Hot answers tagged

7

Note: I'm an average player, who learnt chess about 2 years ago, maybe I'm not the right guy to answer such question but I will try. I wanted to ask a similar question, maybe I will today or tomorrow. As for your question. Top level players do make mistakes, maybe they underestimate the opponent, maybe under time pressure, maybe they just don't see the ...


7

Because the queen is protected by the bishop on A3. Therefore its checkmate.


7

I followed the profile of Thunder_Penguin in chess.com and found a blog post about this: some variation. Ady and I made this. Rules: To win, get your king to your two corners (a1 and h1 for White, h8 and a8 for Black) You can't capture pieces* You can't put pieces on the last rank (1st or 8th) You can't castle* You can ...


5

If player B is checked in two different ways, then there is by definition no way for player B to block both attackers with a single move. The only way to get out of double check is to move the king. If there's a square for player B's king to move to that is safe, then he can get out of the check. If player B simply doesn't see it, then in a friendly game ...


5

I occasionally see annotations/commentary where a move / line is said to make (for example) white win "by force". I am unsure if it has the general sense of "this move initiates a forcing sequence where white will come out on top" or something more specific, say, "with this move, white exerts indefensible pressure ('force') on a particular square / ...


5

"Wins by force" means that the move leads to a series of moves that makes it impossible for the losing side to defend the position. Here, the definition of "winning" can vary between annotators. Checkmate is the extreme case of winning. Having an advantage of two pawns without any compensation for the opponent is somewhere at the low end of a winning ...


4

I think the only alternative would be in match play or comparing a player's score across multiple games against another player or players. For example, in a 12 game match between two players: (+3 =8 -1) would be worse than (+5 =6 -1) even though the first player won both matches. Scoring by material count or number of moves played would not be beneficial....


4

Almost by definition, the advantage needed to win gets smaller and smaller, the higher level the players get. Between two rank beginners, the loss of a pawn or even a piece means very little, because such players will lose pawns and pieces to each other almost at random. One of them wins after the the other has made several mistakes, and gotten several ...


4

Each tournament has its rules, but what I was taught as a child when I played was that the agreement of the players was the end of the game; if you weren't checkmated, it was treated as though you resigned because you thought the position was a lost position. Shake on it, and the game is decided. As the winning player, it was considered unsportsmanlike to ...


3

Yes, after 2...g6 black is only a bishop behind and not immediately checkmated. But that doesn't matter much for the result -- being a full piece behind is also enough to resign. And, that he stays a piece behind is immediately obvious -- white takes a bishop, black doesn't take back. So that doesn't really need to be explained. On the other hand, what ...


3

FEN (Forsyth-Edwards Notation) is a way of recording the current position on the chess board - piece positions, active colour, castling possibilities, en passant target, half move clock, full move number. The result of the game is not included.


3

If you don't count forfeits (including time forfeits) then yes, the two possibilities for losing a game are resignation or checkmate. There may be other reasons for resignation than material or positional inferiority, however. In 2017, GM Hou Yifan resigned after 5 moves in protest over perceived manipulated pairings. (The pairings were later analyzed ...


3

I guess the question is what to do if one player doesn't find a legal move, but it is not checkmate. In a tournament game he would lose on time, lose because of repeated illegal moves or possibly resign. In a friendly game between amateurs you can handle the situation any way you like. It depends on whether you value the competitive or the social side of ...


3

Congratulations on a fine win. I see you have dominated the center with your knight which is backed up by doubled rooks on an open file. Your king is in a safe position, compared to black's drafty King position. Black's queen is passive though not poorly placed. One of black's rooks is still in the box and is undefended. It's vulnerable. The other rook is ...


3

Sometimes the media would report the number of moves the game lasted as some kind of indication of how badly an opponent was "crushed". If Magnus was to lose in less than 20 moves, that could be considered "badly beaten" by whomever he was playing, and I'm sure anybody reporting on it would mention that fact. To make it more sophisticated, you could count ...


3

The goal of chess players is, ultimately, to create a threat that cannot be stopped. But chess is a famously balanced game. There is no way to create an unstoppable threat unless one of the players errs. In the simple case, one player moves, the other counters, etc. No one makes any headway. At the higher levels, players drop material so rarely that it ...


3

Simply, at the top-level, a player has enough technique to exploit every little advantage. That's not always true at lower levels. Thus, losing a pawn without compensation may be a little blunder in a match between two beginners, since the opponent could make a bigger blunder on the next moves, and lose the advantage. In a match between 2 pros, a blunder ...


2

It's a bit of hyperbole to be sure. I can't think of many cases where such a phrase would be used. Normally, "...and wins" is good enough. But it means there's no conceivable way that White will lose the game and it takes no special skill to finish the game. The opposite phrase is Black's position is "dead lost." I have also seen in print "black should ...


2

I see two things you can consider: trying to learn how to control your stress. playing many faster games to get used to play and think more quickly (if you often play games with 15 minutes per side, try to play games with 10 minutes per side). Therefore you most probably won't often be in this situation anymore.


2

That's very, very, very dependent on your opponent. There really is no number you can give for a definite way to get a "auto-checkmate" (if that's what you're looking for) as every opponent has different preferences and playing style. Like @Scounged stated, black can win in two moves. For white, the technical fastest way to win is in three moves (here's one ...


1

The game ends with checkmate but the last move must be a legal move. You cannot checkmate your opponent when you are checked at the same time.


1

Once the players agree that the game is over and agree who has won, it's over. If later the player who lost realizes they had a saving resource, it is too late. The game is over.


1

People have proposed adding a new fourth result for stalemate, where (for example) the stalemated player would get 1/4 point and the stalemating player would get 3/4 points. Unfortunately I don't have a reference at hand.


1

This is a psychological issue. You have to change your thinking about what it means to be up material. Instead of thinking "I am winning," simply think, "I am up material, but what did I give up for that?" Often to be up material you give up some kind of positional weakness, sometimes significant and that is probably why you are losing these games. If you ...


1

When you are up material, the simplest way to win is to trade material. Don't try to over complicate the game if unnecessary. Trade off the pieces and you will win the endgame -- easily.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible