the second option suits your style and you wish to study that.

But how will you find material for this opening?

Well, first you search the name of the opening-it is *French defense*. Then you search its general code-it is *C*. Then you search the variation you are interested in-it is *10*. So the opening code is *C10*. And now you can find online materials/books on the opening you want to play.

Sorry for the lengthy post, hopefully it will help you. If you have further questions ask, and I shall answer them as soon as I can. Best regards.
> 8 votes

# Answer
Please pardon me if my explanation is a bit whimsical, but I see chess openings in the same light as biological evolution. Over time and countless attempts at various move orders, chess players have learned that some moves lead to more solid positions than others. These move orders have, over time, become a sort of standard, often repeated by good players, and intensely studied for weaknesses and soft spots. Good move orders survive and are played by strong grand masters, bad move orders die out.

Because these move orders are often repeated, we give them names to distinguish them from each other. Hence, if a chess commentator would say something like "Kramnik played a solid Grunfeld exchange variation", most listeners would have a good idea as to what he means.

It is often said that beginners should not be hung up on specific opening variations, but should rather focus on opening principles (like control of the center, development of pieces, the risks of late castling, etc), and that is probably good advice. Over time, you will start to notice repeated patterns and themes in your own games, and that may be a good time to check out the opening theory to see whether you may improve your strategy based on this hard-won knowledge from your predecessors.
> 3 votes

# Answer
While it's true that openings tend to be about moving knights and pawns, *which* pawns and knights (etc) define the character of the game to be played. Further, just because some pawn moves look similar, they are not, due to the asymmetric nature of the Kings and Queens.

Some pawn moves on White's part establish that a cutting, tactical game is offered. Others reveal that a closed grinding game is preferred. Responses by Black can accept these challenges or transmute them into something else. Just by choosing different pawn moves.

Further, there are *reasons* some openings are played. Some choices by Black offer the center of the board to White (an advantage) because Black's move choices are intended to make that center collapse. If you play such openings without knowing the *philosophy* behind the moves, you won't get it.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Openings are important to know so you don't lose a position from the very beginning. But, it is also very important to know openings well for your middle games. Every player depending on his opening repertoir has his own middle games. That is why it is preferred to narrow your openings and know them very well, then you will know very well your middle games. The more you familiar with your middle games - the better chance to win the game.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The main idea behind an opening is to build a good foundation to ensure that your middle game has sufficient support. While opinions may vary, most openings have some basic goals in common that they do try to accomplish:

1. Control the center- The four center squares are d4, d5, e4, and e5. To be successful you usually will need to exert some influence over these squares.
2. Protect the King- This often (but not necessarily) is accomplished by castling. But the main point is to develop your major pieces without exposing the King to danger.
3. Rooks to the center- This one largely depends on the opening played. But once you have developed your knights and bishops, and protected the King; bringing your rooks in as reinforcement to your center can help in further development/defense.

Here is another good post on this subject that helps drive home the point that there are several commonalities between openings: Why are the golden rules in chess openings true?

Typically, if an opening proves to have some longevity (I.E., it works), many people will use it and eventually give it a name. Sometimes a particular opening will be favored by an individual with some notoriety, and it will come to be named after that person. Wikipedia lists over 200 openings named after individuals. Naming a particular opening helps in identifying and defending against it.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The general idea of the opening (first 10-20 moves) is to control the center (e4, d4, e5 and d5), develop the light pieces (knights and bishops) and castle the king. This can be done in many different ways. A lot of research has been done on chess openings. Gradually, entire opening systems have been developed and explored in detail. Every opening system (Sicilian, Spanish, Volga gambit, etc.) has its key ideas and strategies. By becoming a specialist at an opening system, you can steer the opening towards this system and then be better prepared than the opponent for the positions that arise in the middlegame and endgame. Opening systems got their names for historical reasons. It is also easier to refer to an opening system instead of referring to the individual moves. For example, it is easier to say Najdorf instead of saying the moves

