Chess terms grown-up players use

I was wondering if anybody clearly defined what some of these "conversational" chess terms mean...you know, the kind really strong or really fake players use when analysing loudly around a skittles table.

Would a grown-up please help clarify any/all of the following:

- The "Natural" Move

So who sets the standard for what natural-looking is?

Perhaps if 30 GMs were locked in a room and given 1 second to evaluate a specific position and pick a move, would the most commonly selected one be the "natural" move for the position?

- "Every Russian Schoolboy knows ..."

I've heard this one way too often when describing a lot of positions. So was there really a chess book out there that russian schoolboys carry with them in their satchel while enduring the hardships of the Botvinnik School?  ?If so => "Who do I have to mug/Where do I have to illegally torrent out" to get one of these books ? :)

- Unclear

When does a position become unclear? Are we talking 10-15 moves deep unclear? or maybe unclear until Fritz/Rybka has a go at the position?

- Good Move

One of my pet peeves ... so how do you judge whether a move is good?

What if :

a) My opponent hung a rook and I took it. Is that a good move? Surely not...

b) My opponent created a hole and I dropped my Knight on it ... Is that it? are we there yet?

c) I played a 10-ply deep combination and sac'ed all of my pieces to deliver checkmate with a pawn. Hmmm?

d) If I had my engine analyze the 5 best lines (say) and noticed the evalution was

1. +-  (2.34)   --------------------------> Does this make the cut for "good move"?
2. +/= 0.67
3. =   0.20
4. =   0.10
5. =   0.08

So here's hoping all you "chosen few" out there will help a mere mortal explain these terms better.

Thanks!

S.

Natural move: When you make logical moves like developing a knight at the beginning of a game instead of moving a nother piece twice and by that 5-10 moves later end up in a bad position because of it. A move that is natural but still gets you in trouble and is very hard to spot for a mortal, ie non computer.

Unclear: Computer eval of position approx equal in a position where anything can happen because there are several good/ok moves for each side to make. Like at the start of the game when only 2 pieces have moved is unclear. Same goes for other positions where more pieces have moved. It's unclear because no one has any clear advantages.

Good move is a good move, what is there not to get? Good move in computer analysis atleast is mostly the use of a non trivial tactical move. Like clearance sacrifice or decoys.

This is atleast what I understand under these expressions.

I think you're looking at it a bit too seriously. A quick rundown:

Natural move - a natural move would be putting a rook on an open file, occupying d5 with a knight when the d6 pawn is backward, putting your bishop on a long, open diagonal. These are 'natural' moves, and they might either be good or bad.

Every Russian Schoolboy knows - Basically just chess terminology for a concept that is reasonably well known and a good player would have a grasp of. For example, 2 bishops in an open position, exchanging off pieces to leave yourself a good knight vs a bad bishop, that kind of thing.

Unclear - Just what it says, unclear. It is not clear who has the advantage, at this stage of the game it could go either way because the position is complex and there is no clear, one way to go about playing the position.

Good Move - obviously taking free material is a good move, but it's usually too obvious to be labelled as a good move. A good move might be described as a move that is strong but not necessarily so obvious. For example, as White you may play a4 because you foresee in a few moves you want to be able to put a knight on b5 securely.

Your +- 2.34 example - yes, that would be a good move if you started a combination that netted you a couple of pawns, of course.

I mean, there's no real prescription for what exactly a 'good move' is, you just have a feel for it. If you look at a move and analyse a bit, and you go "oh, that's strong because it prevents/threatens so and so", this is probably a good move.

Appreciate that answer. Always wanted to know what people really meant ... thanks for clearing the fog :)

I think the schoolboy phrase was coined by Kasparov in the first of his Predecessors books. At one point he's talking about the position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5, and says "Nowadays, every schoolboy knows that Nb5 should be played." The 19th century master did Nxc6.

It looks like a bit of hyperbole, or perhaps Russian schoolboys do all know opening theory. Since then people have been using it for more and more arcane points -- "As every Russian schoolboy knows, <fill in extremely complicated theoretical point>" :-)

Reminds me of a story of a Dutch long distance runner, who was in Kenya for training, in the region where all the famous marathon runners come from. At one point he says something like "You constantly feel, say if you're standing in line for an ATM, that of all the people there you probably have the slowest PR on the half marathon."

"Natural" is the word you can use to describe your blunders in a post-mortem.

Apparently, Bronstein made the "every Russian schoolboy knows" remark in connection with C.H.O'D. Alexander's decision to recapture with bishop rather than pawn on move 11 of his game against Botvinnik at Munich Olympiad 1958.

A fair amount of Russian chess literature has been translated into English or explained by Russian emigres.  If anyone seriously wanted to read up on Russian chess theory, they could take a look at works by Kasparov, Tal, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Kotov, Averbakh, Dvoretsky, Panov, Suetin, Lipnitsky, Estrin, etc.  The emigre authors would be people like Korchnoi, Dorfman, Yermolinsky, Alburt, Dzindzichashvili, etc.

Annotators often seem to use the word or symbol for unclear when they don't really want to take the time to figure out what is going on, or are worried that they might be wrong anyway.

I think that obvious moves are also "good" in some sense, but people often only remark on moves that are unexpected or take advantage of subtle features of the position that aren't so evident at first glance.

Yay, I finally have my own troll!

nice..