Thursday, October 22, 2026

Chess databases have been updated

 Every other month, updates

I've updated the extensively examined chess opening databases that I actively work on. This is the current state of affairs with every line examined.

If you think it's interesting, send me an email at turpaduunari@outlook.com, and I'll send you the database. Not for free, but for a price you choose (the majority of subscribers pay between 30 and 75 euros per database; only a few chess players insist on contributing larger amounts).


With sincerity,

GM Christer Sundqvist


Chess databases / update packages


  • The f3-Nimzo-Indian defence

  • The Sicilian Najdorf

  • Queen's Gambit Accepted

  • King's Indian Defense

  • Caro-Kann Defense - Finnish variation

  • Halloween Gambit

  • Benko Gambit

  • Grünfeld Defense

  • Dragon Sicilian

  • Slav Defense

  • Ruy Lopez


Schedule Aug-2025 / Oct-2025 / Dec-2025 / Feb-2026 / Apr-2026 / Jun-2026 / Aug-2026 / Oct-2026 / Dec-2026


The f3-Nimzo-Indian defence




  1. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 0-0 5.e4

  2. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 0-0 5.other

  3. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 Re8

  4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 b5

  5. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 d6 7.Bd3

  6. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 d6 7.Nge2

  7. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 d6 7.other

  8. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 other

  9. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 0-0 6.other

  10. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5 6.e4 0-0

  11. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5 6.e4 bxc4

  12. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5 6.e4 d6

  13. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5 6.e4 other

  14. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 b5 6.other

  15. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 0-0

  16. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 Bxc3

  17. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 a6 8.a4 Ba5

  18. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 a6 8.a4 bxc4

  19. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 a6 8.a4 exd5

  20. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 a6 8.a4 other

  21. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 a6 8.other

  22. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd2 other

  23. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Bd3

  24. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.Nge2

  25. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.a3 Bxc3+

  26. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.a3 other

  27. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.dxe6

  28. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 b5 7.other

  29. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.e4 other

  30. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 d6 6.other

  31. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 other

  32. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.other

  33. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Be7

  34. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 0-0

  35. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5

  36. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5

  37. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 other

  38. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.e3

  39. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.other

  40. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 other

  41. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.other

  42. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 other


f3-nimzo-indian-package_20102026.zip


The Sicilian Najdorf




  1. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4

  2. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3

  3. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3

  4. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nf3

  5. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.other

  6. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6

  7. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 other

  8. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be2

  9. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Qd2

  10. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Be7

  11. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Nbd7

  12. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.Be2

  13. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.Nd5

  14. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.Qd2

  15. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.other

  16. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 other

  17. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.h3

  18. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.other

  19. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7

  20. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 other

  21. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nf3

  22. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.other

  23. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2

  24. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3

  25. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.other

  26. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 other

  27. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7

  28. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7

  29. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nbd7

  30. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Nb3

  31. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1

  32. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 other

  33. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.other

  34. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5

  35. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 h6

  36. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 other

  37. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.other

  38. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 other

  39. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Qd3

  40. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Rg1

  41. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4

  42. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3

  43. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4

  44. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3

  45. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 e5 7.Nb3

  46. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 e5 7.Nde2

  47. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 e5 7.other

  48. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 e6

  49. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 other

  50. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.other


Sicilian_Najdorf_20102026.zip


Queen's Gambit Accepted




  1. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6

  2. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 a6

  3. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 e6

  4. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 other

  5. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3

  6. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4

  7. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.other

    QGA_20102026.zip


King's Indian Defense




  1. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Be3

  2. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Nf3

  3. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.other

  4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 c5

  5. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 e5

  6. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 other

  7. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3

  8. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 Na6

  9. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 Nbd7

  10. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 Nc6

  11. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 a5

  12. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0

  13. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3

  14. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5

  15. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.dxe5

  16. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.other

  17. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 other

  18. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3

  19. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.other

  20. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 Bg4

  21. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 other

  22. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3

  23. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2

  24. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.other

  25. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 Nbd7

  26. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 Nc6

  27. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 a6

  28. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c5

  29. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c6

  30. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 other

  31. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4

  32. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 0-0

  33. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 Nbd7

  34. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 e5

  35. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 other

  36. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.other

    KID_package_20102026.zip


Caro-Kann Defense - Finnish variation




  1. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 h6


Caro-Kann_Finnish_21102026.zip


Halloween Gambit




  1. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5


Halloween_Gambit_21102026.zip



Benko Gambit




  1. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Nf3

  2. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Qc2

  3. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.Nc3

  4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.b6

  5. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6

  6. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.e3

  7. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.other

  8. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 other

  9. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.other


Benko_Gambit_package_21102026.zip



Grünfeld Defense




  1. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4

  2. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5

  3. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3

  4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bd2

  5. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4

  6. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nf3

  7. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bb5+

  8. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4

  9. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Be3

  10. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5

  11. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 other

  12. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Qa4+