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6

```
> 2 votes

---
Tags: opening
---


title: Centre pawn vs. side pawn?

text:
# Question
Title: Centre pawn vs. side pawn?
Chess theory suggests that pawns whose file is nearer to the central files are more powerful. This is somewhat obvious for the rook's pawn, which can attack only one square as opposed to the other pawns, which can each attack two squares. However, in practice, even the rook's pawn turns out to be somewhat useful as a pawn at a3 or h3 can deter the opponent bishop coming to b4 or g4. In practice, are the pawns on central files really more powerful than the pawns on the side files? What is the reason? Does the situation change during the end game as opposed to the openings?

# Answer
> 9 votes
The more pieces on the board, the more powerful the center pawns. This is typical for most opening and middlegame positions. The most convenient place for pieces to travel is usually through the center of the board, and the center pawns help to control that area.

The less pieces on the board, the more powerful the wing pawns. Less pieces on the board means less need to control pieces travelling through the center. A passed wing pawn is harder to stop than a passed center pawn. Your opponent needs to go further to the edge to defend against it. This can really stretch out and discoordinate his pieces if he has to defend against another weakness on the other side of the board. The outside passed pawn is like a decoy.

Generally speaking, you can think of Center pawns becoming weaker and weaker as pieces are exchanged, and wing pawns stronger the closer you reach an endgame.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I think that powerful should not be mixed with valuable. The value of a pawn is relative to the concrete position on the board. The a-pawn or h-pawn might play a minor role in the middlegame. While in the endgame, they are valuable assets, especially when they become passed pawns and start marching towards their promotion. More importantly than exactly what pawns you have is the pawn structure, i.e. how are the pawns placed relative to one another. The number of pawn islands and the number of weaknesses will determine their total worth. I don't see a pawn getting weaker or stronger just because you are in the opening, middlegame or endgame. A pawn is generally said to become more valuable, the closer it gets to its promotion square. Pawns that collaborate together can strengthen each other and be powerful in attacks, see for instance positions with opposite castling (e.g. white castled O-O and black O-O-O). Now, looking at practical games, grabbing the center is a great way of fighting for the initiative. Attacking players prefer to do this as soon as possible. I think that this gambit against the Sicilian is an excellent example (white sacrifices the b-pawn to divert black's c-pawn from controlling the d4-square)

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 bxa3 4.Bxa3

```

where white has 4 center pawns (c,d,e,f) against black's three (d,e,f). Also, white is ahead in development. All in all, white has the initiative.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Central squares are the key.

Occupying central squares is important in the opening and middle-game levels in chess. Pawns which are nearer to central files can attack the 4 central squares and protect own pieces there.

Side pawns are far from this battle, they should be unmoved until to choose the castling side, and after castling you shouldn't change the form of king's protector pawns as it's possible.

---
Tags: opening, strategy, theory, endgame
---


title: What rule is this?

text:
# Question
Title: What rule is this?
In the following position, I am trying to play Rxd8, but it is not allowed. What is the rule that disallows Rxd8?p

```
[FEN "1r1r1bk1/5p2/p3p1pp/1p2P3/B1p2P2/K2R4/P1P4P/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

```

# Answer
Your king on a3 is in check from the bishop on f8. When you are in check, you must move your king, capture the checking piece, or interpose a piece to block the check.
> 10 votes

# Answer
The only move you can do with your rook is Rd6 closing Bf8+
> 2 votes

# Answer
I wanted to add a comment to the first answer, which is as precise as it can be, but I have no enough reputation, so I'll dare to add an extra note here:

Someone could argue (not Marius, who already showed his agreement with dfan's answer) that after Rd8 white's the bishop in f8 can't move because it's pinned by the white rook, and the way to refute that argument is that then Ba3, taking the white king, just finishes the game.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


# Question
Title: Is there any chess software that tutors beginners?
I am a beginning chess player, and I want to learn more about openings, the middle game, and the endgame.

Can anyone suggest any good chess software that 'tutors' beginners?

# Answer
> 16 votes
The Chessmaster series.

IGN said that `the series has always distinguished itself with first-rate chess teaching tools` and this is the best selling chess franchise in the world. It virtually has no rival in chess teaching software, at least as far as my research goes. Chessmaster doesn't have the best chess engine though, so if you plan on playing professional chess you'll need a better engine after you reach master level.

I owned a copy of Chessmaster 10k and it featured, from what I can remember:

* tutorials from Josh Waitzkin on the basics of chess, openings, endings, tactics, strategy, analysis of his own games
* attacking chess by GM Larry Christiansen
* chess puzzles by John Nunn
* written analysis of 900 famous games
* a searchable database of about 500k games

# Answer
> 6 votes
Here are some:

* Chessmaster (discontinued since 2008)
* Fritz
* Shredder

I know you said just software, but there are a lot of good websites that will teach you openings, mid-games, and end-games. Here are some:

There are more websites, just google it and you will find a bunch. I will caution you as a beginner, your focus should be primarily on fundamentals (control of the center, developing your pieces early, castling your king, etc). You should not worry too much about the opening, mid-game, or end-game for now at least.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Four free programs to recommend. The one program which will take you from beginning through all higher stages is "Lucas Chess" from http://lucaschess.pusku.com.

Another one is "Chessology" with a totally different approach.

If You want the simplest board and AI against then download and use

SlowChessBlitz or Chenard latest version with Blundercheck alert.

NB: They are far more helpful than Fritz 532 and Scid 4.0 which are meant for well-versed novice/hobby/club players.

Good Day Sunil

# Answer
> 2 votes
One simple answer: **www.Chess.com.** There really isn't anything in the field that comes remotely close to this website for beginners who want to dig deeper into chess.

