Sicilian Defence, Chekhover Variation

The Sicilian Defence, Chekhover Variation (also sometimes called the Szily Variation or Hungarian Variation) is a chess opening named after Vitaly Chekhover, from the game Chekhover–Lisitsin, Leningrad 1938. It is defined by the moves:
On move four White ignores the standard opening principle to not develop the queen too early in the game. Although the Chekhover Variation is somewhat rare at grandmaster level, it is not uncommon among amateurs.
The "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings" (ECO) assigns code B53 to this opening.
Main line: 4...Nc6.
Black's main response to the Chekhover Variation is 4... Nc6 immediately attacking White's queen, leading to:
Example games.
Evgeni Vasiukov vs Loek van Wely, 2002
Mikhail Tal vs Robert Eugene Byrne, 1976


Sdelka ili ne

Sdelka ili ne (Cyrillic: Сделка или не), is the Bulgarian version of "Deal or No Deal", which airs on Nova Television. Players on this version can win between a dime and 100,000 leva (originally 75,000 in the first season), sometimes there is a 200,000 leva prize (with 750 leva value removed). The show was started on September 19, 2005 and has been broadcast for six seasons.
As of June 24, 2011, the end of the fifth season, more than 6.5 million leva had been won by 1,108 contestants, including two 75,000 leva winners and four 100,000 leva winners. The first 75,000 leva winner is Veneta Raykova (), a member of the VIP Brother cast in Bulgaria. She won during the first season of the show. The other one is Aleksandar Micic (Александър Мицич) who sold his 50,000 leva box for that amount on the May 10, 2011 episode. The 100,000 leva winners include a contestant on the December 8, 2006 episode, Niki Kitaetsa (Ники Китаеца) on the September 18, 2007 episode, and Sevil Saliev (Севил Салиев) on the December 22, 2008 episode.
From the sixth season onwards, there are two more 100,000 leva winners, including Mariela Pepeldzhiyska (Мариела Пепелджийска) on the January 23, 2012 episode, and Plevenchaninat Iskren (Плевенчанинът Искрен) on the January 24, 2013 episode.
On December 25 and December 26, 2013 specials, the grand prize was increased to 500,000 leva; a contestant win 100,000 leva on December 25. On June 27, 2014 special, the grand prize was increased to 1,000,000 leva; that day the contestant win 25,000 leva. In late January 2016 the game was taken off the air. On its place radiates Family Feud. After a one-year break, the show returns in September 2017 with the top prize of 1 kg of gold (about 68,500 leva) and is broadcast on Sundays.


Dark Seal

 and are isometric role-playing beat-'em-up video games released for arcade by Data East in 1990 and 1992 respectively. The first game was localized in English under the title Gate of Doom and the second one as Wizard Fire.
Gameplay.
The players control characters from an isometric perspective and must traverse levels while fighting enemies, avoiding traps, and collecting items as well as spells. The game features two-player cooperative play.
Ports.
Like multiple other Data East games, the games were ported to the Zeebo by Onan Games and published by G-Mode in Brazil in 2010. Then in 2018, FTEGames ported both "Gate of Doom" and "Wizard Fire" to the Nintendo Switch's eShop as well as "Gate of the Doom" to the PlayStation 4 as part of their "Johnny Turbo's Arcade" series of Data East arcade game ports branded with the character of Johnny Turbo, the Turbo Duo mascot and alter-ego of FTEGames founder Johnny Brandstetter. FTEGames lists ports for the Xbox One, Steam and a PS4 port of "Wizard Fire" as under development.
"Wizard Fire" was also included in the 2010 Wii compilation "Data East Arcade Classics" by Majesco Entertainment.
Reception.
Both games received positive reviews, with the sequel being considered a noteworthy improvement overall. In Japan, "Game Machine" listed "Dark Seal" on their July 15, 1990 issue as being the most-successful table arcade unit of the year. "Game Machine" also listed "Dark Seal II" on their June 15, 1992 issue as being the ninth most-successful table arcade unit of the year. The original arcade games however were unfavorably compared to the side-scrolling RPG beat-'em-up "" which was published by Capcom in 1993.


Hole in the Wall (Vietnamese game show)

Hole in the Wall Vietnam (Vietnamese) (Người đi xuyên tường) is a game show that first aired on 26 December 2014. The program originated in Japan and led to 44 international versions. Two opposing teams face five challenges. The winning team facies an imposing wall in the final round. If they pass the wall, they win the game.
Gameplay.
The game consists of two teams of three people. A hobby, occupation, or a location may serve as the team names. Two lifeguards — one male, and one female — sit poolside. The contestants wear silver Spandex zentai unitards and red or blue helmets, elbow pads and knee pads. Contestants must jump through the hole without breaking it and without falling into the water. At least one foot must be in the play area at all times. A replay is shown after each wall has passed. If a wall is not cleared, a diagram is shown of the best method. The game consists of five rounds: Solo Wall, Double Wall, Triple Wall, Speed Wall, and the Final Wall.
Solo Wall.
After each team is announced, the team captain enters the play area. After a three-second countdown, the wall is shown. If the captain fails to "clear" the wall, either by falling into the pool or damaging the wall as it passes, the team earns zero points. Clearing the wall earns ten points. The opposing team captain then tries a different wall.
Double Wall.
The two non-captains on each team then compete on a Double Wall. The team earns twenty points if both players clear the wall. If either player fails to clear, they earn zero points.
Triple Wall.
The whole team competes in the Triple Wall. The team scores thirty points if all three clear the wall. If any player fails to clear, the team earns zero points.
Speed Wall.
Depends on the type of challenge is being selected, a random number of player is chosen for the round. The wall moves twice as fast as before. If a team member or more fell into the pool or broke a section of the wall, even with no players fell into the pool, they earn zero points. If they succeed, they earn points depend on the number of player in play. The winning teams get 10 million VND. While the loser team get 5 million VND.
Extra Wall.
If both teams tie, players compete in the bonus round to found the winning team.
Winner Wall.
After 4 rounds, a number of members of the winning teams face the final challenge. Challenges are also being randomized. Before the final round, the winning team will made a bet from 1 million VND to all of the winning cash. If they succeed, the winning team will earn bonus cash that they had bet. If not, they lose the money that they used to bet. They also got a trophy at the end.


3rd Degree (game show)

3rd Degree! is an American game show that aired in syndication from September 11, 1989, to June 8, 1990, with repeats continuing until September 7, 1990. The show was a panel game much in the vein of an earlier game show called "Make the Connection", where two people with a specific connection would play against the panel.
"3rd Degree" was hosted by Bert Convy, who co-created and produced the series along with his production partner Burt Reynolds. Bob Hilton was the announcer, with Don Morrow and Michael Hanks substituting for brief periods. The series was taped at Television City Studios in Hollywood, California. John C. Mula was the art director.
"3rd Degree" was a production of Burt and Bert Productions and Kline & Friends Productions, the same team behind the game show "Win, Lose or Draw". The series was produced in association with Lorimar Television and distributed by Warner Bros. Television Distribution. This was the last game show Convy would host, as he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer toward the end of "3rd Degree"'s run and died in July 1991.
Premise.
A panel of four celebrities who were split into two teams (two men, two women) faced a team of two or more contestants who have a special relationship between them. Two rounds were played for each civilian team; in each round, each team of celebrities had a limited time to question the contestants (or give them "the third degree", hence the name of the show). In the first round, each team of celebrities had one minute to question the contestants, and in the second round, the time was cut to 30 seconds.
When the time was up, the celebrity team in control then got to guess the relationship (or when Bert Convy asked the question, "What's the relationship?" when they were getting close to the correct relationship). An incorrect guess awarded $250 to the contestants, and stumping the panel completely won $2,000 total, which includes a $1,000 bonus.
Dispute.
When "3rd Degree" went to pilot, Peter Marshall was brought in to be the host. After the series was picked up for syndication, however, co-producer Bert Convy decided to leave his position as the host of the syndicated edition of "Win, Lose or Draw" and take Marshall's place on "3rd Degree". Marshall filed a lawsuit against Convy for the action, but later dropped it after Convy's cancer diagnosis was made public.


24 Hour Quiz

24 Hour Quiz is a British game show that was broadcast on ITV between 16 February and 2 April 2004, presented by Shaun Williamson and Matt Brown and created by Richard Osman for Endemol UK.
Three people lived together in the "Quiz Pod", and faced multiple choice questions for at least 16 hours per day, with £1 (sometimes more) won per correct answer. The programme was spread across three different shows each day (except weekends) on ITV1. Firstly, a half-hour show at 1pm in which fourteen contestants were whittled down to seven in head-to-head knockout battles, in which first one to give a wrong answer was eliminated. Then, in the main show at 5pm, the seven contestants contested a series of further elimination rounds, the winner going up against the worst performing player from the Quiz Pod in the two hours before transmission in a head-to-head contest. Each contestant had four Quiz Pod Passes and could pick one to swipe every time they got a question right, the first one to swipe a pass that lit green won the contest - if it was the Pod Player, they got to return to the Pod, but if the studio contestant won, they would take their place in the Quiz Pod and the ejected Pod Player left the show, taking away the money that they had won during their stay. Both these two shows were hosted by Williamson.
The third and final show of the day was presented by Brown, and had varying times, but usually aired at around 11:30pm. This was known as the Pod Party, with questions worth double money and often had a fancy dress theme. Between the quizzing, Brown would regularly chat to the contestants as the show progressed, as well as showing unseen content from the past 24 hours inside the pod, which often featured footage considered unsuitable for the earlier 5pm broadcast.
ITV2 broadcast a daily live stream from the Quiz Pod during the daytime hours throughout the course of the show's run. One such notable incident occurred in which one contestant, Michael Parkinson (no relation to the chat show host of the same name), was removed from the programme after constant threatening behaviour when in the pod. He was allowed to keep his winnings.
Originally scheduled for a seven week run, the show was pulled after five weeks due to poor viewing figures and perceived criticism from support groups over the nature of the programme.
On 26 October 2012, Richard Osman, writing for The Guardian, named "24 Hour Quiz" among four of UK TV's worst ever gameshows.


Fragment Production

Fragment Production Ltd., known as Fragment, was a Finnish video game developer based in Tampere, Finland. The company was founded in February 2012 by current Creative Director Mikko Tyni, previously the Creative Director of the PC title Cities in Motion. Fragment employed 19 people, and is led by CEO Ilkka Immonen.
Games.
Fragment has released three Real Time Strategy titles to date. The company is most known for creating emergency services real time strategy and simulation game "Rescue: Everyday Heroes" which was released on Steam on December 11, 2013, and was met with generally favorable reviews. Next in the series, "Rescue 2: Everyday Heroes" was released on June 3, 2015. In 2013 Fragment, together with the German games publisher Rondomedia partnered with German automobile club ADAC to create an Emergency Roadside Mechanic real time strategy game, titled "ADAC: The Simulation".


Marcus Kann

 Marcus Kann (1820 in Vienna – February 3, 1886) was an Austrian chess player. He and Horatio Caro jointly analysed and published their analysis of the chess opening later to-be-called Caro-Kann Defence (1.e4 c6) in the German "Brüderschaft" magazine in 1886. He also garnered some posthumous acclaim for a series of faux-philosophical chess quotations after some unpublished materials were discovered in 2021 in an attic in North America.
During the 4th German Chess Congress in Hamburg in May 1885, Kann defeated German-British champion Jacques Mieses with the Caro-Kann Defence (ECO B12) in 24 moves. This game by Kann was added to the final tournament book, but his games from the main tournament, where he earned four points from seven games, failing to qualify to win his group, remain unpublished.
The magazine "Deutsche Schachzeitung" (1886, p. 128) published a short obituary after his death.


Sicilian Defence

The Sicilian Defence is a chess opening that begins with the following moves:
The Sicilian is the most popular and best-scoring response to White's first move 1.e4. Opening 1.d4 is a statistically more successful opening for White because of the high success rate of the Sicilian defence against 1.e4. "New In Chess" stated in its 2000 Yearbook that of the games in its database, White scored 56.1% in 296,200 games beginning 1.d4, but 54.1% in 349,855 games beginning 1.e4, mainly because the Sicilian held White to a 52.3% score in 145,996 games.
17% of all games between grandmasters, and 25% of the games in the Chess Informant database, begin with the Sicilian. Almost one quarter of all games use the Sicilian.
Grandmaster John Nunn attributes the Sicilian Defence's popularity to its "combative nature": "in many lines Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage. The drawback is that White often obtains an early initiative, so Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack." Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson considered why the Sicilian is the most successful response to 1.e4, even though 1...c5 develops no pieces and the pawn on c5 controls only d4 and b4. Rowson writes:
The earliest recorded notes on the Sicilian Defence date back to the late 16th century by the Italian chess players Giulio Polerio and Gioachino Greco.
General concepts.
By advancing the c-pawn two squares, Black asserts control over the d4-square and begins the fight for the . The move resembles 1…e5, the next most common response to 1.e4, in that respect. Unlike 1...e5, however, 1...c5 breaks the symmetry of the position, which strongly influences both players' future actions. White, having pushed a pawn, tends to hold the initiative on that side of the board. However, 1...c5 does little for Black's development, unlike moves such as 1...e5, 1...g6, or 1...Nc6, which either develop a minor piece or prepare to do so. In many variations of the Sicilian, Black makes a number of further pawn moves in the opening (for example, ...d6, ...e6, ...a6, and ...b5). Consequently, White often obtains a substantial lead in development and dangerous attacking chances.
Meanwhile, advancing a pawn has given Black a there and provides a basis for future operations on that flank. Often, Black's c5-pawn is traded for White's d4-pawn in the early stages of the game, granting Black a central pawn majority. The pawn trade also opens the c- for Black, who can place a rook or queen on that file to support the queenside .
History.
The Sicilian Defence was analysed by Giulio Polerio in his 1594 manuscript on chess, though he did not use the term 'Sicilian Defence'. It was later the subject of analyses by leading players of the day Alessandro Salvio (1604), Don Pietro Carrera (c. 1617), and Gioachino Greco (1623), and later Conte Carlo Francesco Cozio (c. 1740). The great French player and theoretician André Danican Philidor opined of the Sicilian in 1777, "This way of opening the game ... is absolutely defensive, and very far from being the best ... but it is a very good one to try the strength of an adversary with whose skill you are unacquainted."
In 1813, the English master Jacob Henry Sarratt effectively standardised his English translation of the name of this opening as 'the Sicilian Defence', referring to an old Italian manuscript that used the phrase ('the Sicilian game'). The Sicilian was fairly popular for much of the nineteenth century; Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, Adolf Anderssen, Howard Staunton, Louis Paulsen, and Carl Jaenisch all played it with some consistency. In the ninth edition of "Modern Chess Openings", Walter Korn noted that the Sicilian "received three of its earliest practical tests, and a big boost in popularity, in the 1834 Alexander McDonnell [sic]–La Bourdonnais match, 1843 Staunton–St. Amant match, and the 1851 London Tournament." Staunton wrote of the Sicilian, "In the opinion of Jaenisch and the German "Handbuch", with which I coincide, this is the best possible reply to 1.P-K4, [1.e4 in algebraic notation] 'as it renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White and prevents every attack.' "
The opening fell out of favour in the later part of the nineteenth century, when some of the world's leading players rejected it. Paul Morphy, the world's best player in the late 1850s, decried "that pernicious fondness for the Sicilian Defense ... extending from about 1843 to some time after 1851". Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, also disliked the Sicilian and rejected it in favour of 1...e5. The death of the opening's two greatest proponents, Staunton and Anderssen, in 1874 and 1879 respectively, also contributed to its decline. It has been said that "these losses almost dealt a knockout blow to the Sicilian because it took a long time to find such important figures to carry the Sicilian's standard." George H. D. Gossip, in "The Chess Player's Manual", first published in 1874, wrote, "Of late years ... discoveries have been made which have the effect of considerably strengthening White's attack, and the 'Sicilian' is now considered by most modern authorities to be a comparatively weak mode of play." Freeborough and Ranken, in their treatise "Chess Openings: Ancient and Modern" (1889, 1896), wrote that the Sicilian "had at one time the reputation of being the best reply to 1.P-K4, but this has not been confirmed by popular practice. Several eminent players have, however, held to the opinion that it is quite trustworthy."
The Sicilian continued to be shunned by most leading players at the start of the twentieth century, as 1...e5 held centre stage. Capablanca, World Champion from 1921 to 1927, famously denounced it as an opening where "Black's game is full of holes". Similarly, James Mason wrote, "Fairly tried and found wanting, the Sicilian has now scarcely any standing as a first-class defence. ... [It] is too defensive. There are too many holes created in the Pawn line. Command of the field, especially in the centre, is too readily given over to the invading force." Siegbert Tarrasch wrote that 1...c5 "is certainly not strictly correct, for it does nothing toward development and merely attempts to render difficult the building up of a centre by the first player. ... [T]he Sicilian Defence is excellent for a strong player who is prepared to take risks to force a win against an inferior opponent. Against best play, however, it is bound to fail." The Sicilian was not seen even once in the 75 games played at the great St. Petersburg 1914 tournament.
Nonetheless, some leading players, such as Emanuel Lasker (World Champion from 1894 to 1921), Frank Marshall, Savielly Tartakower, and Aron Nimzowitsch, and later Max Euwe (World Champion from 1935 to 1937) played the Sicilian. Even Capablanca and Tarrasch, despite their critical comments, occasionally played the opening. It was played six times (out of 110 games) at New York 1924. The following year, the authors of "Modern Chess Openings" (4th edition) wrote, "The Sicilian has claims to be considered as the best of the irregular defences to 1.P-K4 at Black's disposal, and has been practised with satisfactory results by the leading players of the day." In this period Black's approach was usually slow and positional, and the all-out attacks by White that became common after World War II had not yet been developed.
The fortunes of the Sicilian were further revived in the 1940s and 1950s by players such as Isaac Boleslavsky, Alexander Kotov, and Miguel Najdorf. Reuben Fine, one of the world's leading players during this time period, wrote of the Sicilian in 1948, "Black gives up control of the centre, neglects his development, and often submits to horribly cramped positions. How can it be good? Yet, the brilliant wins by White are matched by equally brilliant wins by Black; time and again the Black structure has been able to take everything and come back for more."
Later, Bent Larsen, Ljubomir Ljubojević, Lev Polugaevsky, Leonid Stein, Mark Taimanov, and Mikhail Tal all made extensive contributions to the theory and practice of the defence. Through the efforts of world champions Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, the Sicilian Defence became recognised as the defence that offered Black the most winning chances against 1.e4. Both players favoured sharp, aggressive play and employed the Sicilian almost exclusively throughout their careers, burnishing the defence's present reputation. Today, most leading grandmasters include the Sicilian in their opening repertoire. In 1990, the authors of "Modern Chess Openings" (13th edition) noted that "in the twentieth century the Sicilian has become the most played and most analysed opening at both the club and master levels." In 1965, in the tenth edition of that book, grandmaster Larry Evans observed that, "The Sicilian is Black's most dynamic, asymmetrical reply to 1.P-K4. It produces the psychological and tension factors which denote the best in modern play and gives notice of a fierce fight on the very first move."
Open Sicilian: 2.Nf3 and 3.d4.
About 80% of Master level games beginning with 1.e4 c5 continue with 2.Nf3, after which there are three main options for Black: 2...d6, 2...Nc6, and 2...e6. Lines where White then plays 3.d4 are collectively known as the Open Sicilian, and result in extremely complex positions. White has a lead in development and extra kingside space, which White can use to begin a kingside attack. This is counterbalanced by Black's central pawn , created by the trade of White's d-pawn for Black's c-pawn, and the open c-file, which Black uses to generate queenside counterplay.
2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3.
Black's most common move after 2.Nf3 is 2...d6. This prepares ...Nf6 to attack the e-pawn without letting White push it to e5. The game usually continues 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3. Black can then choose between four major variations: the Najdorf (5...a6), Dragon (5...g6), Classical (5...Nc6), and Scheveningen (5...e6). The rare Kupreichik Variation (5...Bd7) may transpose to one of the more common variations such as the Classical or Dragon, but it may also lead to a number of independent lines.
There are a few ways for either side to deviate from the sequence in the heading. After 3...cxd4, White occasionally plays 4.Qxd4, the Chekhover Variation, intending to meet 4...Nc6 with 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6, when White hopes that the lead in development compensates for Black's bishop pair. Another unusual sideline is 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3!?, the Prins Variation, which by delaying Nc3 maintains the option of setting up a Maróczy Bind formation with a later c2-c4. Black can avoid the Prins Variation by playing 3...Nf6, when 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 transposes to main lines. However, 3...Nf6 gives White an extra option in 4.dxc5!?, when Black can play either 4...Nxe4 or 4...Qa5+. White could also protect the pawn on e4 with 5.Bd3 which also allows the option of setting up a Maróczy Bind formation with a later c2-c4, or interpose a check with 5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.Bd3 or 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.Bxd7+ Nbxd7.
Najdorf Variation: 5...a6.
The Najdorf Variation is Black's most popular system in the Sicilian Defence. Najdorf's intention with 5...a6 was to prepare ...e5 on the next move to gain space in the centre. The immediate 5...e5?! is met by 6.Bb5+!, when Black must either play 6...Bd7 or 6...Nbd7. The former allows White to exchange off Black's light-squared bishop, after which the d5-square becomes very weak; but the latter allows 7.Nf5, when Black can only save the d-pawn by playing the awkward 7...a6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7. In both cases, White's game is preferable.
Thus, by playing 5...a6, Black deprives White of the check on b5, so that ...e5 might be possible next move. In general, 5...a6 also prevents White's knights from using the b5-square, and helps Black create queenside play by preparing the ...b5 pawn push. This plan of 5...a6 followed by ...e5 represents Black's traditional approach in the Najdorf Variation. Later, Garry Kasparov also adopted the 5...a6 move order, but with the idea of playing ...e6 rather than ...e5. Kasparov's point is that the immediate 5...e6 (the Scheveningen Variation, discussed below) allows 6.g4, which is White's most dangerous line against the Scheveningen. By playing 5...a6 first, Black temporarily prevents White's g4 thrust and waits to see what White plays instead. Often, play will eventually transpose to the Scheveningen Variation.