  13. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.other

  14. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5

  15. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 other

  16. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.g3

  17. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.other

  18. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 other

  19. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3

  20. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.other


Grunfeld_Defense_package_21102026.zip


Dragon Sicilian




  1. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Bc4

  2. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2

  3. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Qd2

  4. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0

  5. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6

  6. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 a6

  7. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 other

  8. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.other

  9. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Nc6

  10. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 other

  11. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.g3

  12. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.other


Dragon_package_21102026.zip


Slav Defense




  1. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5

  2. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3

  3. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Bf5

  4. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.Nf3

  5. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.e3

  6. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.other

  7. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Qb6

  8. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 other

  9. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bg5

  10. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.f3

  11. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.other

  12. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 other

  13. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3

  14. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.other

  15. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3

  16. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3

  17. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4

  18. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.other

  19. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 other

  20. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6

  21. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4

  22. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 Be7

  23. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 Nbd7

  24. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4

  25. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxc6

  26. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 other

  27. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3

  28. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.g3

  29. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.other

  30. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 other

  31. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5

  32. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6

  33. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 other

  34. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.other

  35. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6

  36. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 other

  37. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5

  38. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3

  39. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.g3

  40. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.other

  41. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 Be7

  42. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.0-0

  43. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.Qc2

  44. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.e5

  45. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.h4

  46. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.other

  47. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 other

  48. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Ne5

  49. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.h4

  50. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.other

  51. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 other

  52. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.other

  53. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 other


Slav_distribution_package_21102026.zip


Ruy Lopez



  1. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5

  2. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Be7

  3. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1

  4. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4

  5. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.other

  6. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 other

  7. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Bxc6

  8. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Nc3

  9. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Qe2

  10. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Ba4

  11. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Bxc6

  12. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Nbd2

  13. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3

  14. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.other

  15. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6

  16. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 other

  17. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.other

  18. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7

  19. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6

  20. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4

  21. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6

  22. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 other

  23. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.h3

  24. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.other

  25. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4

  26. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0

  27. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 Na5

  28. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 other

  29. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.other

  30. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 other

  31. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 other

  32. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d3

  33. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.other

  34. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4

  35. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7

  36. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

  37. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 other

  38. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 other

  39. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3

  40. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3

  41. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.other

  42. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5

  43. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6

  44. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 other

  45. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.other

  46. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6

  47. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5

  48. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6

  49. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 other

  50. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.d4

  51. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5

  52. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.other

  53. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.other


Ruy_Lopez_21102026.zip


- No comments:

Friday, September 11, 2026

Chess, Memory and Agency - Past, Present, and Future of Correspondence Chess

Guest Post by William J J Houtzager 

Writer’s Note

This essay began with correspondence chess and with Christer Sundqvist, whom I came to know through the games we played and through his thoughtful essay, The Last Human Move: Confessions of a Correspondence Chess Player in the Engine Era.

He asks whether we still see traces of humanity in our opponents’ games and, more fundamentally, why we continue to play.

Those questions stayed with me.

For me, chess has always been something rather simple: a table, a chessboard, dimmed lights and two glasses of wine. There will hopefully be some good moves and some wins, but there will also be mistakes, failures and surprises. That imperfection is part of the attraction.

I do not believe chess should return to an earlier age. Chess evolved because society evolved, and we are all part of that development. Artificial intelligence is changing much of the world around us. There is no reason chess should somehow remain outside it.

The more interesting question is how we remain human within that development.

In the spirit of Nietzsche, though not in his words:


The danger is not that the machine becomes stronger than man, but that man becomes satisfied with becoming weaker in its presence.


—WJJH

 


Chess as a Human and Imperfect Activity

We humans are imperfect, and so is the chess we play. Perhaps that is part of the reason the game has survived for more than fifteen centuries.

Its beauty does not come from perfection alone, but from uncertainty: two people looking at the same sixty-four squares and seeing something slightly different.

Chess combines memory, pattern recognition, calculation and strategic foresight with experience, understanding and intuition. A move need not always be objectively perfect to be a good move, or even a beautiful one. Sometimes the mistake of one player creates the possibility for the imagination of the other. As Leontxo García observed in El País, much of the beauty of chess is born precisely from this human imperfection.

For all the theory surrounding it, my own conception of chess remains simple: two chairs, a chessboard and two glasses of wine. The game depends upon integrity and fairness. It is serious enough to make us think, but not so serious that we should forget to enjoy it.

Chess has survived kingdoms, wars, borders and changing ideas about what people ought to be doing with their time.

Spain offers a particularly colourful example. The game became deeply established there through al-Andalus and appears prominently in Alfonso X's thirteenth-century Book of Chess, Dice and Tables. Its relationship with the Church was never simply one of approval or prohibition. Clerics sometimes criticised chess when it became associated with gambling or idleness, yet it also entered courtly and educated life.

Ruy López de Segura, one of the founding figures of early modern chess, was himself a Spanish priest.

Chess proved remarkably difficult to suppress.

Muslims, Jews and Christians played it. Kings and priests played it. Merchants and soldiers played it.

The institutions changed.

The game remained.


Correspondence Chess in the Past

Then there is correspondence chess, the form of the game I still play.

