New answers tagged

3

As described here the min-max algorithm is used in order to get the best strategy from any position in games, and therefore in chess. It uses tree ordering of the moves and each layer in the tree describes another player's move. The leaves at the bottom of the tree are the "values" gained from reaching this position with the sequence of moves from going down ...


0

By "margin error", i.e. "margin of error", HelloWorld probably means the standard deviation of the distribution of results, possibly implying that an aggressive move will converge on a result faster than a passive move. One way to classify using that idea would be to calculate the length of a game following each candidate move, sort in ascending order, and ...


1

Other algorithms for solving chess problems are min-max algorithm. What it does it tries to maximize your position and to minimize opponent's moves. More detailed info: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/minimax-algorithm-in-game-theory-set-1-introduction/


0

The idea of an aggressive move and passive move is quite intuitive to my knowledge, but here is the general outline for whether a move is aggressive or not(These are very general and in some cases don't work): Aggressive: 2 square pawn move, pawn move which threatens a piece, moves which threaten common tactics(pin, fork, skewer, etc...), checkmate threats, ...


1

I checked the position on Lichess' analysis and looked at the source code on Github. On Lichess' engine, the evaluation is +5.8 (Stockfish 10+ depth 22). If we give castling rights to the black king, the evaluation drops to +3.4. If we then take out the pawn on f3 (restore material balance), the evaluation drops to +3.1. If it's black's move (one tempo ...


2

The advantage is positional. It is not material nor tactics that are about to happen. It is harder for many players to understand positional advantages. But the computer understands is quite well. Most average players see material advantages but only see positional when it is a looming mate or other drastic advantage. Looking at every line of play would ...


7

It really is about king position, but also about how it affects the evaluation when it programmatically adds up the and compares the differences in mobility for each side's pieces. This is where you get the huge difference, and I think this is what you are looking for. In each of the following lines, deemed best by Stockfish 11, you can see how little the ...


4

So, the simple way to reason out that white is winning is to look at the safety of black's king. White has a very simple plan of developing their bishop to g5, castling and then breaking open the center (either with d5 or with f4-f5, the latter seeming a bit stronger since it forces the a2-g8 diagonal open for white's queen to cause mayhem). After this, ...


1

Tony explained why d3 is a good move. Brian explained why "hope chess" is bad in general, so I'll answer the question, "Is 1 ... Kg7 itself a bad move, and why?" In chess, the your most valuable commodity is moves. Every move must work toward your victory. If you play a chancy move and it doesn't work, your opponent is strengthening his or her position. ...


10

These players are just pretty weak. 5...Bg4 should already have been punished by Bxf7, many more blunders follow. Qg6 is a double attack against c2 and g2, that's probably motivation enough.


1

One important point not yet mentioned: If you look at other Sicilian lines, black generally tries to play b5. B5 is useful for a variety of reasons: It might harass the Nc3, support a knight coming to c4 or be part of a pawn storm against the long castle. It fights the Maroczy-bind and the aggressive development Bc4. Because b5 is so ubiquitous in ...


21

Because that was the move that the computer saw lost the least material. The BEST you can do there is just get two minor pieces for the queen. It gets worse after Qa4. Even just Nxc7 wins so much material that it is easy, but there is even better. [FEN ""] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. d3 Bg4 6. f3 Bf5 7. Bd2 e6 8. Nge2 Nc6 9. Nd5 Qa4 10....


3

Heuristics can only get you so far, at the end of the day chess is a highly contextual game which means, in order to understand why a given move is good or bad, you can never do without the concrete assessment of lines of play that can arise from that move. Obviously, one cannot go to arbitrary depths in the calculations, so at some point you need to make a ...


0

Engine will rate a move as bad when it leads to a disadvantage that can be exploited (sometimes only by a very strong player). There's a myriad of ways in which you can weaken your position and there's no heuristic that guarantees you'll be able to avoid them (that's the beauty of the game!). I'd suggest doing an analysis of the game and following the ...


8

As far as I know, there is no engine that does what you are looking for. An engine is a program that does nothing more than take certain positional and material elements into account, and gives it an evaluation. It does not break down the elements and show you how it evaluated each of them. Sometimes, it can be obvious because the analysis is a clear win of ...


2

Some observations: Trading a wing pawn for a center pawn is usually desirable as it can lead to a central pawn majority (which can lead to central occupation). More space is usually considered an advantage. From the above it appears White should see if d4-d5 can work. Black can't immediately win the pawn because of Bxh7 trick, but maybe he can win it more ...


5

The position is basically still quite equal, although black has a tiny bit less space to maneuver, so the first order of the day is to develop the Qd1, and bring the rooks to the center. The position is still VERY fluid in the center, so it is impossible to say about one plan that "this is THE plan". Also, a fluid center makes it very hard to develop a ...


0

Looks like a sac by either bishop or knight takes that pawn, then qh5+. Would have to be calculated to see that the follow up gives white enough, though he gets 2 pawns anyway. Its kind of an engine, or master like move.