Currently, White's most popular weapon against the Najdorf is 6.Be3. This is called the , because it was popularised by English grandmasters Murray Chandler, John Nunn and Nigel Short in the 1980s. White's idea is to play f3, Qd2, g4 and 0-0-0 in some order. Black can respond with 6...e6, 6...e5 or 6...Ng4. A related attacking idea for White is 6.Be3 e6 7.g4, known as the Hungarian Attack or Perenyi Attack.
Formerly, 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 was the main line of the Najdorf, when White threatens to attack the knight with 8.e5. Black can simply break the pin with 7...Be7, when White usually plays 8.Qf3 and 9.0-0-0. Some of Black's alternatives are 7...Qb6, the Poisoned Pawn Variation popularized by Fischer, Gelfand's 7...Nbd7, and 7...b5, the Polugaevsky Variation, which has the tactical point 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Qc7! 10.exf6 Qe5+ winning the bishop in return for the knight. A modern alternative to 6...e6 is 6...Nbd7.
White has other choices on the sixth move. 6.Be2 prepares to castle kingside and is a quieter alternative compared to 6.Be3 and 6.Bg5. Efim Geller was an early proponent of this move, after which Black can stay in "pure" Najdorf territory with 6...e5 or transpose to the Scheveningen with 6...e6. Other possibilities for White include 6.Bc4 (the Fischer–Sozin Attack), 6.f4, 6.f3, 6.g3, and 6.h3, (the Adams Attack, named after Weaver Adams), which was used several times by Bobby Fischer.
Dragon Variation: 5...g6.
In the Dragon Variation, Black fianchettoes a bishop on the h8–a1 diagonal. It was named by Fyodor Dus-Chotimirsky in 1901, who noticed a resemblance between Black's kingside pawn structure (pawns on d6, e7, f7, g6 and h7) and the stars of the Draco constellation. White's most dangerous try against the Dragon is the Yugoslav Attack, characterised by 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6, when 9.0-0-0, 9.Bc4 and 9.g4 are White's most common moves. This variation leads to extremely sharp play and is ferociously complicated, since the players castle on opposite wings and the game becomes a race between White's kingside attack and Black's queenside counterattack. White's most important alternative to the Yugoslav Attack is 6.Be2, the Classical Variation.
Classical Variation: 5...Nc6.
This variation can arise from two different move orders: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6, or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6. Unlike the other major variations considered in this section, Black defers the development of the king's bishop in favour of bringing out the queen's knight.
White's most common reply is 6.Bg5, the Richter–Rauzer Attack ("ECO" codes B60–B69). The move 6.Bg5 was Kurt Richter's invention, threatening to double Black's pawns after Bxf6 and forestalling the Dragon by rendering 6...g6 unplayable. After 6...e6, Vsevolod Rauzer introduced the modern plan of Qd2 and 0-0-0 in the 1930s. White's pressure on the d6-pawn often compels Black to respond to Bxf6 with ...gxf6, rather than recapturing with a piece (e.g. the queen on d8) that also has to defend the d-pawn. This weakens Black's kingside pawn structure, but in return Black gains the two bishops and a central pawn majority.
Another variation is 6.Bc4, the Sozin Variation ("ECO" code B57). It brings the bishop to an aggressive square. Black usually plays 6...e6 to limit the range of White's bishop, but White can eventually put pressure on the e6-pawn by pushing the f-pawn to f5 (pawn-based attack beginning with f4). White can either castle kingside with 7.Bb3 a6 8.0-0 (the Fischer–Sozin Attack, named after Bobby Fischer and Russian master Veniamin Sozin, who originated it in the 1930s), or queenside with 7.Be3 Be7 (or 7...a6) 8.Qe2 and 9.0-0-0 (the Velimirović Attack). Instead of 6...e6, Black can also try Benko's move 6...Qb6, which forces White to make a decision over the d4-knight. This typically leads into more positional lines than the razor-sharp, highly theoretical Sozin and Velimirović variations.
White's third most common move is 6.Be2, ("ECO" codes B58–B59), after which Black can remain in independent variations with the Boleslavsky Variation 6...e5, named after Isaac Boleslavsky. The old main line 7.Nb3 is now less popular than the modern 7.Nf3, after which the game usually continues 7...h6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Re1 0-0 10.h3. Black can also transpose to the Scheveningen Variation with 6...e6; or to the Classical Variation of the Dragon with 6...g6. Other responses by White to the Classical include 6.Be3, 6.f3, and 6.g3.
Scheveningen Variation: 5...e6.
In the Scheveningen Variation, Black is content to place the e-pawn on e6, where it guards the d5-square, rather than play the space-gaining ...e5. Moving the e-pawn also prepares ...Be7 followed by kingside castling. In view of this, Paul Keres introduced 6.g4, the Keres Attack, in 1943. White intends to drive away the black knight with g5. If Black prevents this with 6...h6, which is the most common answer, White has gained kingside space and discouraged Black from castling on that side, and may later play Bg2. If the complications after 6.g4 are not to White's taste, a major alternative is 6.Be2, a typical line being 6...a6 (this position can be reached from the Najdorf via 5...a6 6.Be2 e6) 7.0-0 Be7 8.f4 0-0. 6.Be3 and 6.f4 are also common.
While theory indicates that Black can hold the balance in the Keres Attack, players today often prefer to avoid it by playing 5...a6 first, an idea popularized by Kasparov. However, if determined to play the g4 thrust, White can prepare it by responding to 5...a6 with 6.h3 or 6.Rg1.
2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4.
2...Nc6 is a natural developing move, and also prepares ...Nf6 (like 2...d6, Black stops White from replying e5). After 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black's most common move is 4...Nf6. Other important moves are 4...e6 (transposing to the Taimanov Variation), 4...g6 (the Accelerated Dragon) and 4...e5 (the Kalashnikov Variation). Less common choices include 4...Qc7, which may later transpose to the Taimanov Variation, 4...Qb6, the Grivas Variation, and 4...d6.
After 4...Nf6, White usually replies 5.Nc3. Black can play 5...d6, transposing to the Classical Variation; 5...e5, the Sveshnikov Variation; or 5...e6, transposing to the Four Knights Variation.
Sveshnikov Variation: 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e5.
The Sveshnikov Variation was pioneered by Evgeny Sveshnikov and in the 1970s. Before their efforts, the variation was called the Lasker–Pelikan Variation. Emanuel Lasker played it once in his world championship match against Carl Schlechter, and Jorge Pelikan played it a few times in the 1950s, but Sveshnikov's treatment of the variation was the key to its revitalization. The move 5...e5 seems anti-positional as it leaves Black with a backwards d-pawn and a weakness on d5. Also, Black would have to accept the doubled f-pawns in the main line of the opening. The opening was popularised when Sveshnikov saw its dynamic potential for Black in the 1970s and 80s. Today, it is extremely popular among grandmasters and amateurs alike. Though some lines still give Black trouble, it has been established as a first-rate defence. The main line after 5...e5 runs as follows:
6. Ndb5
6...d6
7. Bg5
7...a6
8. Na3
8...b5!
The Sveshnikov Variation has become very popular in master level chess. Black's ...e5 push seems anti-positional: it has made the d6-pawn backward and the d5-square weak. However, in return, Black gets a foothold in the centre and gains time on White's knight, which has been driven to the edge of the board on a3. Top players who have used this variation include Magnus Carlsen, Vladimir Kramnik, Veselin Topalov, Teimour Radjabov, Boris Gelfand, Michael Adams and Alexander Khalifman, among many others.
In the diagrammed position after 8...b5, White usually parries the threat of ...b4 by playing 9.Bxf6 or 9.Nd5. After 9.Bxf6, 9...Qxf6?! 10.Nd5 Qd8 fails to 11.c4 b4 (11...bxc4 12.Nxc4 is good for White, who threatens 13.Qa4) 12.Qa4 Bd7 13.Nb5! axb5 14.Qxa8 Qxa8 15.Nc7+ Kd8 16.Nxa8 and the knight escapes via b6. Thus 9...gxf6 is forced, and White continues 10.Nd5. White's powerful knight on d5 and Black's shattered kingside pawn structure are compensated by Black's bishop pair and White's offside knight on a3. Also, Black has the plan of playing 10...f5, followed by ...fxe4 and ...f5 with the second f-pawn, which would give them good control of the centre. An alternative plan is to play 10...Bg7 followed by ...Ne7 to immediately trade off White's powerful knight; this line is known as the Novosibirsk Variation.
Instead of 9.Bxf6, White can also play 9.Nd5, which usually leads to quieter play. White decides not to double Black's f-pawns and the game often continues 9...Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3. This allows White to maintain the knight on d5 by trading off Black's knight on f6, and prepares to bring the knight on a3 back into play with the manoeuvre Na3–c2–e3. Another line is 10.Nxe7 Nxe7! (fighting for control of d5 and not fearing the doubled pawns) 11.Bxf6 gxf6. However, a recent development in the Sveshnikov has been 11.c4 (instead of c3), which often leads to positions where White is pressing for the win at no risk. A quick draw is possible after 9.Nd5 Qa5+!? 10.Bd2 (in order to prevent 10...Nxe4) 10...Qd8 11.Bg5 Qa5+ etc. In order to avoid this, White can play 11.Nxf6+ or 11.c4.
Accelerated Dragon: 4...g6.
Like the standard Dragon Variation, Black develops the bishop to g7 in the Accelerated Dragon. The difference is that Black avoids playing ...d7–d6 and can later play ...d7–d5 in one move if possible. For example, if White tries to play in the style of the Yugoslav Attack with 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2, 8...d5! equalises immediately. When White does play 5.Nc3, it is usually with the idea of continuing 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 (forestalling any tricks involving ...Nxe4 and ...d5), followed by kingside castling.
The critical test of Black's move order is 5.c4, the Maróczy Bind. White hopes to cramp Black's position by impeding the ...d7–d5 and ...b7–b5 pawn thrusts. Generally, this line is less tactical than many of the other Sicilian variations, and play involves much strategic maneuvering on both sides. After 5.c4, the main line runs 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 and now 7...0-0 or 7...Ng4 is most frequently played.
Kalashnikov Variation: 4...e5 5.Nb5 d6.
The Kalashnikov Variation ("ECO" code B32) is a close relative of the Sveshnikov Variation, and is sometimes known as the Neo-Sveshnikov. The move 4...e5 has had a long history; Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais used it in his matches against Alexander McDonnell in 1834, and it was also popular for a short time in the 1940s. These earlier games focused on the Löwenthal Variation (similar to the Kalashnikov but the reply to 5.Nb5 is 5...a6) with 4...e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Qf6, where Black gives up the two bishops to achieve a lead in development. The move fell out of use, however, once it was determined that White kept the advantage in these lines. Another fifth move alternative for Black is 5...Nf6, which can transpose into the Sveshnikov Variation after 6.N1c3 or 6.Bg5 d6 7.N1c3.
Only in the late 1980s did Black players revive 4...e5 with the intention of meeting 5.Nb5 with 5...d6: this is the Kalashnikov Variation. The ideas in this line are similar to those in the Sveshnikov – Black accepts a backward pawn on d6 and weakens the d5-square but gains time by chasing the knight. The difference between the two variations is that Black has not developed the knight to f6 and White has not brought the knight to c3, so both players have extra options. Black may forego ...Nf6 in favour of ...Ne7, e.g. after 6.N1c3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nge7, which avoids White's plan of Bg5 and Bxf6 to inflict doubled f-pawns on Black. Or, Black can delay bringing out the knight in favour of playing ...Be7–g5 or a quick ...f5. On the other hand, White has the option of 6.c4—the Maróczy Bind—which solidifies control of d5 and clamps down on ...b5, but leaves the d4-square slightly weak.
2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4.
Black's move 2...e6 gives priority to developing the dark-squared bishop. After 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black has three main moves: 4...Nc6 (the Taimanov Variation), 4...a6 (the Kan Variation) and 4...Nf6. After 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 (not 5.e5? Qa5+), Black can transpose to the Scheveningen Variation with 5...d6, play 5...Nc6, the Four Knights Variation or 5...Bb4, the Pin Variation.
Taimanov Variation: 4...Nc6.