Its beginnings disappear partly into legend. Games at a distance have been attributed to medieval rulers such as Henry I of England and Louis VI of France, while another tradition connects the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus with Harun al-Rashid. The evidence is uncertain.

By the seventeenth century, however, there are more substantial reports of merchants playing chess across considerable distances.

The documentary trail becomes clearer in 1804, when Friedrich Wilhelm von Mauvillon, stationed in The Hague, played three games through an exchange of letters with a fellow officer in Breda and later published the moves.

Twenty years later, an old Dutch rivalry found its way onto the chessboard. In 1824 the chess societies of Amsterdam and Rotterdam played two games by correspondence.

Amsterdam won both.

Apparently even postal chess could not escape Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

In the same year, the famous correspondence match between the London and Edinburgh chess clubs began. It continued until 1828, with moves travelling by post and committees discussing the positions at either end.

Correspondence chess demanded something modern players sometimes find in short supply: patience.

Players analysed the board, consulted books, studied earlier games and relied upon memory, judgement and intuition. Correspondence chess was therefore never entirely unaided chess. Research was part of its character from the beginning.

But books and earlier games could show what others had thought and played. The player still had to interpret that knowledge and answer the decisive question:

What should I play now?

The final judgement remained unmistakably human.

An international structure gradually followed. The Internationaler Fernschachbund was founded in 1928, succeeded after the war by the International Correspondence Chess Association, which became the International Correspondence Chess Federation in 1951.

Its motto, Amici Sumus — “We are friends” — expressed something particularly attractive about the spirit of correspondence chess.

The first World Correspondence Chess Championship final began in 1950 and ended in 1953, with the Australian Cecil Purdy becoming the first world champion.

By then correspondence chess had travelled a considerable distance from letters exchanged between acquaintances. Yet its essential character remained recognisable: two human beings separated by distance, each given unusually generous time to think.

That was about to change.


The Machine Enters the Room

The idea of using chess to explore machine intelligence is almost as old as electronic computing itself.

Alan Turing was already thinking about computer chess in the late 1940s, when the machines needed to run such programs scarcely existed. At roughly the same time, Claude Shannon approached the problem more systematically. His 1950 paper, Programming a Computer for Playing Chess, treated the game not merely as entertainment but as a laboratory for machine reasoning.

Shannon understood the central difficulty. A computer could not sensibly examine every possible continuation. It would have to search selectively, evaluate positions and distinguish promising moves from unpromising ones.

The question then was whether a computer could play chess at all.

Half a century later, the question had changed.

When IBM's Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997, it demonstrated that enormous calculating power, sophisticated evaluation and accumulated chess knowledge could overcome the strongest human player.

It was a psychological threshold as much as a technological one.

But Deep Blue was not the end of the story.

The later emergence of neural-network systems such as AlphaZero represented another change. AlphaZero learned chess through self-play and developed ideas that even strong human players sometimes found surprising.

The machine had progressed from learning how to play, to defeating us, to discovering ways of playing that could teach us.

It could calculate tactics, compare candidate moves, reject inferior continuations and assign evaluations to positions. Instead of merely helping the player remember more, it increasingly offered an answer to the question that had traditionally belonged to the player:

What should I play?

That is where assistance begins to become something else.

The human still makes the final move. But if the machine has identified the candidates, calculated the principal variations and ranked the choices before we decide, how much of that decision is genuinely ours?

The machine has not taken our chair away.

It has simply pulled up another chair beside us.


The Subtle Change

The most important change may not have occurred when a computer defeated a world champion. That was the spectacular moment, but not necessarily the most consequential one.

After losing to Deep Blue, Kasparov did not turn against the machine. He moved in the opposite direction. In 1998 he introduced what became known as advanced chess: human and computer working together, combining human intuition, experience and strategic judgement with the machine's memory and calculating power.

On the face of it, this was entirely reasonable.

Why compete against a tool that can make us stronger when we can learn to work with it?

Kasparov subsequently argued that the strongest combination was not necessarily the strongest player working with the strongest computer. What mattered was the quality of the process connecting human and machine. More recently he has suggested that machines may provide something like 95 or 96 per cent of the decision-making capability, leaving the final few percentage points for human judgement and purpose.

Perhaps they do.

But there is an important qualification.

Kasparov speaks from the perspective of one of the greatest chess players who ever lived. A Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer may possess the experience, intuition and originality to make those remaining few percentage points decisive.

Most chess players do not.

For the ordinary player, the imbalance between human and machine is greater still. We may formally make the final choice, but our capacity to improve upon — or even meaningfully challenge — the machine's judgement is much more limited.

That does not make human-machine collaboration meaningless. But it makes the question of agency more difficult.

Somewhere within that apparently sensible collaboration, something subtle begins to change.

At first the computer stored our games and helped us search what had been played before. Then it checked our calculations. Next it suggested alternatives. Eventually it began ranking those alternatives and telling us which move deserved our attention.

Each development was useful.

Yet the relationship had changed.

When I consult a database, I am asking what others have played.

When I consult an engine, I can ask what I should play.

The distinction appears small.

It is fundamental.