3

The problem, and it really comes down to feel and analysis, is primarily that your king position can be compromised indefinitely. In addition, virtually all of your pieces are not "harmoniously" placed, meaning they do not help each other out at all. In every line, they just get in each other's way, and nothing defends each other. In chess, we sometimes ...


0

Winning percentages are weighted with win=1 draw=1/2 and loss=0. It does not tell you how often white wins outright. You need wins to win a tournament not lots of draws. So players will play moves to improve outright winning chances while risking losses. That skews the statistics some. Basically they are meaningless until you get to the end of the ...


-3

Looks like an easy win for white. You have to be careful how you do it but getting the k to the qside to pick up the rook pawn or else win the bishop as you advance the kpawn without the black king to stop it because it is guarding the rook pawn. putting your pawns on black squares first could block your king from getting to the q side


9

What a beautiful domination of black's king by the knight and pawn setup on c5,e5, white is essentially up a king in this endgame! Given that black is completely unable to create any threats, you have all the tempi to centralize your king and aim for a specific setup thereafter. One potentially simpler plan that springs to mind is, targeting black's weak ...


13

First, the good: You are probably winning this throughout the game, and thus, improving your position gradually was the perfect plan. It also was one of the best examples of Shereshevsky's "Do Not Hurry" principle that I have ever seen. Black could do nothing, so gradually improving, and eventually converting, was perfect since you had all the time in the ...


1

...d5 is seen in a number of variations, though not this early. Probably the earliest is in a line from Cordel’s that GM Konikowski concocted in some correspondence games (3. ... Bc5 4. c3 d5). Grab them from one of the online databases; some of them are wonderfully complex studies of the kind of pitfalls White can stumble into. Typically, when it shows up ...


2

After the Rook exchange you were clearly better. White has a very bad Bishop (which is much less valuable than your Knight) and no opportunity for initiative. Your doubled Pawn is no disadvantage because it cannot be attacked. Both your King and your Knight threaten to infiltrate the weak light squares. Your Knight can walk all over the board while White can ...


6

Your evaluation of the position is incorrect, and you are not better, so the idea that you have a win is out of the question with decent play. The white bishop is only partially bad. If he gets in e4, there are really only two pawns then fixed on dark squares. In fact, my initial gut feeling is that it is you, who has more opportunities to go wrong due to ...


11

Note: This is an analysis of the position at move 34. Obviously, White's play in the beginning of the endgame was poor and he should never have entered such trouble. Black's advantage is clear and long-lived because he has the better minor piece, a knight vs a bad bishop with a locked center. Whether this advantage is enough for a win requires analysis, of ...


8

First, cheer up, this is not an easy endgame and you should not kick yourself for missing a winning move. That said, it is possible to see that 34...Kf5 is your best bet. I'm not a particularly strong player, but: The queenside is locked. You can't make progress based solely on the pawn structure. If White plays a5 you'll never get through. Given enough ...


1

C5 is a move I generally don't like, because it realeses a tension in the center that is generally healthy to have in order to dispute the advantage (and tactics may always lurke when pawns are in contact!). With this said, there are in deed positions in which giving up this tension in exchange of a lot of space is reasonable, usually when the b6 ...


-2

Its one variation. Would work better with black B on d6. Not that it is bad just different. And other moves seem slightly better. B-d3 and pxp would both work much better statistically. I would have played differently earlier on with black so this position would not be a consideration. And as you note most games will vary widely the farther you get ...


15

Using @Phonon's Python script, I was able to determine that the worst move is 1. g4?? from the BBQRNNKR starting configuration, or 1. b4?? from its mirror image. This evaluates to -2.5 in one second of Stockfish search. Not quite a minor piece, but still a substantial handicap to recover from. Why is this position so powerful for the opponent? The black ...


-5

NO. The pawns are still in front of the pieces. Only the piece placement has been changed. No pawn move will be as bad as you asked.


7

You said "blunder a piece" or "lose significant advantage", so how about mate since that is even worse? I could only find a few, but here they are. Since it takes at least two moves for there to be any interaction between pieces, I am going to start there, and use some logic, but I could still only find a very few. First, you have to keep in mind that ...


37

This calls for some scripting, so here's my first hasty attempt at it ;) Here's a quick way you can do the search on your own in python, using stockfish 10 and only the python-chess package. All open-source and free-software! Briefly, what the script will do: Consider all 960 positions, one at a time For each position, it scans over all legal white moves ...


0

That 3...d5 move is terrible for black. And not many masters tried that bad move 3...d5. replying 4.0-0 is a mistake. a bad mistake. white instead playing 4.p-d4 won every game played by masters. I would have played 4.nxp in reply to 3...d5 which wins at least a pawn. In one of the master games he played that knight takes move, a move later, after 4....


1

There're two separate questions in the OP. Addressing both of them: So is it possible to expect different results from computer vs same computer on the same machine? Yes, because chess engines aren't completely deterministic. See this question. The answers to that question deal with traditional engines. The newer neural-network based engines are less ...


1

It means that OTB it would take you a long time to figure out the best move and that you are still likely to choose the wrong one.


Top 50 recent answers are included