Sign up for one of the paid subscriptions and dive into the following features (all broken down into beginner/intermediate or advanced levels)

* Chess Video lectures
* Chess Mentor (interactive try-and-learn lessons)
* Chess Tactics
* Computer Workout (practicing boilerplate/clockwork won/drawn positions vs. a computer)

---
Tags: learning, software
---


# Question
Title: Can I still win if I take knight while the opponent has two pawns with king remained?
I play as white. I have a rook and queen and 5 pawns while the opponent has a knight and two pawns. I hope I can win this game. But is it legal to take the knight in next move? Then the opponent will have only two pawns with the King. Can I still play after that and win the game?

# Answer
It's perfectly legal to take his knight and his two pawns, then promote all your five pawns, and mate him with rook and six queens. Watch out for stalemate, he must be able to move his king without going into check at all times.

There are no rules saying you can't take any more of your opponent's pieces.
> 6 votes

# Answer
A quick answer is that it is legal as long as you are not in check and you will not be in check immediately after making the move and you are moving your pieces according to the rules. The only risk I can see with grabbing the knight is that you can cause a stalemate and the game will be drawn. A stalemate is where your opponent cannot make any legal moves and at the same time the opponent's king is not in check.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: rules
---


title: Forcing a pawn move

text:
# Question
Title: Forcing a pawn move
To create a weak square it has been suggested to me to force my opponent to make a pawn move: Weak and strong squares.

How do you do that? Is there a general situation to force a pawn move? Or are there several distinct situations to do that? Most of all HOW do you do it?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I can think of 4 ways of forcing a pawn forward:

1. Threaten a pawn
2. Provoke a pawn to move forward to protect from e.g. a check
3. Provoke a pawn to move forward to chase away one of your pieces
4. Create a Zugzwang (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang) that forces a pawn forward

# Answer
> 2 votes
A good example of this is this link Minority Attack

Forcing the opponent to make a move has a popular German word in Chess: Zugzwang, which means move-compulsion. For a good examination of Zugzwang see Forcing Moves by IM Bryan Smith.

This area is too complex to have a general method for every situation, even if reduced to just pawn moves.

I think there are some general areas. One should understand Opposition and ideas such as such as mined squares in which one side can force the other to step into the mined square.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If a pawn move is *absolutely* forced, that usually means there's a serious threat that needs to be defended (e.g, loss of significant material, checkmate threat). Commonly, you can provoke pawn moves by piling up pressure on weak pawns, attacking the king or pinning a knight with your bishop. Basically you provoke pawn moves by creating threats; the pawn moves to defend the threat.

As for weak squares, it's only weak if you can use that square to generate new threats, or sometimes to create a defensive blockade. If not then its just a harmless hole in the position (harmless can still be useful though, sometimes your pieces just need a safe square to go to). So before trying to provoke a pawn move to weaken a square, you should also think about what you can then accomplish with that square. If you can't use it, it's not "weak".

---
Tags: strategy, pawns
---


# Question
Title: Why would black resign in this situation?
I was playing online with someone I do not know that is considerably better than me. I am still somewhat new and I can't figure out why they would resign after castling. What am I missing?

```
[fen ""]
1.e4 g6
2.Nf3 Bg7
3.d4 d6
4.Nc3 a6
5.Bf4 Nd7
6.Bc4 e6
7.O-O Ne7
8.Bg5 h6
9.Bxe7 Qxe7
10.Qd3 b6
11.d5 e5
12.g4 Nc5
13.Qe3 Bxg4
14.h3 Bxh3
15.Rfe1 O-O 1-0

```

# Answer
White gave up two pawns, the g-pawn and the h-pawn, without any compensation. Black's position is objectively winning. So my guess is that black had some non chess reason to resign the game. If this was a blitz game, then perhaps your opponent got a phone call or had to join the dinner table. From a chess point of view, black would have continued this game.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, analysis
---


title: Humans against computers

text:
# Question
Title: Humans against computers
Are human ratings also progressing, could humans catch up with computers? (maybe playing against strong computers makes us strong)

Are team of humans able to defeat computers? Is any competition like this going on?

# Answer
> 6 votes
The best computers are much better than the best humans, and if I had to make up numbers I'd guess that they're improving at least ten times as fast as humans are (it's a wild approximation but, more or less, humans are improving by around 2 Elo points a year and computers are improving by around 20 points a year). There's no way humans will catch up.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Humans will never again be able to defeat computers at chess. We're finding the limits of humans while computers and algorithms are only getting better and better.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Generally speaking, humans have already lost the battle against computers. Tablebases have "guaranteed" optimal play by computers in the endgame. Opening books have removed much of the computational burden in the opening. (It's MUCH easier to generate move or position lists for the first ten moves and index them than it is to compute them on the fly.) Computer hardware continues to get better.