Named after Mark Taimanov, the Taimanov Variation can be reached through 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 or 2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6. Black develops the knight to a natural square and keeps options open regarding the placement of the other pieces. One of the ideas of this system is to develop the king's bishop to b4 or c5. White can prevent this by 5.Nb5 d6, when 6.c4 leads to a version of the Maróczy Bind favoured by Karpov. The resulting position after 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 b6 is a type of Hedgehog.
The Kasparov Gambit 8...d5 was played twice in the World Chess Championship 1985, but virtually disappeared from master praxis after the game Karpov–Van der Wiel, Brussels (SWIFT) 1986.
5.Nc3 is more common nowadays than 5.Nb5, when 5...d6 normally transposes to the Scheveningen Variation and 5...Nf6 is the Four Knights Variation (see below). Independent moves for Black are 5...Qc7 and 5...a6, with the former being the more usual move order seen in recent years, as after 5...a6, the continuation 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3, despite its apparent simplicity, has given Black difficulties in reaching equality. Taimanov's idea was to play 5...a6 (preventing Nb5) followed by ...Nge7 and ...Nxd4; however, the modern treatment of the line is to play ...Nf6, for example 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 a6 7.Be3 Nf6.
Kan (Paulsen) Variation: 4...a6.
Named after Ilya Kan. By playing 4...a6, Black prevents Nb5 and prepares an eventual ...b5 advance.
The most popular fifth move for White is 5.Bd3, when after 5...Bc5 6.Nb3 Black can either retreat 6...Be7 where 7.Qg4 makes Black's kingside problematic, or 6...Ba7. Also possible is 5.c4 to create a Maróczy Bind setup.
White's second most popular reply is 5.Nc3, when Black's development of the kingside knight often takes focus, since playing ...Nf6 can be met with e5 which both creates a Black weakness on the d6-square and causes the Black knight a disadvantageous move. So Black normally plays a move to control the e5-square and prevent the pawn from advancing. The main Kan move is 5...Qc7, although 5...Nc6 transposing into a or 5...d6 transposing into a can occur. An alternative idea is the immediate 5...b5 to create pressure from the queenside with the idea of playing ...b4 attacking the c3-knight, or ...Bb7 to build pressure along the long white-squared diagonal. White generally answers with 6.Bd3, supporting the e4-pawn.
Four Knights Variation: 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6.
The Four Knights Variation is mainly used as a way of getting into the main line Sveshnikov Variation, reached after 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 a6 9.Na3 b5 or 6.Bf4 d6 7.Ndb5 e5 8.Bg5 a6 9.Na3 b5. The point of this move order is to avoid lines such as the Rossolimo Variation (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5), or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5, which are possible in the standard Sveshnikov move order. On the other hand, in the Four Knights move order, White acquires the extra option of 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4, so White is not obliged to enter the Sveshnikov.
If Black is not aiming for the Sveshnikov, the main alternative is to play 6...Bb4 in reply to 6.Ndb5. Then 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 leads to a position where Black has given up the two bishops but has active pieces and the possibility of playing ...d5–d4.
Pin Variation: 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4.
The Pin Variation (also called the Sicilian Counter-Attack) is considered theoretically suspect, but if White is unprepared the tactics can be difficult to calculate at the board. After 6.e5! (6.Bd3 is less challenging) Black has:
Also intriguing is 6. Nb5!, with 6...Nxe4?! met with 7. Qg4, with strong compensation for the pawn.
2.Nf3 without 3.d4: White's third move alternatives.
White can play 2.Nf3 without intending to follow up with 3.d4. The systems given below are usually classified along with White's second move alternatives as .
2...d6 without 3.d4.
Moscow Variation: 3.Bb5+.
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6, White's most important alternative to 3.d4 is 3.Bb5+, known as the Moscow Variation. Grandmasters sometimes choose this variation when they wish to avoid theory; for instance, it was played by Garry Kasparov in the online game Kasparov–The World. Experts in this line include GMs Sergei Rublevsky and Tomáš Oral. The current World Champion Magnus Carlsen has also played this variation extensively. Black can block the check with 3...Bd7, 3...Nc6 or 3...Nd7. The position after 3...Nc6 can also be reached via the Rossolimo Variation after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6.
Most common is 3...Bd7, when after 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7, White can either play 5.0-0 followed by c3 and d4, or 5.c4 in the style of the Maróczy Bind.
Others.
Another possibility for White is 3.c3, a delayed variation of the Sicilian Defense, Alapin Variation intending to establish a pawn centre with d4 next move. The most frequent continuation is 3...Nf6 4.Be2, when 4...Nxe4?? loses to 5.Qa4+.
2...Nc6 without 3.d4.
Rossolimo Variation: 3.Bb5.
The Rossolimo Variation, 3.Bb5, is a well-respected alternative to 3.d4. It is named after Nicolas Rossolimo and is related to the Moscow Variation. White's usual intention is to play Bxc6, giving Black doubled pawns. Black's major responses are 3...g6 preparing ...Bg7, 3...d6 preparing ...Bd7 (a hybrid line that also arises from the Moscow Variation after 2...d6 3.Bb5+ Nc6), and 3...e6 preparing 4...Nge7. Sergei Rublevsky and Tomáš Oral both play this line as well as the Moscow Variation. The Italian American Grandmaster Fabiano Caruana is perhaps the biggest proponent of this line at the top level, and has played this variation in Games 1,3 and 5 of his World Championship Match against Magnus Carlsen.
Others.
3.Nc3 is a common transpositional device for White, who can play 4.d4 or 4.Bb5 next move depending on Black's response. Black sometimes plays 3...e5 to avoid both moves; then 4.Bc4 is considered White's best move. 3.c3 transposes to lines of the Alapin Variation after 3...Nf6 or 3...d5, while 3.c4 transposes into the .
2...e6 without 3.d4.
White sometimes plays 3.Nc3 as a waiting move, though it has little independent significance. With 3.d3, White plans to develop in King's Indian Attack style with g3 and Bg2; this line was used by Fischer to crush Oscar Panno in a famous game (Fischer–Panno, Buenos Aires 1970). 3.c3 will transpose to lines of the Alapin Variation after 3...Nf6, or the French Defence after 3...d5 4.e5 Nc6 5.d4, though 4...d4 is stronger, as after 5.cxd4 cxd4 6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Qxd4 Bxf3 is a strong pawn sacrifice, giving Black excellent compensation. 3.c4 transposes into the . 3.b3, intending Bb2, is a rare independent try, occasionally essayed by Heikki Westerinen in the 1970s.
3.Bd3.
Danny Kopec has suggested the move 3.Bd3 against any of Black's common responses, intending to follow up with c3 and Bc2.
2.Nf3: Black's second move alternatives.
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3, Black has some less commonly played options apart from 2...d6, 2...Nc6 and 2...e6.
Hyper-Accelerated Dragon: 2...g6.
After 2...g6, White commonly plays 3.d4, which may transpose to the Accelerated Dragon after 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6, although White may deviate by playing 4.Qxd4, and Black can also avoid the transposition with 3.d4 Bg7 4.dxc5 Qa5+. Other third move options for White are 3.c3 transposing to a variation of the Alapin, and 3.c4.
O'Kelly Variation: 2...a6.
2...a6 is the O'Kelly Variation. Black's idea is to meet 3.d4 with 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 when 6.Ndb5 is prevented, and after 6.Nb3 or 6.Nf3 Black will equalize by playing 6...Bb4 and possibly ...d5. However, White may avoid this by instead playing 3.c3 or 3.c4.
Nimzowitsch–Rubinstein Variation: 2...Nf6.
2...Nf6 is the Nimzowitsch Variation. It bears some similarity to Alekhine's Defence. White's strongest reply is to chase the knight by 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3 and now (a) 4...Nxc3 5.dxc3, when 5...b6?, as Nimzowitsch played and recommended, loses to 6.e6! f6 7.Ne5! or (b) 4...e6 (the main line) 5.Nxd5 exd5 6.d4 Nc6 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qxd5 Qb6 (8...d6 9.exd6 Qb6 is also played) 9.Bc4! Bxf2+ 10.Ke2 0-0 11.Rf1 Bc5 12.Ng5 Nd4+ 13.Kd1 with sharp play favouring White.
Others.
Other moves include:
Closed Sicilian: 2.Nc3.
2.Nc3 is White's second most common move responding to 1.e4 c5. Black's options are similar to those for 2.Nf3, the most common being ...Nc6, along with ...e6 and ...d6, and less commonly ...a6 and ...g6. 2...e5 transposes into a variant of the Vienna Game. In all cases, White can then play 3.Nf3, as if White had played 2.Nf3 then 3.Nc3 (e.g. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3, B30).
For the most part, other moves are the Closed Sicilian. Possible moves are 3.g3 and 3.f4 in general, also 3.Nge2, and less commonly 3.d3 and 3.Bc4. Many lines transpose to the Open Sicilian, the Moscow Variation, or the Rossolimo Variation, but there are many that do not.
Also of some interest is 3.Bb5 to ...Nc6.
A typical line is 2...Nc6 3.g3 ("ECO" code B24). Also 2...Nc6 3.f4 is the Closed Sicilian, Grand Prix Attack (part of B23).
White can also keep options open with 3.Nge2. Andrew Soltis has dubbed that the "Chameleon System", since White maintains the option of playing a Closed Sicilian with 4.g3 or transposing to a standard Open Sicilian with 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4. Two drawbacks are that (a) the Closed Sicilian lines with an early Nge2 are not very challenging for Black, and (b) if Black plays 2...Nc6 3.Nge2 g6, 4.d4 reaches an Accelerated Dragon where White has lost the option of playing c4, the Maróczy Bind, often considered White's best line. In view of possible transpositions to the main Sicilian variations, Black has various replies to 2.Nc3 in the Open Sicilian. 2...Nc6 is the most common choice, but 2...e6 and 2...d6 are often played. The Main line of the Closed Sicilian is 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 (diagram), when White's main options are 6.Be3 followed by Qd2 and possibly 0-0-0, and 6.f4 followed by Nf3 and 0-0.
White's second move alternatives.
After 1.e4 c5, other moves besides 2.Nf3 and 2.Nc3 are popular.
Alapin Variation: 2.c3.
2.c3 is the Alapin Variation or c3 Sicilian. Originally championed by Semyon Alapin at the end of the 19th century, it was revived in the late 1960s by Evgeny Sveshnikov and Evgeny Vasiukov. Nowadays its strongest practitioners include grandmasters Sergei Tiviakov and Eduardas Rozentalis.
White aims to set up a classical pawn centre with 3.d4, so Black should counter immediately in the centre by 2...Nf6 or 2...d5.
The line 2...Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 resembles Alekhine's Defence, but the inclusion of the moves c3 and ...c5 is definitely in Black's favour. Now White can play 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3, when Black has a choice between 5...e6 and 5...Nc6. Another idea for White is 5.Bc4, which is met by 5...Qc7.
The other main line is 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3, when Black's main options are 5...e6 and 5...Bg4. In this line, White usually ends up with an isolated after pawns are exchanged on d4.
A rarer option on Black's second move is 2...e6, with the aim of transposing to the Advance Variation of the French Defence after 3.d4 d5 4.e5.
Grand Prix Attack: 2.f4.
2.f4 is the Grand Prix Attack or McDonnell Attack: the latter name stems from the 14th match game played in London in 1834 between Alexander McDonnell and Charles Louis Mahé de La Bourdonnais, won by Black. According to Jeremy Silman and others, Black's best reply is 2...d5 3.exd5 Nf6!, the Tal Gambit, which has caused the immediate 2.f4 to decline in popularity. White may decline the gambit with 3.Nc3, called the "Toilet Variation", so named after its reputed place of invention. A less common option is 2...e6, as La Bourdonnais played against McDonnell. Players usually enter the Grand Prix Attack nowadays by playing 2.Nc3 first before continuing 3.f4. The modern main line runs 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7. Here White can play the positional 5.Bb5, threatening to double Black's pawns with Bxc6, or the more aggressive 5.Bc4, aiming for a kingside attack.
Smith–Morra Gambit: 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3.
2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 is the Smith–Morra Gambit. Declining it by either 3...Nf6 or 3...d5, transposing to the c3 line, is possible, but accepting it by 3...dxc3 is critical. After 4.Nxc3, White is considered not to have enough compensation for the pawn; however, it can be dangerous for Black if he is unprepared, as there are many pitfalls for the unwary.
Other moves.
Other reasonable moves include:
"ECO" codes.
The "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings" classifies the Sicilian Defence under the codes B20 through B99, giving it more codes than any other opening. In general these guidelines apply:


What Next

What Next is an Australian television panel game show which aired on Melbourne station ABV-2 from 1958 to 1959. The series aired live. The exact format of the series is unknown, as is the archival status of the program. The show was hosted by Bob Cornish, and featured two teams competing against each other.


Vastar

Vastar is a horizontally scrolling shooter released in arcades in 1983. It is the only game released by "Sesame Japan Corporation".
Plot.
In the year 2956 AD, a fighting robot named "Vastar" was developed by scientists in order to protect Earth from the "Galaxy Empire".
The game's is set in a post-apocalyptic Earth. In some points of the game, it can be seen ruins of the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore and the Rapa Nui (famous Easter Island's statues).
Gameplay.
The player controls Vastar, a fighting flying robot that can shoot enemies with laser beams. Vastar is destroyed by enemy contact or strike but it is provided with a shield that must be activated to prevent attacks. When the shield's energy runs out, Vastar turns itself in an airship that still can shoot laser beams but it's defenseless against strikes. As the player reaches Vastar's base (as well if the player loses a life and restarts with another one), the shield's power is fully charged again and Vastar returns to its default form.


Fake Reaction

Fake Reaction is a British television comedy panel game shown on ITV2 that ran for two series from 3 January 2013 to 6 March 2014 presented by Matt Edmondson with regular team captains Joe Swash and Ellie Taylor.
Production.
A pilot edition was recorded in April 2012 for BBC Three, however the show was picked up by ITV2 for an eight-episode run from 3 January 2013. A second series of ten episodes began production in late 2013, and premiered on 2 January 2014.
On 3 September 2014, Edmondson revealed that the programme had been axed after two series.


Video game developer

A video game developer is a software developer specializing in video game development – the process and related disciplines of creating video games. A game developer can range from one person who undertakes all tasks to a large business with employee responsibilities split between individual disciplines, such as programming, design, art, testing, etc. Most game development companies have video game publisher financial and usually marketing support. Self-funded developers are known as independent or indie developers and usually make indie games.
A developer may specialize in a certain video game console (such as Nintendo's Nintendo Switch, Microsoft's Xbox One, Sony's PlayStation 4), or may develop for a number of systems (including personal computers and mobile devices). Video game developers specialize in certain types of games (such as role-playing video games or first-person shooters). Some focus on porting games from one system to another, or translating games from one language to another. Less commonly, some do software development work in addition to games.
Most video game publishers maintain development studios (such as Electronic Arts's EA Canada, Square Enix's studios, Activision's Radical Entertainment, Nintendo EAD and Sony's Polyphony Digital and Naughty Dog). However, since publishing is still their primary activity they are generally described as "publishers" rather than "developers". Developers may be private as well (such as how Bungie was, the company which developed the "Halo" series exclusive to Microsoft's Xbox).
Types.
First-party developers.
In the video game industry, a first-party developer is part of a company which manufactures a video game console and develops exclusively for it. First-party developers may use the name of the company itself (such as Nintendo), have a specific division name (such as Sony's Polyphony Digital) or have been an independent studio before being acquired by the console manufacturer (such as Rare or Naughty Dog). Whether by purchasing an independent studio or by founding a new team, the acquisition of a first-party developer involves a huge financial investment on the part of the console manufacturer, which is wasted if the developer fails to produce a hit game in a timely manner. However, using first-party developers saves the cost of having to make royalty payments on a game's profits. Current examples of first-party studios include SIE Worldwide Studios for Sony, and Xbox Game Studios for Microsoft.
Second-party developers.
Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios who take development contracts from platform holders and develop games exclusive to that platform, i.e. a non-owned developer making games for a first-party company. As a balance to not being able to release their game for other platforms, second-party developers are usually offered higher royalty rates than third-party developers. These studios may have exclusive publishing agreements (or other business relationships) with the platform holder, but maintain independence so upon completion or termination of their contracts are able to continue developing games for other publishers if they choose to. For example, while HAL Laboratory initially began developing games on personal computers like the MSX, they became one of the first second-party developers for Nintendo, developing exclusively for Nintendo's consoles starting with the Famicom.
Third-party developers.
A third-party developer may also publish games, or work for a video game publisher to develop a title. Both publisher and developer have considerable input in the game's design and content. However, the publisher's wishes generally override those of the developer.
The business arrangement between the developer and publisher is governed by a contract, which specifies a list of milestones intended to be delivered over a period of time. By updating its milestones, the publisher verifies that work is progressing quickly enough to meet its deadline and can direct the developer if the game is not meeting expectations. When each milestone is completed (and accepted), the publisher pays the developer an advance on royalties. Successful developers may maintain several teams working on different games for different publishers. Generally, however, third-party developers tend to be small, close-knit teams. Third-party game development is a volatile sector, since small developers may be dependent on income from a single publisher; one canceled game may be devastating to a small developer. Because of this, many small development companies are short-lived.
A common exit strategy for a successful video-game developer is to sell the company to a publisher, becoming an in-house developer. In-house development teams tend to have more freedom in the design and content of a game compared to third-party developers. One reason is that since the developers are employees of the publisher, their interests are aligned with those of the publisher; the publisher may spend less effort ensuring that the developer's decisions do not enrich the developer at the publisher's expense.
Activision in 1979 became the first third-party video game developer. When four Atari, Inc. programmers left the company following its sale to Warner Communications, partially over the lack of respect that the new management gave to programmers, they used their knowledge of how Atari VCS game cartridges were programmed to create their own games for the system, founding Activision in 1979 to sell these. Atari took legal action to try to block sale of these games, but the companies ultimately settled, with Activision agreeing to pay a portion of their sales as a license fee to Atari for developing for the console. This established the use of licensing fees as a model for third-party development that persists into the present. The licensing fee approach was further enforced by Nintendo when it decided to allow other third-party developers to make games for the Famicom console, setting a 30% licensing fee that covered game cartridge manufacturing costs and development fees. The 30% licensing fee for third-party developers has also persisted to the present, being a de facto rate used for most digital storefronts for third-party developers to offer their games on the platform.
In recent years, larger publishers have acquired several third-party developers. While these development teams are now technically "in-house", they often continue to operate in an autonomous manner (with their own culture and work practices). For example, Activision acquired Raven (1997); Neversoft (1999), which merged with Infinity Ward in 2014; Z-Axis (2001); Treyarch (2001); Luxoflux (2002); Shaba (2002); Infinity Ward (2003) and Vicarious Visions (2005). All these developers continue operating much as they did before acquisition, the primary differences being exclusivity and financial details. Publishers tend to be more forgiving of their own development teams going over budget (or missing deadlines) than third-party developers.
A developer may not be the primary entity creating a piece of software, usually providing an external software tool which helps organize (or use) information for the primary software product. Such tools may be a database, Voice over IP, or add-in interface software; this is also known as middleware. Examples of this include SpeedTree and Havoc.
Indie game developers.
Independents are software developers which are not owned by (or dependent on) a single publisher. Some of these developers self-publish their games, relying on the Internet and word of mouth for publicity. Without the large marketing budgets of mainstream publishers, their products may receive less recognition than those of larger publishers such as Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. With the advent of digital distribution of inexpensive games on game consoles, it is now possible for indie game developers to forge agreements with console manufacturers for broad distribution of their games.
Other indie game developers create game software for a number of video-game publishers on several gaming platforms. In recent years this model has been in decline; larger publishers, such as Electronic Arts and Activision, increasingly turn to internal studios (usually former independent developers acquired for their development needs).
Quality of life.
Video game development is usually conducted in a casual business environment, with T-shirts and sandals common work attire. Many workers find this type of environment rewarding and pleasant professionally and personally. However, the industry also requires long working hours from its employees (sometimes to an extent seen as unsustainable). Employee burnout is not uncommon.
An entry-level programmer can make, on average, over $66,000 annually only if they are successful in obtaining a position in a medium to large video game company. An experienced game-development employee, depending on their expertise and experience, averaged roughly $73,000 in 2007. Indie game developers may only earn between $10,000 and $50,000 a year depending on how financially successful their titles are.
In addition to being part of the software industry, game development is also within the entertainment industry; most sectors of the entertainment industry (such as films and television) require long working hours and dedication from their employees, such as willingness to relocate and/or required to develop games that do not appeal to their personal taste. The creative rewards of work in the entertainment business attracts labor to the industry, creating a competitive labor market which demands a high level of commitment and performance from employees. Industry communities, such as the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), are conducting increasing discussions about the problem; they are concerned that working conditions in the industry cause significant deterioration in its employees' quality of life.
"Crunch time".
Some video game developers and publishers have been accused of the excessive invocation of "crunch time". "Crunch time" is the point at which the team is thought to be failing to achieve milestones needed to launch a game on schedule. The complexity of work flow, reliance on third-party deliverables, and the intangibles of artistic and aesthetic demands in video-game creation create difficulty in predicting milestones. The use of crunch time is also seen to be exploitative of the younger male-dominated workforce in video games, who have not had the time to establish a family and who were eager to advance within the industry by working long hours. Because crunch time tends to come from a combination of corporate practices as well as peer influence, the term "crunch culture" is often used to discuss video game development settings where crunch time may be seen as the norm rather than the exception.
Surveys from game developers in the 2000s showed the average working week was at least 46 hours for more than 60% of respondents; when crunch time occurs, workweeks of 60 to 80 hours, or in some cases, 100 hours or more, have been reported. Most game-development engineers and artists in the United States are considered salaried employees; as " non-hourly-paid professionals", they are not subject to state laws governing overtime. An exception is California, where software developers are specifically protected by a minimum hourly wage to be considered exempt, which as of 2008 was set to $36 an hour.
When crunch time does occur, the publisher or developer may help encourage employees by offering "crunch meals" that are delivered to the offices. Once a product is delivered, and the necessity for crunch no longer required, some companies allow their employees to take paid time-off in compensation for the overtime hours they had put in, or may offer salary raises and bonuses for successful completion of the delivery milestone.
Crunch time has been used in the industry but until 2004 was generally not discussed openly. A 2004 survey by the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) found only about 3% of respondents did not work any overtime, and of those that did, nearly half were not compensated for overtime. Attention to crunch was brought to the forefront by Erin Hoffman, posting anonymously under the name "EA Spouse", in 2004, describing the working hours her husband had faced at Electronic Arts (EA). Besides creating discussion within the industry on the effects of a crunch culture, EA faced two class action lawsuits by EA employees, with both ultimately settled with EA paying back the employees by 2006. EA also announced it would reclassify some of its developers as hourly employees eligible for overtime but eliminating their stock options.
A similar situation occurred in January 2010, when a collective group of "Rockstar Spouses", the spouses of developers at Rockstar San Diego, posted an open letter criticizing the management of the studio for deteriorating working conditions for their significant others since March 2009, which included excessive crunch time. This was followed by several former Rockstar employees posting similar complaints of their time there. The IGDA considered that Rockstar's working conditions were exploitative and harmful.
Since these points, some companies in the industry have taken steps to eliminate crunch. In 2004, following Hoffman's blog, the IGDA issued a report on the negative consequences of crunch time on developers and their quality of life. A 2014 IGDA survey found nearly 20% of game developers did not see any crunch, and where there was crunch, the average number of hours worked had dropped from the prior 2004 survey: in 2004, 35% had said they worked between 65 and 80 hours per week, while by 2014, 35% said they had worked from 50 to 65 hours. A 2019 survey of developers by the Game Developers Conference found that nearly half still worked over 40-hour weeks on average with only 12% working more than 50 hours a week on average, though nearly 75% stated they had at least one period where they had worked more than 40 hours in a single week.
However, stories of crunch time still have brought more awareness that crunch remained an accepted practice in the game industry. Families of Rockstar developers for "Red Dead Redemption 2" in October 2018 brought forth similar concerns as the prior "Rockstar Spouse" case. Anonymous Epic Games employees speaking to "Polygon" spoke of crunch time with 70 to 100 hour weeks by some ever since they released "Fortnite Battle Royale", which has drawn a playerbase of millions. While these employees were getting overtime pay, there remained issues of health concerns and inability to take time off without it being seen negatively on their performance.
Crunch time may or may not hamper a game's quality. Despite the crunch, both "Red Dead Redemption" games were critically praised; similarly, Retro Studios' "Metroid Prime" and "", both which included periods of crunch time, are also recognized as high-quality games that were critically acclaimed upon release. On the other hand, Sonic Team's 2006 "Sonic the Hedgehog" game was rushed in development to meet deadlines for holiday sales that year, suffering in quality, and has become known as one of poorest-received video games. Crunch time at Starbreeze Studios and Overkill Software in developing "Overkill's The Walking Dead", principally from multiple switches in game engine requiring nearly full restarts each time, led to a product that was critically panned for its quality and gameplay, and left both studios in financial distress.
Unionization.
Similar to other tech industries, video game developers are typically not unionized. This is a result of the industry being driven more by creativity and innovation rather than production, the lack of distinction between management and employees in the white-collar area, and that the pace at which the industry moves that makes union actions difficult to plan out. However, when situations related to crunch time become prevalent in the news, there have typically been followup discussions towards the potential to form a union. A survey performed by the International Game Developers Association in 2014 found that more than half of the 2,200 developers surveyed favored unionization.
In 2016, voice actors in the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) union doing work for video games struck several major publishers, demanding better royalty payments and provisions related to the safety of their vocal performances, when their union's standard contract was up for renewal. The voice actor strike lasted for over 300 days into 2017 before a new deal was made between SAG-AFTRA and the publishers. While this had some effects on a few games within the industry, it brought to the forefront the question of whether video game developers should unionize.
A grassroots movement, Game Workers Unite, was established around 2017 to discuss and debate issues related to unionization of game developers. The group came to the forefront during the March 2018 Game Developers Conference by holding a roundtable discussion with the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), the professional association for developers. Statements made by the IGDA's current executive director Jen MacLean relating to IGDA's activities had been seen by as anti-union, and Game Workers Unite desired to start a conversation to lay out the need for developers to unionize. In the wake of the sudden near-closure of Telltale Games in September 2018, the movement again called out for the industry to unionize. The movement argued that Telltale had not given any warning to its 250 employees let go, having hired additional staff as recently as a week prior, and left them without pensions or health-care options; it was further argued that the studio considered this a closure rather than layoffs, as to get around failure to notify required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 preceding layoffs. The situation was argued to be "exploitive", as Telltale had been known to force its employees to frequently work under "crunch time" to deliver its games. By the end of 2018, a United Kingdom trade union, Game Workers Unite UK, an affiliate of the Game Workers Unite movement, had been legally established.
A survey of over 4,000 game developers run by the Game Developers Conference in early 2019 found that 47% of respondents felt the video game industry should unionize.
Following Activision Blizzard's financial report for the previous quarter in February 2019, the company said that they would be laying off around 775 employees (about 8% of their workforce) despite having record profits for that quarter. Further calls for unionization came from this news, including the AFL-CIO writing an open letter to video game developers encouraging them to unionize.
Game Workers Unite and the Communications Workers of America established a new campaign to push for unionization of video game developers, the Campaign to Organize Digital Employees (CODE), in January 2020. Initial efforts for CODE were aimed to determine what approach to unionization would be best suited for the video game industry. Whereas some video game employees believe they should follow the craft-based model used by SAG-AFTRA which would unionized based on job function, others feel an industry-wide union, regardless of job position, would be better.
Sweden presents a unique case where nearly all parts of its labor force, including white-collar jobs such as video game development, may engage with labor unions under the Employment Protection Act often through collective bargaining agreements. Developer DICE had reached its union agreements in 2004. Paradox Interactive became one of the first major publishers to support unionization efforts in June 2020 with its own agreements to cover its Swedish employees within two labor unions.
Contract workers.
Some of the larger video game developers and publishers have also engaged contract workers through agencies to help add manpower in game development in part to alleviate crunch time from employees. Contractors are brought on for a fixed period and generally work similar hours as full-time staff members, assisting across all areas of video game development, but as contractors, do not get any benefits such as paid time-off or health care from the employer; they also are typically not credited on games that they work on for this reason. The practice itself is legal and common in other engineering and technology areas, and generally it is expected that this is meant to lead into a full-time position, or otherwise the end of the contract. But more recently, its use in the video game industry has been compared to Microsoft's past use of "permatemp", contract workers that were continually renewed and treated for all purposes as employees but received no benefits. While Microsoft has waned from the practice, the video game industry has adapted it more frequently. Around 10% of the workforce in video games is estimated to be from contract labor.
Demographics of game development.
In 1989, according to "Variety", women constituted only 3% of the gaming industry. By 2019, IGDA found 24% of its survey participants reported as female. According to Gamasutra's Game Developer Salary Survey 2014, women in the United States made 86 cents for every dollar men made. Game designing women had the closest equity, making 96 cents for every dollar men made in the same job, while audio professional women had the largest gap, making 68% of what men in the same position made.
Similarly, minority groups are underrepresented in the video game industry. The 2019 IGDA Developer Survey found that 7% of its respondents identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 2% as black, in contrast to United States Census estimates in 2018 of 18% and 13% respectively. Asian groups tend to over-represented in the industry as well when compared to the United States data. In a 2014 & 2015 survey of job positions and salaries, the IGDA found that people of color were both underrepresented in senior management roles as well as underpaid in comparison to white developers. This racial diversity issue has similar ties to the gender one, and similar methods to result both have been suggested, such as improving grade school education, development of games that appeal beyond the white, male gamer stereotype, and identify toxic behavior in both video game workplaces and online communities that perputate discrimination against gender and race.


List of actors who have played video game characters

There have been several movies and live-action television shows based on video games. This is a list of actors who have played video game characters such as those named.


Pawnless chess endgame

A pawnless chess endgame is a chess endgame in which only a few pieces remain and none of them is a pawn. The basic checkmates are types of pawnless endgames. Endgames without pawns do not occur very often in practice except for the basic checkmates of king and queen versus king, king and rook versus king, and queen versus rook . Other cases that occur occasionally are (1) a rook and versus a rook and (2) a rook versus a minor piece, especially if the minor piece is a bishop .
The study of some pawnless endgames goes back centuries by players such as François-André Danican Philidor (1726–1795) and Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719–1796). On the other hand, many of the details and recent results are due to the construction of endgame tablebases. Grandmaster John Nunn wrote a book ("Secrets of Pawnless Endings") summarizing the research of endgame tablebases for several types of pawnless endings.
The assessment of endgame positions assumes optimal play by both sides. In some cases, one side of these endgames can ; in other cases, the game is a draw (i.e. a book draw).
Terminology.
When the number of moves to win is specified, optimal play by both sides is assumed. The number of moves given to win is until either checkmate or the position is converted to a simpler position that is known to be a win. For example, with a queen versus a rook, that would be until either checkmate or the rook is , resulting in a position that leads to an elementary checkmate.
Basic checkmates.
Checkmate can be forced against a lone king with a king plus (1) a queen, (2) a rook, (3) two bishops, or (4) a bishop and a knight (see Bishop and knight checkmate). See Checkmate for more details. Checkmate is possible with two knights, but it cannot be forced. (See Two knights endgame.)
Queen versus rook.
A queen wins against a lone rook, unless there is an immediate draw by stalemate or due to perpetual check (or if the rook or king can immediately capture the queen). In 1895 Edward Freeborough edited an entire 130-page book of analysis of this endgame, "The Chess Ending, King & Queen against King & Rook". Normally the winning process involves first winning the rook by the queen with a fork and then checkmating with the king and queen, but forced checkmates with the rook still on the board are possible in some positions or against incorrect defense. With perfect play, in the worst winning position, the queen can win the rook or checkmate within 31 moves .
The "third-rank defense" by the rook is difficult for a human to crack. The "third-rank defense" is when the rook is on the third rank or from the edge of the board, his king is closer to the edge and the enemy king is on the other side (see the diagram). For example, the winning move in the position shown is the counterintuitive withdrawal of the queen from the seventh rank to a more central location, 1. Qf4, so the queen can make checking maneuvers to win the rook with a fork if it moves along the third rank. If the black king emerges from the back rank, 1... Kd7, then 2. Qa4+ Kc7; 3. Qa7+ forces Black into a second-rank defense (defending king on an edge of the board and the rook on the adjacent rank or file) after 3... Rb7. This position is a standard win, as White heads for the Philidor position with a queen versus rook . A possible continuation: 4. Qc5+ Kb8 5. Kd6 Rg7 6. Qe5 Rc7 7. Qf4 Kc8 8. Qf5+ Kb8 9. Qe5 Rb7 10. Kc6+ Ka8 11. Qd5 Kb8 12. Qa5 [Philidor—mate in 7].
Example from game.
In this 2001 game between Boris Gelfand and Peter Svidler, the player with the queen should win, but the game was drawn because of the fifty-move rule after he was unable to find the winning maneuvers to fork and capture the rook.
The same position but with colors reversed occurred in a 2006 game between Alexander Morozevich and Dmitry Jakovenko – it was also drawn . At the end of that game the rook became a desperado and the game ended in stalemate after the rook was captured (otherwise the game would have eventually been a draw because of perpetual check, i.e. threefold repetition).
Browne versus BELLE.
The queen versus rook endgame was one of the first endgames completely solved by computers constructing an endgame tablebase. A challenge was issued to Grandmaster Walter Browne in 1978 where Browne would have the queen in a difficult position, defended by BELLE using the queen versus rook tablebase. Browne could have won the rook or checkmated in 31 moves with perfect play. After 45 moves, Browne realized that he would not be able to win within 50 moves, according to the fifty-move rule. Browne studied the position, and later in the month played another match, from a different starting position. This time he won by capturing the rook on the 50th move .
Queen versus two minor pieces.
Defensive fortresses exist for any of the two minor pieces versus the queen. However, except in the case of two knights, the fortress usually cannot be reached against optimal play. (See fortress for more details about these endings.)
Common pawnless endings (rook and minor pieces).
John Nunn lists these types of pawnless endgames as being common: (1) a rook versus a minor piece and (2) a rook and a minor piece versus a rook .

Miscellaneous pawnless endings.
Other types of pawnless endings have been studied . Of course, there are positions that are exceptions to these general rules stated below.
The fifty-move rule is not taken into account, and it would often be applicable in practice. When one side has two bishops, they are assumed to be on opposite colored squares, unless otherwise stated. When each side has one bishop, the result often depends on whether or not the bishops are on the same color, so their colors will always be stated.
Queens and rooks with minor pieces.
In endgames with extra queens, tempo is often more important than material. Two queens can win against two queens and a knight about half the time, when they have the move.
Queens and minor pieces.
Examples from games.
An endgame with queen and knight versus queen is usually drawn, but there are some exceptions where one side can quickly win material. In the game between Nyazova and Levant, White won:
If 1...Kxh5 then 2.Qg6+ Kh4 3.Qh6+ skewers the black queen.
If 6...Kf1 then 7.Qe2+ Kg1 8.Qe1+ Kh2 9.Qf2+ Qg2 10.Qxg2#.
White could have won more quickly by 1.Qg8+ Kh4 2.Qg3+ Kxh5 3.Qg6+ Kh4 4.Qh6+ and White skewers the black queen .
The second position is from a 1982 game between former world champion Boris Spassky and then world champion Anatoly Karpov. The position is a theoretical draw but Karpov later blundered in time trouble and resigned on move 84.
Example from a study.
In this 1967 study by Vitaly Halberstadt, White wins. The solution is:
Not 2.Qxf7 stalemate.
Minor pieces only.
Example from game.
An ending with two bishops versus a knight occurred in the seventeenth game of the 1961 World Chess Championship match between Mikhail Botvinnik and Mikhail Tal. The position occurred after White captured a pawn on a6 on his 77th move, and White resigned on move 84.
White to move may draw in this position: 1.Nb7+ Kd5 2.Kc7 Bd2 3.Kb6 Bf4 4.Nd8 Be3+ 5.Kc7 . White gets his knight to b7 with his king next to it to form a long-term fortress.
The game might continue 84.Kd7 Kb6 85.Nb3 Be3, followed by ...Bd1 and ...Bd4 , for example 86.Kd6 Bd1 87.Na1 Bd4 88.Kd5 Bxa1 .
Examples with an extra minor piece.
An extra minor piece on one side with a queen versus queen endgame or rook versus rook endgame is normally a theoretical draw. An endgame with two minor pieces versus one is also drawn, except in the case of two bishops versus a knight. But a rook and two minor pieces versus a rook and one minor piece is different. In these two examples from games, the extra minor piece is enough to win.
In this position, if the bishops were on the same color, White might have a chance to exchange bishops and reach an easily drawn position. (Exchanging rooks would also result in a draw.) Black wins:
In this position, if White could exchange bishops (or rooks) he would reach a drawn position. However, Black has a winning attack:
Speelman gave these conclusions:
Later tablebase analysis confirmed that rook and two minor pieces versus rook and one minor piece is a general win.
Summary.
Grandmaster Ian Rogers summarized several of these endgames .
Fine's rule.
In his landmark 1941 book "Basic Chess Endings", Reuben Fine inaccurately stated, "Without pawns one must be at least a Rook ahead in order to be able to mate. The only exceptions to this that hold in all cases are that the double exchange wins and that a Queen cannot successfully defend against four minor pieces." Kenneth Harkness also stated this "rule" . Fine also stated "There is a basic rule that in endings without pawns one must be at least a rook ahead to be able to win in general." This inaccurate statement was repeated in the 2003 edition revised by Grandmaster Pal Benko . However, Fine recognized elsewhere in his book that a queen wins against a rook and that a queen normally beats a knight and a bishop (with the exception of one drawing fortress) . The advantage of a rook corresponds to a five-point advantage using the traditional relative value of the pieces (pawn=1, knight=3, bishop=3, rook=5, queen=9). It turns out that there are several more exceptions, but they are endgames that rarely occur in actual games. Fine's statement has been superseded by computer analysis .
A four-point material advantage is often enough to win in some endings without pawns. For example, a queen wins versus a rook (as mentioned above, but 31 moves may be required); as well as when there is matching additional material on both sides, i.e.: a queen and any versus a rook and any minor piece; a queen and a rook versus two rooks; and two queens versus a queen and a rook. Another type of win with a four-point material advantage is the double exchange – two rooks versus any two minor pieces. There are some other endgames with four-point material differences that are generally long theoretical wins. In practice, the fifty-move rule comes into play because more than fifty moves are often required to either checkmate or reduce the endgame to a simpler case: two bishops and a knight versus a rook (requires up to 68 moves); and two rooks and a minor piece versus a queen (requires up to 82 moves for the bishop, 101 moves for the knight).
A three-point material advantage can also result in a forced win, in some cases. For instance, some of the cases of a queen versus two minor piece are such positions (as mentioned above). In addition, the four minor pieces win against a queen. Two bishops win against a knight, but it takes up to 66 moves if a bishop is initially trapped in a corner .
There are some long general theoretical wins with only a two- or three-point material advantage but the fifty-move rule usually comes into play because of the number of moves required: two bishops versus a knight (66 moves); a queen and bishop versus two rooks (two-point material advantage, can require 84 moves); a rook and bishop versus a bishop on the "opposite" color and a knight (a two-point material advantage, requires up to 98 moves); and a rook and bishop versus two knights (two-point material advantage, but it requires up to 222 moves) .
Finally, there are some other unusual exceptions to Fine's rule involving underpromotions. Some of these are (1) a queen wins against three bishops of the same color (no difference in material points), up to 51 moves are required; (2) a rook and knight win against two bishops on the same color (two point difference), up to 140 moves are needed; and (3) three bishops (two on the same color) win against a rook (four point difference), requiring up to 69 moves, and (4) four knights win against a queen (85 moves). This was proved by computer in 2005 and was the first ending with seven pieces that was completely solved. (See endgame tablebase.)
General remarks on these endings.
Many of these endings are listed as a win in a certain number of moves. That assumes perfect play by both sides, which is rarely achieved if the number of moves is large. Also, finding the right moves may be exceedingly difficult for one or both sides. When a forced win is more than fifty moves long, some positions can be won within the fifty move limit (for a draw claim) and others cannot. Also, generally all of the combinations of pieces that are usually a theoretical draw have some non-trivial positions that are a win for one side. Similarly, combinations that are generally a win for one side often have non-trivial positions which result in draws.
Tables.
This a table listing several pawnless endings, the number of moves in the longest win, and the winning percentage for the first player. The winning percentage can be misleading – it is the percentage of wins out of all possible positions, even if a piece can immediately be captured or won by a skewer, pin, or fork. The largest number of moves to a win is the number of moves until either checkmate or transformation to a simpler position due to winning a piece. Also, the fifty-move rule is not taken into account .
This table shows six-piece endgames .
This table shows seven-piece endgames (Lomonosov tablebases).