Engines became stronger, cheaper and widely available until computer analysis ceased to be an experiment conducted by elite players and became part of the ordinary landscape of chess. What once required grandmasters, assistants, libraries and considerable time could increasingly be done on an ordinary computer.

Once a tool becomes normal, refusing to use it begins to look less like independence and more like choosing a disadvantage.

There is obvious merit in these developments. Artificial intelligence can enrich analysis, uncover possibilities and deepen our understanding of positions. Modern engines have unquestionably strengthened our understanding of chess.

But the collaboration is no longer between equals.

If the machine has already selected the candidates, rejected inferior alternatives and established what counts as a reasonable choice, it has also defined much of the intellectual territory within which our decision is made.

Nothing has been taken from us by force.

Quite the opposite.

We willingly accepted more knowledge, greater accuracy, fewer mistakes and better decisions.

The computer did not demand authority.

We gradually gave it authority because it was so often right.

And once that happens, the question is no longer merely whether the machine helps us play better chess.

The question becomes what remains of the player.


Agency

Agency sounds like an abstract word, but the idea is simple.

It is our capacity to judge, to choose, to act and to accept responsibility for the consequences.

For most of human history, our limitations forced us to exercise it. We did not know everything. We could not calculate everything. We relied upon memory, experience, intuition, conversation and judgement.

We were often wrong.

But the decision remained ours.

Increasingly capable machines change that relationship because accepting their assistance is rational. They remember more, calculate faster and often produce a better answer than we could reach unaided.

We remain formally in control. We can reject the recommendation, choose another move or close the program.

But formal control is not necessarily the same as meaningful agency.

If a system has already framed the problem, selected the relevant possibilities and established what counts as the most reasonable answer, much of the intellectual work of deciding has taken place before we make the final choice.

We may still press the button.

We may still make the move.

But increasingly we may be approving a decision rather than originating one.

There is no conspiracy in this, and no coercion. The machine earns our trust one accurate answer at a time.

Chess makes the process unusually visible because the board is finite and the consequences comparatively harmless.

At first we think, and then use the machine to check whether we have overlooked something.

Gradually the order can reverse.

We ask the machine first.

Our intuitive move now requires approval.

The result may be better chess. It may even approach perfection.

But perfection has a price.

When players consult the same databases and increasingly powerful engines, choices tend to converge. Experiment becomes harder to justify. Surprise becomes rarer. The slightly eccentric move, the personal preference, the willingness to take a risk because a position simply feels right must all defend themselves against a machine that can immediately tell us another move is fractionally better.

The chess becomes more accurate.

It may also become more standardised.

And with that standardisation, part of the personality of the player risks disappearing from the board.

Perhaps that is the real cost of perfection: not that the machine becomes more capable, but that we become less willing to be imperfect on our own terms.

Which brings me back to Sundqvist's original question.

If so much of the intellectual work can now be shared with the machine, what remains of the human player — and why do we continue to play?


Sundqvist Asks What Remains of the Game: A Personal Answer

Chess is rather like an old friend who has changed with the times.

How we experience that friend depends greatly upon why we play.

I have never regarded chess primarily as a matter of rating or victory. I notice my rating, naturally, and I prefer winning to losing. But neither determines whether I have enjoyed the game.

I am more interested in whether I enjoy the game and can get the best out of myself than in whether I can extract the maximum possible result from it.

For me, chess remains entertainment, exercise for the mind and, at its best, an encounter with another person.

My earliest memories of chess are uncomplicated. As a child I played with my father on the sixty-four squares of an old wooden board that I still have. Later I played with my younger brother. Max Euwe's books helped us understand the game, and several of those books still remain on my shelves.

They were tools.

But they did not play for us.

We looked at the board, argued with ourselves, trusted our judgement and occasionally made dreadful moves.

That was part of the attraction.

The person on the other side could surprise you because people are capable of being surprising.

Chess changed during my lifetime, as almost everything else did. Fischer and Spassky turned a world championship into a global event at the height of the Cold War. Later Kasparov and Deep Blue made the relationship between humans and machines part of the chess story.

Databases, engines and online platforms subsequently brought extraordinary amounts of knowledge and analytical power within reach of almost everyone.

The strongest players had always carried a database of sorts in their heads: thousands of remembered games, structures and patterns.

The modern database externalised that memory.

The engine went further.

It began to interpret it for us.

Much of this has been beneficial. Chess has become more accessible, more international and easier to study. Millions of people who might never have entered a chess club can now find an opponent within seconds.

Yet something has also become less certain.

When I play, there can be a small question at the back of my mind:

How much of the person on the other side am I actually meeting?

In over-the-board chess, where engine assistance is prohibited, the answer should be straightforward. Another fallible human being is making the decisions.

In correspondence or freestyle forms where computer assistance is permitted, the distinction becomes less clear. The player may make the final move, but the ideas, calculations and evaluations behind it may increasingly have been shaped by the machine.

That does not make the game dishonest.

If the rules permit assistance, the player is doing nothing wrong. Different forms of chess have different rules. In ICCF correspondence chess engine assistance is permitted; elsewhere it may be prohibited.