Any situation that involves straight memorization is one that humans are going to lose to computers. With the opening and endgame "thoroughly optimized", the middlegame is the only place that humans really have a chance. Computers are deterministic. Compare these two situations with White to move:

```
[FEN "rn4rk/pp4pp/2bN4/q7/8/8/Q5PP/2BR3K w - - 5 10"]

```

And

```
[FEN "6rk/6pp/3N4/8/8/8/6PP/7K w - - 5 10"]

```

Ignore for a moment how contrived they are. In both cases, the correct move is the same, `Nf7#`. However, even though a computer will pick up on the correct move, these positions are totally different from a computer's perspective. A human will look at this and recognize intuitively that the left half of the board is totally superfluous. A computer will have to compute that the positions are functionally equivalent.

However, as storage capacity increases, the number of these positions that aren't indexed slowly gets smaller. With the pasing of time, more and more of the middlegame approaches determinicity.

Consider also that it is much easier for computers to "learn" than for humans. It is trival (for given values of "trivial") to plug chess libraries in and give a computer access to all the accumulated knowledge therein. Humans cannot do that. We have to study for years to impress that upon ourselves.

TL;DR: **As chess moves more toward exhaustive electronic storage and indexing of positions, humans will continue falling behind computers. Unless there is a breakthrough in our understanding of how memory and the brain work, there will be no reversing this trend.**

# Answer
> 0 votes
I think that the whole theme of human against machine is unfair. After all, the computers use excellent algorithms and are trained on games played by human grandmasters and hooked up to high quality opening databases and endgame tables. An engine has a lot of human knowledge at the tip of its fingers and can access everything in a matter of seconds. From this point of view, chess engines are a combined success of human chess know-how and progress in computer science.

Today, the question of whether a human can beat a chess engine seems equivalent to asking if a boxer can beat a Terminator machine. I seem to recall that Kasparov said that humans can beat a chess engine, if the humans are given unlimited thinking time. It could be true but it has not been tested as far as I know. Considering that home computer driven engines reach Elo 3100, I don't see a human versus machine tournament any time soon.

---
Tags: engines, tournament, human-versus-machine
---


# Question
Title: Is this case considered an ambiguity or not?
From the answer to my question How are PGN ambiguities handled?:

> In the case of ambiguities (multiple pieces of the same type moving to the same square), the first appropriate disambiguating step of the three following steps is taken: **...**

After reading that, a new ambiguity surged from that disambiguation, it is not clear what would happen if the pieces that look like they can move to a same square are all pinned except one piece, is then a need to disambiguate even if only one of those pieces can legally move in there?

Here is an illustrated example:

```
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/q2NKN2 w - - 0 1"]

```

Should I use `Ne3` or `Nfe3`?

# Answer
Ne3 is perfectly fine, every normal pgn viewer knows legal moves and will perform it correctly.
> 7 votes

# Answer
While it's not ambiguous (only `Nfe3` is legal), it is better to be specific with `Nfe3`. Successful software can deal with both `Ne3` and `Nfe3`, but not every pgn parser is perfect, and some beginners will appreciate the additional guidance.
> 8 votes

# Answer
just found this:

> 8.2.3.4: Disambiguation
>
> Note that the above disambiguation is needed only to distinguish among moves of the same piece type to the same square; it is not used to distinguish among attacks of the same piece type to the same square. An example of this would be a position with two white knights, one on square c3 and one on square g1 and a vacant square e2 with White to move. Both knights attack square e2, and **if both could legally move there, then a file disambiguation is needed**; the (nonchecking) knight moves would be "Nce2" and "Nge2". **However**, if the white king were at square e1 and a black bishop were at square b4 with a vacant square d2 (thus **an absolute pin** of the white knight at square c3), **then only one white knight (the one at square g1) could move** to square e2: "Ne2".

http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec
> 5 votes

# Answer
It is not ambiguous for only one `Ne3` is legal.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Formally, both Nfe3 and Ne3 are valid notations in this situation. As far as I know, the convention is to write Ne3, because the Nd1 cannot move due to the pin Qa1-e1. But it is not impossible that someone would still scribble down Nfe3 in the score sheet and that is what you would find in your PGN file. Chess software would write Ne3 if you would present them with this position. If I would have this position, I would write Ne3 in my score sheet, because this follows the notation convention.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: notation, pgn
---


# Question
Title: What K factor should be used if two players are in different K factor brackets?
Apparently, when calculating a player's USCF rating difference after a win or loss, the K factor that is used is based on the player's rating. Now, I was always under the impression that two players with ratings `a` and `b` would play each other and that a difference in score is awarded to both of them such that their ratings after the match would be `a+d` and `b-d` (assuming player A won the match).

But let's say you have a player at 2075 (who would have a K factor of 32) and another player at 2125 (who would have a K factor of 24). Which K factor would be used? I could see a case for either of 32, 24, or even 28 being used in this case. What does USCF do here?

# Answer
K-factor is used for each player individually. So, if one of them got 30 K-factor, his rating will change on the basis of that K-factor, while another player with 10 K-factor, for instance, will get rating on the basis of his own K-factor.