St. George Defence

The St. George Defence (also known as the Baker's Defence, Birmingham Defence, or Basman Counterattack) is an unorthodox chess opening for Black. The opening begins with the moves:
The St. George Defence is given "ECO" code B00 as a King's Pawn Opening.
History.
The first known chess game involving the St. George was a simultaneous game between an English amateur, J. Baker, and the first official World Chess Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, on 11 December 1868. The game was won by Baker. The advocates of the opening are generally players willing to sacrifice the centre in order to attack from the flank, and to avoid theory. Michael Basman has been known to play the St. George, as did Tony Miles.
In perhaps its most famous appearance, Miles defeated reigning World Champion Anatoly Karpov in the 1980 European Team Chess Championship in Skara, Sweden. The opening also acquired the name of "Birmingham Defence" at this time, after Miles' hometown.
Boris Spassky also played the St. George Defence, albeit by transposition, in the 22nd game of his 1966 world championship match against World Champion Tigran Petrosian. That game began 1.d4 b5 (the Polish Defence) 2.e4 Bb7 3.f3 a6 (transposing to the St. George). This was an inauspicious outing for the defence, however: Petrosian won, giving him the 12 points needed to retain his title.
Theory.
The major lines in the opening start with 1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 and then branch. The main line continues 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.Bd3 e6 5.0-0 Nf6. Another important line is the Three Pawns Attack, sometimes called the St. George Gambit, which continues 3.c4 e6!? 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7. (Black can also play 3...Bb7 and offer the b-pawn for the more valuable White e-pawn.) The St. George is also sometimes used to prevent a White bishop from occupying b5 before continuing as in French Defence.
Much of the theoretical work on the defence was done by the English IM Michael Basman.
Notable games.
Anatoly Karpov vs. Tony Miles, European Team Chess Championship, Skara 1980: 1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Qe2 e6 6.a4 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Nbd2 b4 9.e5 Nd5 10.Ne4 Be7 11.0-0 Nc6 12.Bd2 Qc7 13.c4 bxc3 14.Nxc3 Nxc3 15.Bxc3 Nb4 16.Bxb4 Bxb4 17.Rac1 Qb6 18.Be4 0-0!? 19.Ng5 (19.Bxh7+!? is a dangerous sacrifice) h6 20.Bh7+ Kh8 21.Bb1 Be7 22.Ne4 Rac8 23.Qd3 Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Qxb2 25.Re1 Qxe5 26.Qxd7 Bb4 27.Re3 Qd5 28.Qxd5 Bxd5 29.Nc3 Rc8 30.Ne2 g5 31.h4 Kg7 32.hxg5 hxg5 33.Bd3 a5 34.Rg3 Kf6 35.Rg4 Bd6 36.Kf1 Be5 37.Ke1 Rh8 38.f4 gxf4 39.Nxf4 Bc6 40.Ne2 Rh1+ 41.Kd2 Rh2 42.g3 Bf3 43.Rg8 Rg2 44.Ke1 Bxe2 45.Bxe2 Rxg3 46.Ra8 Bc7
References.
Bibliography


Albin Countergambit

The Albin Countergambit is a chess opening that begins with the moves:
and the usual continuation is:
The opening is an uncommon defense to the Queen's Gambit. In exchange for the gambit pawn, Black has a central wedge at d4 and gets some chances for an attack. Often White will try to return the pawn at an opportune moment to gain a positional advantage.
In the "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings" the Albin Countergambit is assigned codes D08 and D09.
History.
Although this opening was originally played by Cavallotti against Salvioli at the Milan tournament of 1881, it takes its name from Adolf Albin, who played it against Emanuel Lasker in New York 1893. Though it is not played frequently at the master level, Russian grandmaster Alexander Morozevich has recently made some successful use of it.
Main line.
The main line continues 4. Nf3 Nc6 (4...c5 allows 5.e3 because Black no longer has the bishop check) and now White's primary options are 5.a3, 5.Nbd2, and 5.g3. Perhaps White's surest try for an advantage is to their king bishop with 5.g3 followed by Bg2 and Nbd2. Black will often castle . A typical continuation is 5.g3 Be6 6.Nbd2 Qd7 7.Bg2 0-0-0 8.0-0 Bh3.
Variations.
Lasker Trap.
The black pawn at d4 is stronger than it may appear. After 3. the careless move 4.e3 can lead to the Lasker Trap. After 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4 is a blunder—Black plays 6...exf2+ 7.Ke2 fxg1=N+ and Black's position is superior. The Lasker Trap is notable because it is rare to see an underpromotion in practical play.
Spassky Variation.
In the Spassky Variation White plays 4. e4 to take advantage of the fact that an "en passant" capture must be made immediately after the enemy pawn advances. So now after 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 the capture ...dxe3 is no longer available to Black.
References.
Bibliography


Hedgehog (chess)

The Hedgehog is a pawn formation in chess adopted usually by Black that can arise from several openings. Black exchanges their pawn on c5 for White's pawn on d4, and then places pawns on the squares a6, b6, d6, and e6. These pawns form a row of "spines" behind which Black their forces. Typically, the bishops are placed on b7 and e7, knights on d7 and f6, queen on c7, and rooks on c8 and e8 (or c8 and d8). Although Black's position is cramped, it has great latent energy, which may be released if Black is able to play ...b5 or ...d5 at some point. These pawn breaks are particularly effective because White usually places their own pawns on c4 and e4 (the Maróczy Bind).
Black manoeuvring.
Once the basic Hedgehog structure is in place, and depending on how White responds, Black has various ways of reorganizing their pieces. The knight on d7 often hops to c5, where it attacks a white pawn on e4; or to e5, where it attacks a pawn on c4. The knight on f6 can go to e8 (when Black placed their rook on d8) to defend the d6 pawn, or to d7 or even to h5, if unoccupied. The black queen can be moved to b8 (unmasking the rook on c8 and perhaps supporting ...b5) or a8 (eyeing d5). A rook placed on d8 serves to defend the d6-pawn and support its push to d5. Sometimes Black plays ...Bf8, ...g6, and ...Bg7 (or more simply ...Bf6 if f6 is vacant) to exert some influence over d4. Or the same bishop can be brought to c7 (via d8) to target White's (in conjunction with a queen on b8). There are also situations where Black can create a kingside attack, by playing ...Kh8, ...Rg8, and ...g5, often followed by doubling rooks on the g-file and pushing the g-pawn to g4.
Traditional chess strategy would have frowned upon Black's setup, since their pieces have little room in which to manoeuvre. In the early 1970s, hedgehog' was a generic term for any setup that was cramped, defensive and difficult to attack", but today refers specifically to this formation. The Hedgehog first became extensively analysed in the 1970s, when players began to appreciate the rich variety of strategic ideas that arose from it. While Black's position is cramped, it is also relatively free of weaknesses. There is no obvious way for White to attack Black's pawn structure, but as outlined above, Black has several methods at their disposal for creating . Thus the Hedgehog has retained its popularity as a system of development in modern praxis.
Early history.
The ideas behind the Hedgehog were originally developed in the English Opening. The Hedgehog Defence, in particular, refers to a variation in the Symmetrical English (1.c4 c5) where Black adopts this setup: 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.Nc3 e6 6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6. Other openings where Black often uses the setup include the Queen's Indian Defence, and the Taimanov and Kan Variations of the Sicilian Defence.
It is also possible for White to adopt a Hedgehog setup, but this happens more rarely. This did occur, however, in Fischer–Andersson, Siegen 1970, one of the first games to feature this method of development. Fischer's crushing victory in this game, in which the Kh1/Rg1/g4 method of attack was vividly demonstrated, so impressed Andersson that he later became one of the foremost Hedgehog exponents himself, for example Karpov–Andersson, Milan 1975.


Saragossa Opening

The Saragossa Opening is a chess opening defined by the opening move:
Since White usually plays more aggressively in the opening, the Saragossa is considered an irregular opening, classified as A00 by the "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings".
History.
This opening became popular in the Saragossa chess club (Zaragoza, Spain) in 1919. The next year club member José Juncosa analyzed the opening in "Revista del Club Argentino". In 1922 a theme tournament requiring the players to open with 1.c3 was arranged in Mannheim with three participants, Siegbert Tarrasch, Paul Leonhardt and Jacques Mieses, which Tarrasch won.
Basics.
The opening of 1.c3 seems at first to be an unambitious move. It opens a diagonal for the queen, but it makes only a timid claim to the center. It prepares to play d4, but White could simply have played that move immediately. Also, the pawn on c3 has the apparent disadvantage of taking the c3-square away from the knight.
It is not a terrible move, however, because it is likely to transpose into many solid systems, including a reversed Caro-Kann Defence or Slav Defense (but with an extra tempo for White); the Exchange Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined, after 1.c3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.cxd4 d5; to a solid but passive type of Queen's Pawn Game after 1.c3 Nf6 2.d4 or 1.c3 d5 2.d4; or to a reversed Scandinavian Defense after 1.c3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4!? Nc6 4.Qa4; as well as the Ponziani and Center Game openings, to name just a few.
Black has a number of responses, the most common (and effective) being 1...d5, 1...e5, and 1...Nf6. After 1...d5, White can essay the Plano Gambit, 2.e4?!, in effect an unusual response to the Scandinavian Defense. After 2...dxe4, 3.Qa4+ recovers the pawn, but Black gets quick development with 3...Nc6 4.Qxe4 Nf6 5.Qc2 e5. Also reasonable is 1...f5, when 2.d4 transposes into a Dutch Defense where White has played the passive move c3.
The reply 1...c5 is also playable, but gives White more opportunity than other moves to transpose into standard openings where he may have a small advantage. The move 1...c5 2.e4 transposes into the Alapin Variation of the Sicilian Defence. The sequence 1...c5 2.d4 is also possible, when 2...cxd4 (2...e6 3.e4 d5, transposing into a French Defence after 4.e5 or 4.exd5, is also possible) 3.cxd4 d5 transposes into a regular Exchange Variation of the Slav Defense (usually reached by 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5), which gives White a slight advantage.
The move 1...Nc6 is also possible, as it transposes into the 1.Nc3 system (with colors reversed), where Black embarks on a rather dubious plan with c6 and d5. After 2.d4 d5, Black seems to be holding the admittedly unusual position without particular difficulties.
References.
Bibliography