But the distinction matters.

Where engines are permitted, we must ask how much judgement remains with the player.

Where they are prohibited, we depend upon something technology cannot itself provide: trust that the person on the other side is actually playing the game.

Style has not disappeared. The aggressive player and the cautious player are still there. So are tactical imagination and positional understanding.

But when the same machine can tell both players what a position objectively requires, the space in which those differences can express themselves becomes narrower.

Perhaps machines have made chess objectively stronger while making it a little less mysterious.

For some players, that is progress. They enjoy the search for greater accuracy and the challenge of working effectively with increasingly powerful tools.

There is considerable merit in that view.

Sundqvist himself has adapted remarkably well to the engine era. He approaches correspondence chess partly as a problem-solving exercise, progressively closing possibilities and searching for precision, even while questioning what this development has done to the human character of the game.

There is a certain irony in that. His reservations are not those of someone left behind by technological change, but of someone who has learned to operate successfully within it.

My own relationship with chess is less ambitious and therefore perhaps less accommodating.

My answer is not that machines have ruined chess.

They have not.

They have made chess stronger, opened new analytical possibilities and allowed us to understand positions with a precision previous generations could hardly have imagined.

But strength and meaning are not necessarily the same thing.

Some of my most enjoyable games were followed by post-mortems that lasted longer than the games themselves — occasionally helped along by the wine.

We replayed positions, defended questionable decisions, laughed at mistakes and discovered that the other person had often been thinking about something entirely different.

That was part of the game.

An engine can tell us that a move was inaccurate. It can usually tell us what should have been played instead.

What it cannot reproduce is the encounter between two imperfect minds trying to understand the same position in different ways.

So perhaps the future of correspondence chess depends not upon resisting machines, but upon preserving enough space for the human player to remain visible within the game.

If that space becomes too small, correspondence chess may continue to produce extraordinarily strong chess.

Whether it will still produce the same kind of encounter is another question.


Chess, the Watchers and the Future

Chess has evolved because society has evolved.

We should not pretend otherwise, nor complain as though technology were something imposed upon us from outside. We built the databases, improved the engines, embraced their convenience and learned to trust their results.

We are all part of the process.

That is precisely why chess is such a useful mirror.

We begin as players. Then we become assisted players. Increasingly, we may become supervisors of systems that calculate, compare and recommend more effectively than we can.

Eventually there is a danger that the player becomes a watcher.

This is not only a chess problem.

Across modern life, machines increasingly help us search, remember, compare, predict and decide. They save time and reduce mistakes. Relying upon them is often perfectly rational.

But delegation has consequences.

The more often we allow systems to determine what deserves our attention, which option is best and which course is most efficient, the less often we are required to exercise judgement ourselves.

Nothing needs to be taken from us by force.

We may surrender it because the alternative appears slower, less accurate and increasingly unnecessary.

Nietzsche might have recognised the danger: not because machines become stronger, but because human beings may become content to exercise less of their own will in their presence.

There is no returning to an earlier board.

Nor should there necessarily be.

The machine entered the room because it was useful and powerful. Players adapted. Institutions adapted. Rules adapted. What once seemed exceptional became normal.

The interesting question is therefore not whether artificial intelligence should leave chess.

It will not.

Nor is the question whether human beings can still defeat machines. In any meaningful sense, that argument has already been settled.

The more important question is what kind of relationship we want with them.

Perhaps the future of correspondence chess is not the disappearance of the human player, but a renegotiation of the boundary between player and machine.

For some, this will represent progress. Chess will become more accurate, more sophisticated and analytically richer. Human beings working with machines may continue to discover ideas that neither would have reached in quite the same way alone.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Agency in such a world cannot simply mean doing everything unaided.

That world has already gone.

It may instead mean knowing what to delegate and what to retain; what to question and what to accept; when to trust the recommendation and when to accept the possibility that our own imperfect judgement remains worth exercising.

Correspondence chess has always adapted. Letters overcame distance. Books expanded knowledge. Databases externalised memory. Engines added calculation and evaluation. Artificial intelligence will take that development further.

Why should chess be different from the society of which it is part?

It should not.

But adaptation need not mean surrender.

The machine has no ambition, no vanity and no desire for the chair.

It does not need them.

We may simply offer it the chair because it plays better than we do.

That is why the final question is not whether machines will become more powerful.

They will.

The real question is what human beings choose to retain when they do.

The final move may still be ours.

The responsibility may still be ours.

The purpose must remain ours.


William J J Houtzager, September 2026


📌 Blog Excerpt

Correspondence chess has always changed with technology: letters overcame distance, books expanded knowledge, databases externalised memory, and engines added calculation and evaluation. But when the machine increasingly decides what deserves our attention and what move is best, a deeper question appears. What remains of the player? A reflection on chess, artificial intelligence, human imperfection and the meaning of agency.