There are Chess Rating Calculators on FIDE's official website. You can have a look: FIDE Rating Change Calculators
> 3 votes

---
Tags: elo, uscf
---


title: List of plans or strategic themes

text:
# Question
Title: List of plans or strategic themes
I know of lists that cover tactical themes and endgame themes. I can't find a list of plans or strategic themes in the middlegame.

Could someone help me out with this list? A link would be nice.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Perhaps you can use the *table of contents* from classical works such as

Modern Chess Strategy, by Pachman, and

The Middlegame, by Euwe and Kramer.

# Answer
> 0 votes
This is a huge question.

I can't help you with a list of themes, but look up the games of GM Tigran Petrosian (world champion from 1963-69.) You'll see how a master chooses moves based upon positional considerations. Here's a list of some of his games. The general consensus is that he plays to remove good moves from his opponents, leaving them only bad moves. But making a bad move against a GM leads to a loss. My System is a classic that describes this style of play.

---
Tags: strategy
---


title: Knights on b4 and g4

text:
# Question
Title: Knights on b4 and g4
I suffer from knight-phobia.

If I e.g. play white and black has knights on c6 and/or f6 I tend to play a3 and/or h3 as prophylaxis against knight coming to b4 and g4. I don't like them there. I start sensing a fork choke on my neck and lose concentration.

Am I nuts or is this normal? I feel like I am losing a tempo.

Do you have a therapy? Qd2? Keep on developing and react when time? Read an article by...?

# Answer
> 3 votes
This (Guide to P-R3) NM Dan Heisman Novice Nook is all that you EVER need to read to answer your question.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I remember my first steps when starting out with the game.

I was playing against a neighbor of mine who was much much stronger at that moment.

He used all of his units better than me, including knights.

In order to cure the phobia you currently have you must do the following:

**You must learn your openings well**, so you do not allow knight on b4/g4 to be **a problem**.

Knight jump on b4/g4 is not a good move in general, and only in some openings it can "pass" but as a defensive move.

As someone who has "been there", I advise you to just learn your openings very well, and you will be fine.

You can start with *Starting Out-...* books from *Everyman Chess* since they are suitable for beginner/intermediate level, and usually in them you can find some very good general advice related for other parts of the game.

Hopefully this will help you.

Best regards.

---
Tags: opening, knights
---


# Question
Title: How should black meet the Halloween Gambit?
Although the Halloween Gambit is generally considered bad (and nearly losing for white), it is tricky to meet over the board, especially at the club level.

How should black play in order to refute white's gambit?

```
[White "Four Knights"]
[Black "Halloween Gambit"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 (5... Ng6)

```

# Answer
After

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6. d5

```

Instead of moving the `c6 Knight`, black should continue with Jan Pinski's `6...Bb4`. Black will just give away the `c6 knight` and then black will take the `e4 pawn` with the `f6 Knight`. White can't take the Knight because his own is pinned and if white moves their queen to `d4`, black can just move their queen to `e7` to protect both the bishop and the knight. A continuation might be something like this:

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6. d5 Bb4 7. dxc6 Nxe4 8. Qd4 Qe7 9. Qxg7 Nxc3+ 10. Be3 Nd5+ 11. c3 Rf8

```

As you can see from above, if black plays accurately, there can be many discovered checks on white and if black wants, they can continue by taking the bishop on `e3` eventually with another discovered check to follow or white will have to take the Knight, but either way, black will just take back with `Qxe3+` and it is pretty much over for white.

Here is a professional game between `Grigor Minchev` and `Aleksandr Pretov` where black was unable to defend properly and was devastated.

```
  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6. d5
  Ne5 7. f4 Ng6 8. e5 Ng8 9. d6 cxd6 10. exd6 Qf6 11. Nb5 Rb8
  12. Be3 b6 13. Qe2 Kd8 14. O-O-O Qe6 15. f5 Qxf5 16. Qc4 Qe5
  17. Qc7+ Ke8 18. Bd4 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 Ra8 20. Re1+ Be7 21. g3 Qd2
  22. Bg2 Qxg2 23. dxe7 N8xe7 24. Nd6+ Kf8 25. Qd8# 1-0

```
> 11 votes

# Answer
When meeting tricky (complex) positions, the best we can try is to simplify the position, this is for sure one of those tricky ones.

`5...Nc6` seems like a good option

```
r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/5n2/4n3/3PP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq d3 0 5

5... Nc6 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 d6 8. Bf4 dxe5 9. dxe5 Bf5 10. O-O Qxd1 11. Raxd1 Bxc2 12. Rd2

```
> 3 votes

# Answer
**Edit :**

After posting this I realized that I just transposed to pretty common position, which I believe is not all that great for Black. But perhaps the idea of getting a crazy attacker to play a dry position is still valid, so I will keep my post up.

