User Profile Chessforum
Member since Jul-30-12
My career as chess analyst started at the end of the nineties of last century, some years before the famous match of the World Team against Kasparov 1999, where I also participated a member of the Team.

Having studied computer science, I developed an early interest in the algorithms of chess programs, which first appeared in dedicated chess computers and later as PC software.

Using them in correspondence chess, I recognized the limitations of these programs, especially the early PC programs were only strong with short range tactics.

So already to the end of the nineties of last century I thought about writing a chess program of my own, but with different algorithms that would overcome the limitations of contemporary software.

Because I also felt that my own knowledge of chess was not up to the task, I more and more started analysing openings, and I began with the Morra Gambit, because it is tactical and estimated as theoretically weak, which it is, according to current theory. But I found that its theory can be improved, so that White is not forced to lose the tempo gained by the gambit, as with some decisive lines of current theory.

Since then I studied the French, the King's Gambit, the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, the Queens Gambit, and other openings.

But I also analyzed endgames, motivated by a friend who is a renowned chess study composer.

In 2012 I participated in the World Team Game against GM Akobian and studied the Caro-Kann, and later, in 2013, I examined the Larsen opening the same way.

To realize the motivation of writing a chess program from scratch, I wrote a paper about the weaknesses of current chess programs, that you can find online here: (PDF:

So chess is more science and art than sports for me, although also for me it's very interesting to watch the games of today's top grandmasters live. Here one can see the differences of human and computer chess.

Computer chess is not perfect chess, only the endgame tables, which have stored the moves of very few pieces remaining on the board at the end of the game, offer perfect chess today, but no explanations, why a certain move is the best.

And whether chess can be solved in our life time, remains to be seen.

<PGN viewers online>:

Simple, no variations:

General purpose, may not work with all browsers:

General purpose (click <open>, insert PGN-text, select ParsePgn=4, click <ok>, result in new window)

Can also edit PGN-text:

>> Click here to see DcGentle's game collections. Full Member

   DcGentle has kibitzed 10496 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Apr-18-14 Boomie chessforum (replies)
   Apr-10-14 DcGentle chessforum (replies)
DcGentle: <Robin Gitte>: Good to hear from you. I am also rather busy, I need to figure the positional play for my engine. All the best for your Atlantic sailing race! Sounds like a big task! Good luck, and take care, <DC>
   Apr-08-14 morfishine chessforum (replies)
   Mar-31-14 World Chess Championship Candidates (2014) (replies)
DcGentle: Well, I wanted to see how Kasparov defeated Karpov, one of the greatest positional players. So we might see how Carlsen can be defeated as well, but it needs really high level chess. Look at this: Kasparov vs Karpov, 1990 . After <21. bxa4>: [DIAGRAM] Black to play faces ...
   Mar-31-14 chessforum (replies)
DcGentle: <> Just a reminder, the official final standings of the just finished candidates tournament look different from the standings of our page, see here: -----> Greetings, <DC>
   Mar-30-14 Aronian vs Karjakin, 2014 (replies)
DcGentle: Aronian resigned.
   Mar-30-14 Anand vs Svidler, 2014 (replies)
DcGentle: Which game is more interesting, Veselin Topalov vs Dmitry Andreikin or Levon Aronian vs Sergey Karjakin ? Maybe the second?
   Mar-29-14 Karjakin vs Anand, 2014 (replies)
DcGentle: Yes, Anand deserves all the congratulations he can get. Great tournament by him.
   Mar-28-14 Magnus Carlsen (replies)
DcGentle: <rogl>: Well, in a bullet game, where players hardly have time to take a breath, human instinct tells them to exert pressure by attacking the strongest enemy piece, if possible. So Fressinet did that before being checkmated. His tough luck was, that he was just running into a
   Mar-27-14 Robin Gitte chessforum
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Chess means Analysis

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 34 OF 34 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <<Sally Simpson>: You can replace the White King with any pawn or piece except a Queen...>

*hmmm* In your diagram, I cannot replace the white king with a white rook either, because the black king would be in check.