 

Keywords:

Chess, correspondence chess, Christer Sundqvist, artificial intelligence, AI, chess engines, Garry Kasparov, Deep Blue, AlphaZero, Claude Shannon, Alan Turing, Cecil Purdy, ICCF, human agency, memory, judgement, technology, correspondence chess history, future of chess


- No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 3, 2026

The Last Human Move: Confessions of a Correspondence Chess Player in the Engine Era

Written by IM Christer Sundqvist, ICCF GM (pending), ICCF rating 2537, and Top-100 Correspondence Player

The Man in the Pre-Engine Era

It is 1985. I sit at my desk, a cup of coffee getting cold next to me. Some of my favorite chess opening books are scattered across the mahogany surface, as is a cute chess board showing my current position in the game and a well-worn notebook filled with my opponent's games over the previous five years.

I analyze his chess moves like a detective investigating a serial offender. He always castles king-side on move eight, even when theory suggests otherwise. That is how he plays. He despises isolated queen's pawns and will trade down to avoid them at all costs. In the King's Indian, he crumbles in slow maneuvering positions; he requires open lines and tactical chaos to be comfortable.




Tonight, I will choose my opening based on him, rather than what is objectively "best." I'm going to play a slightly inferior line. A line that a computer from that time would reject because I know it will force him into a structure he despises. I'm not going to play the board. I'm playing with his psychology. I'm playing on his fears, biases, pet positions, and irrational attachment to familiar patterns. Maybe he has an irrational hatred for the Dragon Sicilian.

After several weeks of correspondence, he finally cracks on move 35. I win. I proudly annotate the game. "On move 16, my opponent went off the main line. Why? Because he is a cautious player who is worried about complications on the king-side. "I used that fear to my advantage."

That game conveyed a narrative. It was full of drama. It carried a soul.


The Man in the Engine-Era

Fast forward to 2026. I'm now a top-100 ICCF player, with a rating of 2537 and a GM title pending. My tools have changed. My opponents have changed. And the game that I loved has changed. Irrevocably. Welcome to correspondence chess today.

What do I see when I open the database of my opponents' games today? A ghost.

I can't study his "style" because he no longer has one. Every one of his games over the last decade has followed the same sterile pattern:


Moves 1-15 are perfect book moves made by the chess engine, regardless of opening.

Moves 15–40: The top three engine lines, chosen with cold, mathematical precision.

Moves 40 and up result in tablebase-perfect endgames.


When I look at his wins, I'm not sure if he's a tactical brute or a positional squeezer. All I see are centipawn losses of less than 0.10 over sixty moves, punctuated by an opponent's unavoidable inaccuracy. His games are identical in method, but the openings differ.

I can't ask, "When does he castle?" because it's determined by the engine's assessment of king safety, not by personal preference.

I can't ask "Is he aggressive?" because if the engine says "+0.3" for a sacrifice, he makes it; if it says "0.00" for a quiet move, he plays quietly. He's a colorless chameleon.

The engine's relentless demand for objectivity has wiped away the human being, including all of his fears, biases, and irrational love for one opening or hatred for another.


The Loss of Narrative

Here is what hurts the most, and I believe many of my fellow correspondence players feel this but have never expressed it aloud:


During the 1980s and 1990s, every correspondence game had a story. You could annotate a game with psychological insights. You could explain why a move was chosen, in addition to its objective evaluation. You could discuss fear, ego, and the grinding patience required to outlast a tenacious opponent in a dead-drawn endgame because you knew he would over-press.


Today, how should I annotate a game?


On move 16, my opponent used the second engine choice. The first was also equivalent. He chose the second option. We drew on move 47.

There is no narrative. There's no drama. The game is no longer a battle of two minds; rather, it is a mutual verification of computer output. I'm not beating my opponent; I'm just waiting for him to make a database error. I'm waiting for him to miss a single Leela suggestion that I spotted. The victory feels hollow, not because I did not work hard (I worked extremely hard), but because I did not defeat him. I beat his hardware setup and time management. Perhaps he had a mouse slip?


The Correspondence Chess Paradox: Where Did ”Style” Go?

Some OTB purists will read this and say, "Then engines ruin your chess style. You've proven our point.

I reject that conclusion, arguing that it is more nuanced.

At the ICCF top-100 level, everyone has the same hardware, databases, and access to Leela, Stockfish, and other massively powerful chess engines. The objective assessment of any position is, for all practical purposes, a solved constant between you and your opponent.

So, where is "style" now?

It has been relocated and not destroyed. In the modern correspondence era, style is no longer in flux. It is in the workflow and psychological profile of your opponent. How do you decide between three equally engine-approved moves? You select the one that makes this particular opponent the most uncomfortable. You make the move that introduces a hidden trap twenty-five moves down the line, which the engine detects but your opponent may overlook in his own analysis.

Do you rely on Leela's wild, long-term positional sacrifices, or do you prefer Stockfish's brute-force tactical clarity? Your new signature is determined by your engine philosophy!

How much risk are you willing to take in a drawn endgame to force a win, knowing that it could cost you the game if your opponent discovers the only defensive resource at depth forty?

Today, your style is defined by how far you are willing to deviate from the norm. Do you take a slightly inferior line (say, -0.15) that results in a position with only one defensive move for your opponent over the next 10 moves? That's your signature: the "human trap" disguised as engine objectivity.