What about returning the knight right away with `5.d6`. I don't think that white has any better moves than `6. dxe5` and then exchanging queens. Where white only has a slight advantage.

```
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Nxe5 5. d4 d6 6. dxe5 dxe5 7. Qxd8 Kxd8

```

I realize that this is not everybody's cup of tea, and on pure chess level this is not impressive. However, this might be useful in practical sense. People who play Halloween Gambit love to attack; it is likely that the above resulting position is not to their taste. This would also take them out their opening territory.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I've playing this gambit a lot and stumbled on a good response for Black players who hope to win quickly. In the "main line" (i.e. ..Ng6) play ..d6 instead of ..d5. More often than not White will play f4 which loses to ..de fe ..Nxe5! intending ..Qh4+. It's a nice little trap. . More analysis of the other lines on my blog if you are interested.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: opening, four-knights
---


# Question
Title: Effective method to teach defense (I.E. opening as Black) to children
Specifically, Black is disadvantaged by always being one move behind. While being subject to this disadvantage, what is an effective method or exercise to teach children/beginners the following principles while opening as Black:

* Control the center.
* Protect (castle) the king.
* Connect the rooks.
* Rooks to the center file(s).

For instance, if I were to introduce the Caro-Kann Defense as a means to this end, would there be any of the above points that might be missed? Or if not missed, maybe points that might be better conveyed if learning them from a different defense?

# Answer
> 4 votes
It seems that your question deviates from the the point that Black is at a disadvantage. Instead, you seem to mention opening principles that are color agnostic. Controlling the center, protecting the king, and developing pieces are the three key idea in the opening.

I wouldn't worry too much about teaching specifically attack and defense. These are actually higher-level concepts that are taught at a higher level.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Sorry, probably not the answer you're looking for, but I have taught a lot of kids to play chess.

The opening advantage is insignificant in games of kids vs. kids. In fact, I try not to make a point of it, or to leave it as an open question for them to answer.

All that being said, the best defense is a good offense. I just teach them to play active moves, to develop their pieces, and be aware that "loose pieces drop off" (Nunn). Let the pieces fly (whether literally or figuratively) and let God sort out the details.

---
Tags: opening, defense
---


# Question
Title: Guidelines for preparation for a Blitz tournament
I have been playing chess for many years now in with my friends and online. But I will be participating in first ever chess tournament of my life in few days. It is a FIDE rated Blitz tournament.

Since I have never played any tournament at such a high level, I wanted few tips from you all. Basically Do's and Dont's would help me a lot.

When I play online, all my moves are automatically recorded and also I dont have to check the time control as automatically stops after my moves. But when I will be playing tournament, I will need to do that manually. How much difference would that make?

# Answer
**Know your openings!**

You didn't mention time control, but it doesn't matter, you just **may not allow yourself to waste precious time** on opening.

Avoid sharp, theoretical lines **if you can not memorize them fully**.

I usually avoid such openings because if you face a novelty/variation you haven't seen so far, there goes precious time on thinking for a move that will "keep me in the game", and usually you will end up caught in the endless loop of searching the only move that "keeps you in the game".

Take solid lines that give equal chances, do not worry about possibility of a draw. Since this is blitz, people make mistakes/blunder more often, and do not forget that time trouble is a **huge** factor here.

Your job is to play the opening as fast as you can, **without any mistake**, so you can get a playable middle game with equal chances and concrete and simple play/counterplay.

In the middle game, simplify a little, so you can **protect yourself from sudden tactical blasts** and to **reduce the calculation** (believe me, in blitz, **time flies** and before you know it, you are in the time trouble ), but **keep enough peaces on board** so you can **complicate if you feel you can win** ( exchanging 2 minor pieces would suffice since it greatly simplifies, but still leaves you with good chances to complicate if you really need a win).

**BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN EXCHANGING PIECES!!!**

In blitz, people often offer exchanges to simplify, so **always assess the resulting position** that will arise **after** the exchange.

This method will give you the best results-offer them **unfavorable exchange** ( e.g. offer your bad bishop for their good one ). You will be surprised how many people make wrong exchanges!

Practice tactical blows on the **real games, NOT on the artificial studies/problems** and try to find those examples **related to the openings you play**.This will additionally protect you from sudden blows.

And again, **prepare openings thoroughly!** ( I just can't emphasize this enough ). You will want to use your time only for calculation, not on the opening.

## EDIT ( updated on December, 20th 2013 ):

About the clock:

**Do not forget to press it when you play the move**-most beginners/those who are not used to clock, forget it.

What will happen is this:

After you make the move, without activating the opponents clock, he/she will just stare at the board like an idiot, doing nothing.

You will start wondering what is going on-are you winning so he/she thinks how to save the game, or did you play something utterly stupid so your opponent calculates the refutation?