Somehow something doesn't work.

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: I guess I know what it is: The queen would check the king and so it cannot set up a position with a discovered check. It's similar to this checkmate with 2 rooks and knight, it cannot happen in a game.

So the question "what can a queen not do" is misleading in the first place. ;-)

(At least I gave a situation, where something of a queen deficit was clear.)

I you think about it, the general rule for a discovered check is, that the piece to move doesn't check the king. This is nothing special, because with a discovered check you can always replace the moving piece with another one, which would check.

I would say, it's not a real queen "deficit".

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi,

I'll tidy it up (White to play)

click for larger view

The moving in piece in giving a dicovered can ever be a Queen. (else the King would be in check and not White's move.)

You can replace the pawn on d6 with a King, Bishop or Knight and give a discovered check.

You replace f4 Rook with a King, Knight or pawn and give a discovered check.

Never a Queen.

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <<Sally Simpson>: Hi, I'll tidy it up (White to play)>

I got this, thanks. :-)

Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: Good morning <DcGentle> Here's a beaut: Korchnoi vs Geller, 1954


Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <morfishine>: Hi! Well, this game shows the kind of tactician Korchnoi really was. The losing move of Geller was <20... f6?>. After <20... Bh4> attacking White's queen the defense would have been tougher. White still has a great position, though.
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <DcGentle> Powerful game by Kramnik Kramnik vs Karjakin, 2014 This game (and I much enjoyed your postings on it) appears to be a fine example of what you've been examining, namely positional play and critical squares
Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <morfishine>: Kramnik's form is tremendous. I will look at his games more closely, the way he defended his game against Svidler today was just marvelous.

The better your positional play is, the better your total chess play will be, this could be a motto.

Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <DcGentle> Yes, I remember last year's Candidates, I picked Kramnik to win. The "veterans", whether past WC or not, will almost surely give a great effort. They have discipline, know how to prepare properly, know how to pace, and know how to handle the pressure. They wouldn't be here if they didn't think they could compete. A marvelous game
Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <Why tactics in chess?>

Tactical and positional thinking in chess are two different things.

If any human starts tactical deliberations, they look at the pieces and ponder how and where to setup them in order to win any material from the opponent. In most cases this works with a double attack. But as we know, this can take many sundry forms, like a fork or the discovered check.

But nobody has checkmated with tactical thinking alone, because checkmating is a positional process. Why are people yearning to win material in the first place then? Just simple, it enhances chackmating. Yes, the won material allows for the easier square control!

And here there we are at the subject of positional play, because first and foremost this wants to achieve the superior square control of the relevant squares in all situations. Players only want to win material, because it's incredibly difficult to keep the superior square control without material gain for good.

There is only one exception, which makes it easy for the average player to achieve and keep the better square control without material gain: This is the closed game, where the opponent gets cramped by the own space advantage, the best sample is The World vs Akobian, 2012. With equal material, Houdini's eval was more than +3.00 after move 31 of Black, indicating the positional advantage equivalent to a piece.

This is an extreme case of course.

In Carlsen's games, the engine won't most likely find such a big positional advantage for the side he is playing, but the most common 0.00 eval may be a glitch of the evaluation functions of current engines. For Carlsen doesn't take the detour of first gaining material by tactical thinking in order to win his games, he tries to gain and keep positional superiority with the available material directly. This is not easy, and often he succeeds only in the endgame, if he is successful at all. But my impression is, that his positional play has improved in recent years.

Many people have not realized, that Carlsen's method requires a new view on the chess board. Not the own tactical patterns are important now, other factors determine Carlsen's play. Of course he has to take into account and thwart the tactical options of the opponent, and he can always threaten own tactical actions, but only in order to achieve the superior square control. And here Carlsen's thoughts may include deliberations, how to restrict enemy pieces by the own ones and how to bring up and configure reinforcements to make them effective in the focus of action.