The Deepest Wound: You Are Not Playing the Opponent

But allow me to be brutally honest with you, dear reader. The "relocated style" is a consolation prize. My opinion is that you are no longer playing with the opponent's mind. Today's correspondence chess pits you against an omnipotent database with forty-ply depth. Your opponent is not "letting his moves be dictated by the engine"; he is allowing the engine to filter his moves, but he is still selecting which of the three or four engine-approved lines to walk down.

The human element, the irrational, emotional, and fear-driven decision-making that made correspondence chess a psychological battlefield, has vanished.

When I look at my opponent's game record today, I can't ask, "Is he aggressive or solid?" because the engine has rendered that question irrelevant. If the engine says attack, he does so. If the engine says to defend, he does so. His "style" is as simple as "I follow the evaluation bar."


A Question to My Fellow Correspondence Players

I write this not to lament, but to pose an honest question to those of you who share my rank, era, and frustration.

Do you still see any traces of humanity in your opponents' games?

I'm not talking about opening choices because that's mostly engine-book. I'm referring to things like how quickly they respond. Does a quick response indicate overconfidence? Does a slow response indicate that they are struggling to synthesize conflicting engine outputs?

When there are multiple engine-drawn endgames available, the player must choose one. Does your opponent always go for the R+4 vs R+3 endgame because he knows the defensive technique better than you, revealing his human homework?

Do you notice that certain players always switch to Leela late in the middlegame, while others stick with Stockfish, indicating a philosophical bias toward "beauty" vs. "brutality"?

Or has that been eradicated? Are we at the point where workflow efficiency is the only "style" remaining in the ICCF top-100? Who has the fastest computer, the most recently updated database, and the most aggressive database caching?


Why Do I Still Play?

And now, the question I must ask myself, and the one I pose to you:


Why do I continue to play? What motivates you to continue playing chess?


Is it the intellectual rigour of the analysis itself? The elegance of engine-generated combinations that no human could have imagined? The competitive pursuit of that final GM title as a capstone to my decades-long career.

Or is it a stubborn, romantic refusal to let go of the game I adored, even in its transformed, sterile form?

I don't have an easy response. Perhaps I'm still looking for the 1985 feeling. That moment when I beat a human being rather than a machine. Perhaps I am still hoping against all odds that somewhere in the cold print of an engine evaluation, I will find a trace of my opponent's soul.

Perhaps I am simply addicted to the game and unable to let go.


An Open Letter to the Next Generation

This is addressed to the young correspondence players who have never experienced a world without engines. I am not envious of you. You have access to tools that I could not have imagined in 1985. But you've also been robbed of something valuable. You will never understand the thrill of spending three weeks studying your opponent's games, identifying his psychological weakness, and exploiting it with a move that no computer of that era would have discovered.

You will never know the story. The drama is there. The human soul.

However, I do not pass judgment on you. You play the game you inherited rather than the one you would have chosen. There is also beauty in your mastery of silicon. Just as there was beauty in my mastery of humans.

Maybe the future of correspondence chess isn't about style at all. Perhaps it's about transparency. Perhaps we should stop pretending to be playing a human game and accept who we have become: database managers, engine synthesizers, and ghost psychologists.


The Last Human Move

I'm not sure if I'll ever play a truly "mine" move again, one that stems from intuition, psychology, and a deep understanding of my opponent's fears. But I'll keep playing. Because somewhere, in the silence between engine evaluations, I'm still that man from 1985, sitting at his desk, studying his opponent's games by lamplight, looking for a soul.

And maybe that search is what makes us human.

I invite all correspondence players, both experienced and new, to participate in this discussion. Have you found any traces of humanity in your games? Or have we truly entered the age of machine-dominated chess? Share your thoughts, games, and frustrations. This is a conversation we must have openly and honestly before the last human move is forgotten.


Final Remark

I attempted to strike a balance between nostalgia, frustration, and acceptance. I avoid being purely bitter; I appreciate the beauty of engine-assisted chess while lamenting the loss of the human component. Below, I take a nostalgic look at a correspondence game I used to play in 1985, a relic from a bygone era.

Best wishes,

christer



Sundqvist,Christer - Huttunen,Lauri

Finland 3rd class, corr, 1985

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3



I choose the Sämisch-variation because my opponent has lost some of his games recently. He plays more consistently against the Classical variants.

5...0–0 6.Be3 Nc6

I was expecting ...c5. The move ...Nc6 does not look good, but I had predicted correctly my opponents move!

7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.0–0–0



I deviated from the Encyclopedia of the Chess openings, for a certain reason: I want to quickly attack my opponent on the King side in an aggressive way. 9.0–0–0 was mentioned as a side-line transposing to the moves in the game.

9...b5 10.h4

I was aware of this game and studied it carefully: 10.Bh6 Bxh6 11.Qxh6 e5 12.h4 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 exd4 14.Rxd4 Qe7 15.h5 Be6 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.Kb1 c5 18.Rd2 bxc4 19.Ka1 Rb6 20.Be2 Rfb8 21.Qf4 Nh5 22.Qe3 Qb7 23.f4 Rxb2 24.Bxh5 d5 25.Bxg6 d4 26.Bxh7+ Kf8 27.Qf2 dxc3 28.Qxc5+ Qe7 29.Qd4 Qg7 30.Qd6+ Qe7 31.Qd4 Qg7 ½–½ (31) Mccambridge,V (2350)-Westerinen,H (2425) Hamburg 1981


10...h5

I was expecting: 10...e5 11.d5 Na5 12.Ng3 b4 13.Nb1 c6 14.dxc6 b3 15.a3 Be6 16.Qxd6 Qc8 17.c7 Ra8 18.Qc5 Nb7 19.Qb6 Nd7 20.Rxd7 Bxd7 21.Nc3 Re8 22.Nd5 Be6 23.c5 f5 24.Ne2 f4 25.Bf2 Bxd5 26.exd5 e4 27.fxe4 Rxe4 28.Nc3 Rd4 29.d6 Na5 30.Bxd4 Bxd4 31.Bd3 Bxc3 32.c6 Be5 33.Qxa5 Qe6 34.Re1 Qxd6 35.Bc4+ 1–0 (35) Knaak,R (2520)-Gufeld,E (2525) Yurmala 1978;

10...Na5 This game was very important. I adopted the Nf4–g4–strategy from it! 11.Nf4 c6 12.g4 Nd7 13.h5 e5 14.hxg6 exf4 15.gxh7+ Kh8 16.Bxf4 Nb7 17.d5 b4 18.Ne2 cxd5 19.cxd5 Na5 20.Nd4 Nc5 21.Qh2 Bxd4 22.Rxd4 Nab3+ 23.axb3 Nxb3+ 24.Kb1 Nxd4 25.Bxd6 Nxf3 26.Qh6 Bxg4 27.Bxb8 Qe7 28.Bd6 Qxe4+ 29.Bd3 Nd2+ 30.Ka1 1–0 (30) Supp Walter (GER) (2284)-Schmidt Gunar (GER), corr, 1976


11.Nf4

I was not convinced about this game: 11.Bh6 e5 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.d5 Na5 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Ng3 b4 16.Nb5 c6 17.dxc6 Nxc6 18.Qg5 Qb6 19.Rxd6 Qc5+ 20.Kb1 b3 21.Qxf6+ Kh7 22.Rxc6 bxa2+ 23.Ka1 Qf2 24.Bc4 Be6 25.Nxh5 Rg8 26.Qxe5 1–0 (26) Ivanov,I-Blocker,C Parma 1985


11...bxc4!

I had anticipated ...b4, but my opponent plays a very strong move opening the b-line!

I was a great admirer of Jan Timman and studied his games very often: 11...Bd7 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Nxb5 e5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Nc3 Qc8 16.b3 Re8 17.Nd3 Nc6 18.Nf4 Ne5 19.Nd3 Nc6 20.Nf4 ½–½ (20) Timman,J (2600)-Nunn,J (2565) Tilburg 1982


12.Bxc4




We are still playing book moves (E84: King's Indian: Sämisch Panno: 7 Nge2 a6 8 Qd2 Rb8).]


12...e6N

This was a novelty at the time. I believe it is a weak move. Maybe reflecting the playing style of my opponent. Better must be the book move ...e5, which I had anticipated much earlier.

I knew this game: 12...e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Bb3 Qe8 15.Nfd5 (I also knew this game: 15.Rde1 a5 16.Nd3 Be6 17.Ba4 Bd7 18.Bb3 Be6 ½–½ (18) Zelinskis Jury (ISR) (2612)-Batakovs,O (2428), corr, 1984) 15...Nxd5 16.Nxd5 Be6 17.Qa5 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 c5 19.Rd2 c4 0–1 (27) Ree,H (2500)-Mestel,A (2505) Plovdiv 1983


13.g4!?

This reflects my aggressive style. Modern engines prefer safer moves such as 13.Kb1 or 13.Bb3


13...hxg4?

I was expecting: 13...e5! 14.Nxg6! exd4 15.Bxd4 (15.Nxf8? dxc3 16.bxc3 Ne5–+) 15...Nxd4 16.Qxd4 (16.Nxf8? Nxf3 17.Qf2 Ne5–+) 16...Nxg4


14.h5!+–



14...Na5

Black's attack is slower


15.Bf1?

Engine correctly prefers 15.Bd3


15...gxf3? 16.hxg6

Strongly threatening Qh2. Engine prefers 16.h6


16...Ng4 17.gxf7+

I took control of the game after the opening. Maybe my opponent was crushed psychologically, because he resigned after this.

Engine prefers 17.Nh5 Rb4 18.Nxg7 fxg6 19.d5 exd5 20.Qxd5+ Kxg7 21.Bg5 Bb7 22.Qxa5 Rb5 23.Bxd8 Rxa5 24.Bxc7 Rxa2 25.Kb1 Nf2 26.Rd3


1–0


- No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Chess databases have been updated

 Every other month, updates I've updated the extensively examined chess opening databases that I actively work on. This is the current s...