Neither is happening! Your opponent saw you not pressing the clock, so **patiently waits for your time to expire, in order to claim win due to you exceeding the time limit**.

Yeah I know...there are all kind of people out there :)

As for notation, as soon as you play your move, **press your clock first**, and then write down the move.

Why? Because if you play blitz at more than 5 minutes each, you do not have to write down moves if you have less than 5 minutes ( **double check this**, since it was a long time I have played blitz, and **this information was told to me by a friend** ), and your time is always the highest priority in blitz, you can always write down the move after the game.

If I recall correctly, in 5 minute blitz you do not have to write down moves ( again, double check this ).

Hopefully this will help you.

Good luck!

Best regards.
> 6 votes

# Answer
My recommendation would be to join your local USCF club and play blitz there. Learn to use the clock, learn etiquette, learn your weaknesses, get tips from better players.

I'm not sure you have to record your moves in blitz.

Above all, have fun.
> 4 votes

# Answer
The first step would be to go over the rules for blitz play in FIDE, this is online at:

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=125&view=article

If you have no experience with a physical chess clock, I would recommend practicing with one before the event. You want the action of making a move and pressing the clock automatic, forgetting to stop your clock after your move is very costly in blitz.

You will also be responsible for noting when your opponent has run out of time in order to claim a win on time, the clock nor arbiter will alert you to this.
> 3 votes

# Answer
This seems to be a 2 in 1 question.

1. How do you (prepare) perform well in a (FIDE) rated blitz tournament?
2. Will there be a difference between online blitz and over the board blitz?

In general, blitz is compared to games with a longer time control. With this view in mind, blitz games are a lot about having a good control over the time left on your clock. Becoming good at making quick decisions and plans and making moves on the board with short thinking intervals is the key. A good strategy is to decide on your opening systems before the tournament begins. Decide exactly what openings you will use and what type of positions you want to get on the board (queens or exchanged queens, calm or dynamic, balanced or unbalanced, symmetric or non-symmetric, etc.). Also, practice in making quick (some call this intuitive) decisions in your blitz games. Keep making moves and learn to pressure on the clock.

Online blitz is clearly different from over the board (OTB) blitz. OTB, you have to deal with 3D pieces, actually use your (e.g. right) hand to make the moves and press the clock with the (same!) hand. You have to keep track of your time (and the opponent's time!) on a real chess clock. The board allows you (and the opponent!) to make illegal moves that can decide the game. You have to deal with your opponent sitting across the board (e.g. the opponent can eat onions before the game, nervously shake the leg and make other bothering noises and distractions). You have to find thinking poses that suit you well. Also, you have to manage food, drinks and toilet visits. Also, you have to learn to focus in a room with 100 people. All in all, some things can be prepared in advance, while other things will come with experience!
> 3 votes

---
Tags: tournament, fide, blitz, online, online-blitz
---


title: How can I find good tactics problems?

text:
# Question
Title: How can I find good tactics problems?
Say you have a database of a lot of games.

How would you go about finding good tactics problems? I suppose you would search until there was a spot where the score shifted, and there was only one good move on the previous move. But that isn't the whole story, sometimes you need to go back a couple of moves to find where the tactic really started.

For now, ideas of how to do this manually is fine (with the help of an analysis engine), but automating this process is the idea.

# Answer
One approach might be to go through all the moves of a high level game, and if the engine evaluation changes significantly, then save the position for human review.

In this case, "significantly" is probably half a pawn or more, although you could also require it to be one full pawn for easier tactics.

The rationale behind only looking at high level games is that the score will really only change significantly with a blunder. High level games won't have obvious blunders (i.e. hanging a piece) so the blunders will possibly be a not-so-obvious tactic.

This won't be perfect, but it might get some positions worth looking at "by hand".

Just one more note - if you allow the chess engine to search to a sufficient depth (14-16 in most positions should be good) - then you won't have to worry about missing the start of the tactic. The engines will be able to see most tactics, even if they are complicated.
> 11 votes

# Answer
If you want to find extremely tactical games, start by looking at extremely tactical players (Alekhine, Tal and Fischer and any other crazy chess guy you like).

Second best would be games between any grandmasters, regardless of the century the game was played. Chess tactics almost always show up even in the most positional of games.

If you want to find tactics that win early on, search for miniatures (games that end in a win in, let's say, less than 30 moves).

There are sites out there that let users save chess collections (chessgames.com is one example, there are a few good results if you search for tactics or famous players). But you said you have a database in which you wish to search, so you might not be interested in this.

Also not involving your chess database, you could find plenty of variety in tactics in books written by chess coaches or in video playlists created by chess coaches (my favourite example here would be MatoJelic, but there are many more).

If you want to find games that involve a lot of captures, search for the number of `x` occurrences (if you have a database with games in PGN **and** you know regular expressions you could search for occurrences of `x` in consecutive moves but that won't get you enough value for the effort, so i wouldn't recommend).