Such positional play has been neglected by many grandmasters since the times of Capablanca. Champions like Fischer and Kasparov were also capable of playing positional games, but in the end the positional superiority they had achieved was converted with tactical strikes almost always. Carlsen has shown that this is not necessary, according to his games purely positional play is sufficient to win.

Imitation of Carlsen's method is not easy. Nevertheless I hope that my future engine will be able to play positionally, if not at Carlsen's level yet, then as close as possible to his mastership.


Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <DcGenttle> Very nice and excellent post! Perhaps some parties were misunderstanding what you were trying to say regarding positional play (vs tactics), when in fact the tactics are there, (but emerging from the superior positional play). And one of the nuances that needs to be completely understood, I think, before one tries to grasp what you are theorizing, is that square control, occupying of critical squares and attacking critical squares are all distinct ideas (or themes), that eventually "funnel" into a winning position; which almost always is the same as obtaining a decisive advantage in material, whether by promotion or an outright capture

I think I am getting, but make no firm claim...yet :)


Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <morfishine>: Thanks, I think you are getting me rather well. In this regard it's interesting to note what Carlsen is impressed about when talking about the ongoing Candidates Tournament (

He mentions Anand vs Aronian, 2014 which is a rather positional game, one could say this is won in Carlsen's style actually. He stresses he liked Anannd's bishop maneuvers very much there, and when you go over this game again (I saw it live like you, I guess), you'll notice one reason for these bishop moves: They just prevented any enemy rook invasion, for example.

Also when talking about other games, he often mentions "key squares". This notion alone is one of the central points of positional play and you glimpse a part of Carlsen's thinking: It's all about square control, and he has to determine the relevant key squares before he actually can do something about them. And he is excellent in this task.

Oh well, I still have to figure a way how to describe this in more detail.

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: Carlsen's play in the following game is impressive:

[Event "TCh-NOR Kvalifisering Eliteserien 2014"]
[Site "Oslo NOR"]
[Date "2014.03.22"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Georgiev, Vladimir"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C78"]
[WhiteElo "2881"]
[BlackElo "2553"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "2014.03.22"]
[WhiteTeam "Stavanger SK"]
[BlackTeam "Nordstrand SK"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 {<This is the so called Archangelsk (counterthrust) variation of the Ruy Lopez.>} 7. d3 Bc5 8. c3 {<preparing a timely push of the d-pawn.>}

(8. a4 {<was played by Carlsen in Carlsen vs I Sokolov, 2013 which I watched live at the time. Black got a rather nice game in the opening, and so White decided to move something else now.>})

8... O-O 9. a4 d5 10. axb5 axb5 11. Rxa8 {<forced, because the rook had no good squares on the a-file. But Carlsen doesn't mind trading some pieces in the opening, this only enhances his positional play.>} Bxa8 {<Now Black can win a center pawn by 12... dxe4 13. dxe4 Qxd1 14. Rxd1 Nxe4, so White prevents this by taking the d-pawn.>} 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Re1 {<White wants to strengthen his center. It's not about winning a pawn yet, because 14. Nxe5 would fail due to 14... Bxf2+ 15. Kxf2 Nxe5 16. Rxe5 Qf6+ and Black would win rook e5.>} b4 {<this pawn was loose on b5, but White is not afraid of the threat 14... bxc3, because after 15. bxc3 his piece mobility would have increased.>} 14. Qc2 {<Now Black has to defend against 3 threats, namely 15. Nbd2 heading to e4, a square that was built up as outpost by the last moves of White, 15. Nxe5 winning a pawn, which works because pawn f2 is protected now, and finally 15. Bg5, attacking Black's queen and provoking 15... f6, pinning knight d5. Furthermore it's interesting, that the queen on c2 contributes to a very compact piece structure on the queenside. Such structures are known to be very stable, due to their big.defense strength. Carlsen loves to start a game with compact piece structures.>} f6 {<is defending against a white bishop on g5 and covers e5, but cannot prevent a white knight getting to the outpost e4.>}

