Seems like you can do both?

Be7 looks best. You'll be up a rook or 2 pieces.

Be7 wins more material.

But will you go all-in?

omg fml I missed that, I was thinking Qxf8 Kxf8 then Rxa6. LOL, well..."beginner" & "low-content"!

"After 10 rounds, with only tomorrow's final round remaining, Russia's young Ian [ctrl+v] Nepomniachtchi leads the European Individual Championship in Rijeka alone after beating long-time leader Jobava convincingly in round nine."
I love Mig's blog at chessninjas.

only topped by german transliteration which would be Nepomnjaschtschi if i'm not mistaken.

What is the easiest way to just get a fast blundercheck on games from ICC? I'm using dasher and autosaving games, then opening them with an old copy of fritz, but it's a bit cumbersome and slow.

Took me forever to work this one out for some reason:

Tactics Problem

Post a diagram, that link that just brought me to the website.

Ugggg I think the rating system should be adjusted so that you win more points (when you win) and lose less points (when you lose) when you're black. Most of my losing streaks start from being black a bunch of times in a row.

[partially resisting urge to make very bad joke about affirmative action chess]

just got babas chess, and i love it

also just starting playing fischerrandom, and i love that too

quick, rough question off of a talk with a friend (and i obv understand if there's no easy answer): if you always played white, approx how inflated would your rating become?

At the highest level, playing white is a huge advantage because it seems like black often tries to play for a draw.

At the lowest levels, it's not a huge deal.

In between (which is where I'm starting to get to), I think playing white gives a pretty decent edge. You sort of get to decide the flow of the game from the start.

In terms of how inflated a rating would become, someone more experienced would offer a better estimate.

GM Kaufman has calculated the white advantage to be worth 35 ELO points. So if you only have white, you'd be around 18 points higher rated than if you have an equal number of blacks and whites.

No idea how he calculated this or in what context, but this seems overly simplistic. If you give white to somebody like Kasparov 100% it's going to be an enormous edge, substantially more than 35 points no doubt. If you give it to some 1100, it probably wouldn't change their results at all. There was that one guy who posted on here who was probably around 1700-1800 who said he even did better as black.

Do not you just love when people say you are using a computer or some other tool? Biggest compliment anyone can say. After trashing ardus 10-1 in bullet he had something to say

Ardus(IM) tells you: who plays for you?
Ardus(IM) tells you: a gm
Ardus(IM) tells you: it means you are cheating
Ardus(IM) tells you: silence....
Ardus(IM) tells you: means yes

Vasily Smyslov died yesterday. Very sad.

lmao this is awesome.

respond: "silence..... means i'm too busy laughing at you to respond."

RIP Smyslov

Anyone using babaschess:

I currently use crafty to run blunderchecks after my games, but is there a way to get it to tell me the best individual move?

When you're examining a game, you can go to the "analysis" tab, and press "start" and it will just analyze that position, listing its calculated best line, and the depth calculated, and adding a new listing each time it changes its evaluation or increases depth.

Also, it's worth mentioning that you can add a stronger engine (such as Firebird) to the interface and use that engine for blunderchecking and analysis instead, if you so desire.

Im looking for a game where Kasparov was playing black, i think, and made some amazing sacrifices and defeated a computer.
First, i thought it was vs deep blue or deep junior but i cant find the game googling.
Anyone know what game im looking for?

Hey guys,

a little request. My computer with all my chess programs died and I haven't installed anything after re-installing windows. Could someone with an engine quickly analyze this game? I am mainly interested in an evaluation after move 22. g5 a4 and then further. Basically if my sacrifice was correct or not and don't laugh - this was played like 3.5 years ago so the level of play might not be up to par.. Yet I miss my style of play of those days - sac everything and mate! These days I seem to only win positionally :/


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Qd2
Nbd7 9. f3 b5 10. a4 b4 11. Nd5 Bxd5 12. exd5 a5 13. O-O-O Be7 14. g4 O-O 15.
Qf2 Ne8 16. h4 Nc7 17. f4 Nf6 18. Qg2 exf4 19. Bxf4 Qd7 20. Be2 Qxa4 21. Kb1
Qd7 22. g5 a4 23. gxf6 Bxf6 24. Nd4 a3 25. b3 Qf5 26. Rhf1 Nxd5 27. Bg5 a2+ 28.
Ka1 Qxc2 29. Bf3 Qc3+ 30. Qb2 Qxb2+ 31. Kxb2 a1=Q+ 32. Rxa1 Bxd4+ 33. Kc2 Rfc8+
34. Kd3 Rxa1 35. Bxd5 Rxf1 36. Kxd4 Rd1+ 0-1

thanks in advance!

25.Bc1! looks like a good move for White that should offer a lot more resistance, at least, and may hold everything together. I don't see how Black makes progress after that, but am also without engines at the moment, and would be curious what stronger humans and computers think.

I entered the position after 22. ... a4, activated infinite analysis, and then went out to lunch. Just got back and here's what Firebird says at depth 20:

Analysis by FireBird 1.0 w32:

1. +/- (0.94): 23.Nb3-c5 d6xc5 24.d5-d6 a4-a3 25.d6xe7 Qd7xe7 26.g5xf6 Qe7xf6 27.Bf4-c1 Qf6-e6 28.Rh1-e1 Ra8-d8 29.Be2-d3 Qe6-b6 30.Bc1-g5 Rd8-e8 31.Re1-f1 Kg8-h8 32.Bd3-c4 Qb6-g6 33.Qg2-f2 Nc7-e6
2. +/= (0.31): 23.g5xf6 Be7xf6 24.Nb3-d4 a4-a3 25.Bf4-c1 Qd7-a4 26.Be2-c4 Qa4-a7 27.Qg2-d2 Qa7-c5 28.b2-b3 Nc7xd5 29.Bc4xd5 Qc5xd5 30.Rh1-f1 Bf6-e5 31.Qd2xb4 Rf8-c8 32.Rf1-f2
3. -/+ (-1.00): 23.Nb3-d4 Nf6xd5 24.Bf4-d2 a4-a3 25.b2-b3 Ra8-a5 26.Be2-c4 Rf8-b8 27.Kb1-a2 Ra5-c5 28.Qg2-f3 g7-g6 29.Rd1-f1

So it looks like it prefers Nc5, however the sac is sound and still leaves white with an advantage. I'll work my way through the rest of the game now, and see what else it says.

Edit: 23.g5xf6 Be7xf6 24.Nb3-d4 a4-a3 are all best moves according to Firebird, but 25. b3? looks like an inaccuracy. Sholar's Bc1 is better, and Bg5 is better still, according to Firebird at depth 15:

Analysis by FireBird 1.0 w32:

1. +/= (0.56): 25.Bf4-g5 Bf6xd4 26.Rd1xd4 a3xb2 27.Rd4xb4 Rf8-b8 28.Rb4xb8+ Ra8xb8 29.Qg2-e4 Rb8-e8 30.Qe4-c4 Nc7xd5 31.Qc4xd5 Re8xe2 32.Kb1xb2 Re2-e5 33.Qd5-a8+ Re5-e8 34.Qa8-a6 Re8-b8+ 35.Kb2-c1
2. +/= (0.32): 25.Bf4-c1 Qd7-a4 26.Be2-c4 Qa4-a7 27.Qg2-e4 Qa7-c5 28.Qe4-d3 Nc7xd5 29.Rh1-g1 Rf8-c8 30.Bc4-b3 a3xb2 31.Bc1xb2 Kg8-h8 32.Rd1-e1
3. = (0.00): 25.Qg2-h3 Qd7xh3 26.Rh1xh3 a3xb2 27.Kb1xb2 Nc7xd5 28.Bf4-g5 Bf6-e5 29.Be2-c4 Nd5-c3 30.Rd1-d3 Nc3-a4+ 31.Kb2-b1 Na4-c3+ 32.Kb1-b2
4. = (-0.05): 25.Qg2-g4 Qd7xg4 26.Be2xg4 a3xb2 27.Bf4xd6 Bf6xd4 28.Rd1xd4 Nc7-b5 29.Bd6xf8 Nb5xd4 30.Bf8xg7 Kg8xg7 31.Rh1-d1 Ra8-a1+ 32.Kb1xb2 Ra1xd1 33.Bg4xd1 Kg7-f6 34.c2-c3 b4xc3+ 35.Kb2xc3 Nd4-f5 36.Kc3-b4 Nf5xh4 37.d5-d6 Nh4-f5 38.Kb4-c5 Nf5xd6 39.Kc5xd6 h7-h6 40.Bd1-f3 Kf6-g7
5. = (-0.08): 25.b2-b3 Qd7-f5 26.Bf4-g5 Nc7xd5 27.Bg5xf6 Nd5-c3+ 28.Kb1-a1 Qf5xf6 29.Rd1-d2 Ra8-a5 30.Be2-c4 d6-d5 31.Bc4-d3 Ra5-c5 32.Qg2-f2