What you can't find are tactics that are avoided. At least you can't find them by looking at the game moves alone. You'll need a human to say *what if...?*, then make the move, then check with a computer.
> 3 votes

# Answer
> I guess I could have worded my question more clearly, but what I meant was I wanted to pull out specific positions that involve tactics from my database, in order to present them as interesting problems (it seems to me that ChessTempo must use something like this to find its tactics problems).

Just brainstorming here, but as a programmer, I can see a way to do this. Get Stockfish and write an application that submits the position to it. Save the evals, and when the eval changes significantly (whatever that means lol), save that position as FEN along with the "solution". I have most of the code to do the grunt work, I don't think it would be hard to write this. I just don't have the interest as a hobby to do this.

How do you get the positions to submit to Stockfish? For that, you iterate on a file containing many PGN formatted games, and generate the FEN for each virtual board position. I have already written similar code in C# and Java.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: analysis, engines, tactics
---


title: Opening assistance for a beginner

text:
# Question
Title: Opening assistance for a beginner
I am new to chess and am confused on what to do with the following opening

```
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. Nc3 Bb4

```

I have been playing `4. a3`, but the Bishop then proceeds to take c3 so I end up with a doubled pawn.

If someone could offer some guidance or tell me what this opening is called so I can do some research, it would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

# Answer
> 4 votes
**Edit:** Using the chessgames Opening Explorer, I confirmed the move is playable, here is the list of possible replays:

```
Move     #games
---------------
4.Nxe5   175
4.Bc4    151
4.d3     52
4.a3     14
4.Nd5    12 <- my option
4.Be2    2
4.d4     2
4.Bd3    1
4.g3     1

```

**4.Nd5** looks viable and easily prevents that double pawn.

It also pushes the game into an aggressive one, which can be good or bad depending on your play-style.

Final position after **4.Nd5**:

```
rnbqk2r/pppp1ppp/5n2/3Np3/1b2P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 5 4

```

He will most likely do NxN, I don't see many other choices here as both the Bishop and the e Pawn are attacked:

* 4...Nxd5
* 4...Bd6 (weak move)
* 4...a5 (weak move)

# Answer
> 3 votes
This opening is known as the Petrov three knights game. You can use this link to do a bit more research (http://www.365chess.com/eco/C42\_Petrov\_three\_knights\_game). I usually grab directly on e5 instead of protecting on e4. For example, here is a possible line:

```
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3

```

White will follow up with Bc1-f4, Qd1-d2 and O-O-O. Then launch a pawn storm on the kingside (with the g and h pawns) in case black castles O-O. If black castles O-O-O, then the game will be a bit less sharp. Definitely worth a try!

# Answer
> 2 votes
I will be brief with the answer, ask for further clarifications/advices if you need them:

The opening is called ***Petroff's defense***, but you have played a sideline in your game.

The ***ECO code*** of the opening is ***C42***.

It usually goes like one of these two:

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6

And now first line is: 3. Nxe5
Second one is : 3. d4

Your move is a sideline, I have never played it before, but you can look it up, it is not necessarily bad.

Hopefully this helps.

Good luck.

Best regards.

# Answer
> 1 votes
`4. a3` should be a good move. It's like a reverse Ruy Lopez with an extra tempo.

You can look it up in any opening database. Here's one (free): http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/opening-database.html

# Answer
> 0 votes
Best line is 3. Nxe5.

If you insist on 3. Nf3 Nf6, best is 4. Bb5 (Four Knights: Spanish Variation).

---
Tags: opening
---


# Question
Title: Why is a 0x88 chessboard array of size 128 bytes when 0x88 is decimal 136?
I am starting to look at chessboard representation with the 0x88 hex array board rep, but I'm getting confused! Please help me understand it properly!

The 0x88 chess board representations I have seen as examples around on net resources say it can be thought of as representing a 16x8 2D array (size 128 and so is used as 2 boards side by side to check off board moves etc).

However, afaik, hex value 0x88 is equivalent to 136 in decimal (10001000 in binary) so why is the array size not size 136 (136 bytes)? I must be overlooking something simple with this. I apologise for this and will no doubt feel very foolish when I find what mistaken thinking my brain is stuck with over this!

I am grateful for any helpful replies,many thanks

# Answer
> 7 votes
0x88 is just the name of the system. The actual length of the board array is 128.

The name comes from the fact that a bitwise AND can be performed the index of a square (range is 0 to 127) and 0x88. If the result is non-zero, then the square is not on the board. This happens because 0x88 is `10001000` in binary and every square on the board will have the form `0xxx0xxx`.

Another benefit of the system is that all of the legal squares can be trivially constructed in octal notation. For example, `d4` is `0x33` assuming that 0x00 is the lower left of the board (both d and 4 are the 4th square from the edge, so 3 in a zero-indexed array).

See https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/0x88 for more information about this system.

---
Tags: chessboards
---