(14... Bb6 {<looks like an alternative, but after>} 15. h3 Qd7 16. Ba4 f6 17. Nbd2 {<This knight can also head to e4, like in the game.>})

15. Nbd2 {<Regarding the squares from a4 to e4, they are mostly covered two times, but e4 is even covered three times. Furthermore White is threatening 16. d4 Be7 17. dxe5 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 fxe5 19. Rxe5 Bd6 20. Rf5 Kh8. Black moved his king to unpin knight d5, but it's too late, White will trade rooks and is better.>} Kh8 {<So it's clear, that Black wants to unpin his knight e5.>} 16. Ne4 {<White's knight has arrived on the outpost and is attacking bishop c5.>} Be7 17. h3 {<This is a clever waiting move. Black has no good squares for any of his pieces and pawn moves would weaken his position. I wouldn't say that Black is in Zugzwang, but it's already difficult to find a good plan for Black as well.>} Na5 18. Ba2 {<Of course the bishop pair is quite valuable for White.>} b3 {<This is a pawn sacrifice, but perhaps Black thought that the ensuing forced trades would enhance his defense.>}

(18... c5 {<would have been better. For example after>} 19. Bb1 b3 20. Qe2 Qb6 21. Ng3 Qa6 22. h4 Rd8 23. h5 Bf8 24. Nh4 Ne7 {<White has a decent game on the kingside, but Black has threats on the long diagonal a8-h1.>})

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: ... continued

19. Bxb3 Nxb3 20. Qxb3 {<forced but good.>} Nb6 {<This move would not have been possible with a black king on g8.>} 21. d4 {<One long-term threat is the march of queenside pawns here.>} f5 {<Black doesn't like White's center knight and wants to gain space on the kingside.>} 22. Nc5 {<threatening to fork queen and rook with the knight on e6.>} Bd5 23. Qd1 {<This move should have made Black suspicious. White wants to transfer his queen to the kingside.>} e4 {<playing into White's hands, because after the knight move to e5 the white queen has a clear path to h5.>} 24. Ne5 {<The white knights are controlling numerous squares in Black's camp.>} Bd6 25. Bf4 Nc4 {<Black wants to remove at least one center kinght.>}

(25... Re8 {<would have been countered by>} 26. Qh5 {<attacking f5. White has good prospects on both wings.>})

(25... Qh4 {<is not much better either, because after>} 26. Qc1 Nc4 27. Bg5 Qh5 28. Nxc4 Bxc4 29. b3 Bf7 30. Nb7 Bxb3 31. Nxd6 cxd6 32. Be7 Ra8 33. Bxd6 {<White's connected passed pawns c3 and d4 look strong.>})

26. b4 {<Was this pawn move a surprise for Black? Only in hindsight it's conceivable that Carlsen already here planned to march this pawn to b8, checkmating Black.>} g5 {<gaining space at the kingside.>} 27. Bh2 f4 {<Black might have thought that White's bishop is cut off from the action now, and he was right. But fact is, this bishop wasn't necessary for White's maneuvers anymore.>} 28. Nxc4 Bxc5

(28... Bxc4 {<was not better due to>} 29. Nxe4 h6 30. h4 gxh4 31. Nxd6 Qxd6 32. Qh5 Rg8 33. Re4 {<and White looks winning.>})

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: ... continued

29. Nd2 Bd6 {<Now White's pieces have been driven back and Black gained some space on the kingside. But Black's bishops are blocked by their own pawns which cannot advance much further anyways. Carlsen will win another pawn in the center and a valuable key square, namely h4, is under the control of White's queen.>} 30. Nxe4 Qe7 {<with the threat to take knight e4, but White is faster.>}

(30... Bxe4 {<is not better:>} 31. Rxe4 Qa8 {<Black wants to invade with his heavy pieces, but White can deal with this plan easily.>} 32. f3 Qa2 33. Kh1 Ra8 34. Bg1 Qb2 35. d5 {<Now White has the nice square d4 for his bishop.>} Ra2 36. Bd4+ Kg8 37. Qf1 Qc2 {<Black cannot hurt White with his heavy pieces on the second rank..>} 38. b5 h5 39. c4 g4 40. hxg4 hxg4 41. c5 Bxc5 42. Bxc5 Qxc5 43. Rxf4 Qc3 44. Rxg4+ {<and White is much better with his 3 surplus pawns.>})

31. Nxd6 Qxd6 {<forced.>} 32. Re5 {<forking bishop d5 and pawn g5. The former is covered, though.>} h6 33. h4 {<This simple pawn push ruins Black's kingside pawn structure.>} gxh4 34. Qh5 {<attacking bishop d5 for the second time and binding Black's queen to the task of protecting h6.>} c6 {<Anything else was worse.>} 35. f3 {<Now all black pawns are immobilized and also Black's pieces have hardly any good squares left. Carlsen has gained a huge positional superiority!>} Qf6 {<It's clear that Black wants to protect pawn h4, but it's too late as well.>} 36. b5 {<! The point of the whole game of White. Pawn b5 cannot be taken, because bishop d5 would fall otherwise. It's most likely, that Carlsen already had this position in mind, when playing 26. b4.>} Ra8 {<Black's desperate try for counterplay is nipped in the bud.>} 37. Re8+ Rxe8 {<forced of course.>} 38. Qxe8+ Kh7 39. Qd7+ Kh8 40. b6 {<and suddenly Black is caught in a mating net. So Black resigned.>}

(40. b6 Be6 {<leads to a nice mate.>} (40... Qg6 {<is much tougher.>} 41. Bxf4 Bxf3 42. Be5+ Kg8 43. Qd8+ Kf7 44. Qf6+ Qxf6 45. Bxf6 Bd5 46. b7 Kxf6 47. b8=Q {<and White will need some more moves to checkmate, but the end is inevitable.>}) 41. Qe8+ Kg7 42. b7 Bf7 43. Qc8 Be6 44. Qc7+ Qf7 45. b8=Q Qxc7 46. Qxc7+ Kf8 47. Bxf4 Ke8 48. Bxh6 Bd7 49. Bg5 Kf7 50. Qxd7+ Kg6 51. Qe7 c5 52. Qf6+ Kh7 53. Qf7+ Kh8 54. Bf6#) 1-0


Apr-02-14  Ceri: Hi, Dcg,

Here is one of my old games from LetsPlayChess.

I knew the game was all over for Black at move 21. Bxc6.

[Event " server game"]
[Site " "]
[Date "2005.5.15"]
[Round "NA"]
[White "Ceri"]
[Black "sassafrass"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Black resigned"]
[WhiteElo "3153"]
[BlackElo "2771"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[DateLastMove "2006.2.22"]
[ECO "A29"]
[Board "1375368"]

1. c4 e5 2. Nb1c3 Ng8f6 3. Ng1f3 Nb8c6 4. g3 Bf8c5 5. Bf1g2 d6 6. d3 h6 7. O-O a6 8. a3 O-O 9. e3 Bc5a7 10. b4 Bc8e6 11. Rf1e1 Qd8d7 12. Bc1b2 Ra8e8 13. Qd1a4 Ba7b6 14. Nf3d2 d5 15. Ra1d1 d4 16. Nc3e4 Nf6xe4 17. Bg2xe4 dxe3 18. fxe3 Be6g4 19. Rd1c1 Bb6a7 20. c5 Bg4e6 21. Be4xc6 bxc6 22. Nd2c4 Qd7xd3 23. Nc4xe5 Be6b3 24. Ne5xd3 Bb3xa4 25. Nd3f4 Re8e4 26. Bb2d4 Rf8d8 27. Kg1f2 f5 28. h4 Ba4b3 29. h5 Bb3f7 30. Re1g1 Kg8h7 31. Rc1d1 Rd8g8 32. Bd4a1 Re4e7 33. g4 Bf7b3 34. Rd1c1 fxg4 35. Rg1xg4 a5 36. Rc1g1 Bb3d5 37. Nf4g6 Re7f7 38. Rg4f4 Rf7xf4 39. exf4 axb4 40. axb4 Rg8e8 41. Ng6f8 Kh7g8 42. Ba1xg7 Kg8f7 43. Bg7xh6 1-0

I had a quick look at it with my free Houdini just now and the machine didn't really get it after Black's 20th and 25th moves.

Is this of interest in helping you plan for your programme?

Kind regards,


Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: Hi <Ceri>! Glad to see you passing by. Thank you for the game!

Yes, I played over it, and of course engines of today don't realize the impact when a piece gets buried like Black's bishop a7 here. As we see, even humans tend to overlook the seriousness of the situation, but fact is, this bishop didn't see the daylight ever again, so that Black played a piece down effectively.

Very nice positionally played game.

My future program has the advantage, that he will <not> run through thousands of senseless move combinations and it will be able to recognize the immobility of pieces and the ensuing impact, at least I hope so.

Positional play has other components, though, and I realized, that it's rather meaningless without a long-term strategy guiding it.

For example in the above Carlsen game, after <29... Bd6> we see this position:

click for larger view

White to move.

Optically, Black has a strong position, but as we see in the game, Carlsen will open up the center, winning a pawn. Furthermore he can ruin Black's kingside pawn chain. Nevertheless, his bishop h2 stays buried! But it doesn't hurt him anymore, his calculations have verified, that he didn't need the bishop for his further operations anyways.

Positional play without a plan is not as strong. My program will be able to figure long-term goals, but this is not easy either. I would like to imitate Carlsen's positional play in the engine, if possible. Others need pawn chains to restrict the opponent, he can do it with piece play! This is an extra ordinary performance.

Well, we'll see.

All the best!

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <The chess universe and the real one.>

There are many analogies in chess with our real universe.

The game-tree complexity in chess exceeds the number of atoms in the real universe.

The chess board is space.
The chessmen are the matter.

Time in chess is connected to the moves of the players. If you look at a recorded game, you are in fact looking at the history of the game.

If a game proceeds, the material on the board is reduced, this phenomenon can be compared to aging in the real universe, here matter is vanishing in black holes.

In the real world, entropy of the universe was very low at the "Big Bang" and is increasing since then.

The lowest entropy of the game can be found before the "Big Bang" of the game, the start with the initial position.

Entropy is increasing during the game, because disorder increases. But it's not so clear what the microstates and the macrostates in chess are, regarding entropy.

In chess you have several abstraction levels.

The lowest level is the influence of the chessmen contributing to square control of the players.

The next level is simple tactical and positional rules like fork, discovered check, piece mobility.

The next level of abstraction is complex maneuvers, complex structures of pawns, pawn chains, Zugzwang, blockade and so on.

The highest level is game progress.

Maybe these levels correlate to the macroscopic world of our real universe in some way.

In the physics of the real universe you have quantum physics dealing with microstates (states of particles) and general relativity dealing with the large scale world, that is spacetime. Here entropy defines the "arrow of time", pointing from the past into the future.

In chess, the arrow of time should point towards the end of the game.

But time in chess is driven by the players' decisions only, while in the real world time proceeds no matter whether humans are active or not.

Time travel is supposed to be possible in the real universe, as confirmed by relativity experts.

In chess, time travel would mean taking back one or several moves or even move on behalf of the opponent to get into the "future". This is explicitly forbidden during the game, but during analysis it's always permitted, only that during the game players have to do this while planning the future in their minds, without actually touching anything on the board.

So moves are the results of the players' analysis. They are supposed to make sense, being part of a longer maneuver. The sooner any maneuver will lead to a winning position, the better it is, and the less time in chess is consumed for it. So time in chess is connected with quality of play, also visible in the notion of wasting a tempo or gaining it. Here the tempo can be considered as the time unit in chess.

Each winning move in chess is the result of an analysis which noticed that the opponent cannot avoid factual constraints in the future of the game. These constraints would force the opponent into major positional disadvantages, or force him to lose material or even permit checkmate.

So causes for a winning move in chess are all the bad positions of the opponent seen in the future of the game, while it's being played. So in a certain sense, here the effect happens before the cause, which is called retrocausality.

In the real universe, cause is preceding the effect usually. But in the essay "The Quantum Mechanics of Fate" ( ) even Physicists as renowned as John Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Dennis Sciama, and Yakir Aharonov are described as having speculated that causality is a two-headed arrow and the future might influence the past, at least on the level of quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, during a chess game a player is fully entitled to state that his current bad position on the board is a result of a bad previous move of himself, so a result of the past of the game. Here we have the usual argument that cause is preceding the effect.

So all chess events driving time are supposed to have a meaning, with time in chess itself being strongly connected to game quality.

In the real universe, time is a dimension of spacetime but has a lot of meaning for us humans feeling the impact of time in everyday life.

In my opinion it's more than amazing how many analogies of chess and the physics of our real world can be found.

Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: Interesting reading about fundamental issues/properties of time in our world:


Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <DcGentle> I very much enjoyed this posting: <The chess universe and the real one.> I'm a huge fan of analogies (in all sorts of things) since understanding is enhanced.

I've pondered innocuous ideas in chess, for example 'speed'. How is speed measured or calculated in chess? A rook moving from <a1> to <a8> advances 7 squares; yet a Bishop moving from <a1> to <h8> also advances 7 squares, yet covers more distance. Does 'Geometry' explain this difference where moving on a diagonal is "faster" since the the distance is greater, though the squares are the same? Does it matter? And how do we calculate the speed of a Knight? Does that matter?

If we viewed squares as 'dots' and created an 8X8 'square of dots', does this help explain the distance-speed problem? Or does that matter?

We know speed matters when a pawn is advancing and we calculate if a King can "catch it" in time; here, we are just counting squares or 'dots'.

Perhaps 'speed' in chess increases in relevance if we think in terms of 'combined speed' or the 'rate of concentration' of multiple pieces. So the important aspect of speed in chess in not confined to the speed of a single piece, but the speed or rate of mobilization of multiple pieces. Both are true, but the latter is more relevant. Of course, maybe I'm way off base here

(Obviously, pawns are useful to confine rapid enemy buildups while also allowing one to concentrate their own pieces. Maybe thats the primary function of pawns: time mitigators or equalizers)

I think I'm drifting, so better cut this off for now


Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <morfishine>: Yes, the "speed" of pieces in chess is not an illusion, but very important for the planning of the players, imagine only what it means to know, when a passed pawn can reach its promotion square, it can decide the game.

The geometry of the chess board is important for the traveling of the pieces. A famous sample is the Reti study (éti_e...)

click for larger view

White to move and draw.

Especially if you know about the square of fields that the king must enter to stop a passed pawn, at first blush you would naively ask, how can White stop the black pawn, while the Black king can easily stop White's passed pawn? It's kind of a paradox that White will draw nevertheless.

Chess is a great game.

Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <DcGentle> Yes, thats one of the most remarkable studies I've ever seen. Its been awhile, maybe 20-years since I first saw it. Maybe pieces do move faster diagonally! Its all squares but breathtaking nonetheless :)
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robin Gitte: Hi <DC>. Hope you are keeping well. Seems like it! I'll read your Carlsen game notes with interest for some quiet distraction. The Atlantic sailing race starts on May 11th, so I've been busy getting the boat ready. All the best. Robin.
Premium Chessgames Member
  DcGentle: <Robin Gitte>: Good to hear from you. I am also rather busy, I need to figure the positional play for my engine.

All the best for your Atlantic sailing race! Sounds like a big task! Good luck, and

take care, <DC>

Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: Great attack by White, but there has to be a positional mistake for Black here: Yifan Hou vs N Dzagnidze, 2014


Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 34)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 34 OF 34 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Times Chess Twitter Feed
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Participating Grandmasters are Not Allowed Here!

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies