Why didn't the White queen take the Black rook here? I was seeing this match on chess.com.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "18"]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 h6
4. O-O d6
5. d3 Bg4
6. c3 a6
7. Nbd2 Nf6
8. Qb3 Qe7
9. Qxb7 Nd8
10. Qb3 Be6
11. Qa4+ Bd7
12. Qc2 g6
13. Nb3 Bg7
14. d4

The White queen had a chance to take the Black rook, but the White queen came back, why?

I think it's just a blunder from White; the white queen is not at risk of being trapped, nor is it needed for defense. Qxa8 would have definitely been the best move.

Note that the player's ratings aren't that high (no idea how they compare to FIDE ratings though).


Why does the engine suggest Be7 after Qe4+? [FEN "r3kb2/pp3pp1/8/2P5/1qN3p1/3Qp2r/P4P1P/5RK1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Qe4+ Be7

In this position why is Be7 the best move for black after Qe4+, given that black will instantly lose its queen afterwards (Knight d6)? For example Kd8 would not immediately lose the queen (still losing the game though).

While Be7 loses the queen in three moves, Kd8 will lose the queen in the end as well. This kind of position contains a lot of forcing moves (checks, mating threats) and can be analyzed quite deeply by engines like Stockfish. They will evaluate the position at the end of their search tree, which is often >15 moves deep. For the engine, it doesn't matter if you lose your queen in one move or in 15 (though losing the queen sooner increases the chance of losing more material) - it's the end result that counts.


Traxler Counter Attack e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kf1 Qe7

1) Chess.com computer at Level 10 plays 5. Nxf7. Theory recommends 5. Bxf7. Which line to follow in my game in tournaments? Please advice as I am confused now.

2) After analyzing the game with computer of chess.com it suggests 4. ... Bc5 as Blunder. The best move suggested by it is 4. ...  d5. Again confused as I know that this theory is Traxler Counter Attack and another is going for main line of Two Knights Defense. Kindly give your valuable suggestion. I played this game just now with play computer option of chess.com without login but as a guest. Waiting for your valuable answers. Thanks in advance

Bxf7+ is definitely the way to go in practice in my opinion. I have done quite a lot of analysis with stockfish on Nxf7 and am not at all sure it is better for white despite the computer evaluation early on.

Bxf7+ almost certainly is a lot better for white and is a lot simpler to learn which is important for a repertoire choice against an unusual line (most people won't have the guts to play Traxler!)


King+Knight vs King+Pawn checkmate How is it possible for a King and Knight to checkmate a King and Pawn? I've composed a working position, but I am not sure if this can occur through a series of moves.

In the general case K+N vs K+P is of course a draw - or a win for the pawn if it can promote unhindered.
There is however a famous construction were the knight can force a mate against a king stuck in front of its own well-advanced rook pawn:
[fen "8/3N4/8/8/8/p7/k7/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nc5 Ka1 2.Kc2 Ka2 3.Nd3 Ka1 4.Nc1 a2 5.Nb3#

There are many variations on that theme, the first such position being published by in the Bonus Socius before 1300.


Looking for a stable pawn structure after 1. Nf3 Question here regarding black responses to Nf3 - at my level 60% of players open with e4, 30% open with d4. The other 10% of the time, it's Nf3.

My issue with Nf3 is that it has the possibility to transpose into many different openings, most of which I am not prepared for. What is the response that allows white the fewest transpositional possibilities?

I would suggest something like a Sicilian Dragon / Sniper attack with moves like c5, g6, Bg7 etc. White will find it very difficult to stop you playing like this after opening with Nf3 and you don't have to worry about learning a boatload of white transpositional possibilities.


Is this KBPP vs. KR position a draw or a win with perfect play? I played a game on Lichess today as white, and me and my opponent reached this interesting endgame position.

[Title "Rewan Demontay-NN, Lichess, 5/14/19"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/8/3r1kP1/5B2/4PK2/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

With Black to play, is this KBPP vs. KR position a draw or a win, with perfect play by both sides?

It looks like a draw to me. White can make no progress here. Black cannot exchange his rook for the bishop and a pawn at any point, or else the other white pawn will advance ahead and promote. Therefore, each side will effectively end up making infinite waiting moves. That is what happened in our game, and it was drawn by the 50 move rule.

Although I could use a computer, I wish to know how I can tell it is a draw without one.

IF White wanted to have any winning chances, the pawns should either be connected or, at least, staying in dark squares for quite some time. In the presented position, even if the central pawn pushes, Black will be able to blockade in the second rank


Theoretically, is the analysis of the moves more complex if the objective is to be the first to be checkmated? I have seen variations of other board games or strategy games where the aim is to actually 'lose' the game by forcing your opponents to make moves. Applying this concept to the rules of chess, would it require a completely different set of skills and thinking to let your opponent checkmate you first? Is the variation of moves and the analysis of the moves different if the winning objective or condition is reversed?

Although selfmate is a popular type of chess problems, the concept you have described simply would not work in a chess game played from the starting position; your opponent would need to cooperate with you if you want to get yourself mated. This means that any game played by chess players of any skill level would almost certainly end in a draw under your rules, which unfortunately makes your question moot.


Lichess vs chess.com blitz ratings On chess.com I have a blitz rating that hovers around 1000, but on lichess my tournament blitz rating is around 1500 and I can go toe-to-toe with 1600 players. Are they using the same rating systems? Which rating system coheres more to standard chess ELO?

The average blitz rating on chess.com is 1090
The average blitz rating on lichess is around 1600
So that looks just about right. chess.com is closer to Fide.


How to use engines to improve my game (weak amateur, not a top player) Once, I played a game against an amateur player, who played really well. When I asked him where he'd learnt to play that well, he merely said that he had used Stockfish to reach that level and had had no formal coaching.
So I got Stockfish and Komodo, the best chess engines, I believe, along with Arena as a GUI. While I clearly see that the engines are really, really good at chess(they beat me easily), in what ways can I use them to improve my game?
To make my question concrete: what are the ways in which a weak amateur chess player can use chess engines to improve his/her game? So, not an expert and not a top player.
My thoughts
I'm not sure of what the answer could be, but maybe it could include something like using engines to develop a sound knowledge of openings? That needn't be the answer, though, it's only my speculation.

It's super hard to get better using chess engine. Those are only tools to help you verify if your calculation is okay. So let's say:

You can check if you saw all the variations that may happen after your sacrifice
You can verify if you calculated that pawn endgame correctly
You can also analyze your games

BUT... (!)

Do not use engines if you want to improve. I swear. The best way, in my opinion (and not only mine) is to analyze your game YOURSELF.

Then, you need to draw conclusions. Then you'll know what you need to work on the most.

Endgames
Openings
Calculation

Some great player (don't recall who) said you can learn the most out of endgames. But it really depends how advanced you are, i.e. if you are a beginner - don't spend your time on openings too much. We would need to know more information to help you better.


Where can I find free training tools like detailed annotated chess openings, middle games and endgames in the PGN format? I have decided to study chess after playing it leisurely for a while. I looked at some online chess courses like the ones offered by Igor Smirnov at the Remote Chess Academy, but these options seem to be quite expensive ($700+). I looked at one of these courses that my friend purchased and it contained some openings that were annotated and showed variations of an opening:

I was wondering whether there are freely available resources like the one in the picture below that have detailed annotations of openings, middle games, endgames, tactics, etc. If so, where would I be able to download them?

Alternatively, is there is any free/inexpensive software that acts as a trainer of some sort where one can practice openings, middle game strategy, end games, tactics, etc?

You can have a look a chess.com forums where people share a lot of PGN games.
pgnmentor.com offers PGN sorted with openings, middle game themes and endgame themes. If you are looking for an all in one platform, chessbase is the best so far, a bit expensive but will serve you well.


Are there any online public chess databases I can upload my own games to? Does there exist any online public chess database that I can upload my own games to (so that others can look at them)?  I know that sites where you can play online will store games (that you played on that site) so they can be viewed, but I'm trying to find somewhere to store my OTB games that were not played online.

I was thinking that chess-db.com might be a possibility, it seems at first glance like that's what it's supposed to be for - but I note that it is aware of me (it knows my USCF ID and everything), but it has my rating wrong (what they have is years out of date) and it also has a list of games supposedly played by me that I never played.  So I am not sure if that site is actually legitimate.

I would suggest going to lichess.org and creating one or more studies for this. You can choose to make these public or private or only visible to those you give the link to. Within a study, you can upload the PGN of your games as separate chapters. You will need an account to make studies, but creating an account and using any of the study features is entirely free.

For each game, you can fill in as much or as little information about the players/situation as you want. Lichess studies also have advanced commentary features, so that you can describe your thoughts as well as annotate which moves you thought were interesting, blunders, etc. Personally, I find it useful to add variations I've found that I feel are worth further consideration - whether I found the variation during or after the game.

As an example, here is one study I made to contain the most interesting Tabletop Simulator games I've played, as well as my annotations of the games.


Debugging my chess engine through the Arena GUI I coded (with visual studio 2019 on windows 10) an ultra naive chess engine that complies with UCI engine interface rules. Before starting to develop it in more fancy ways, I want to make sure that I can debug my code via using my engine from a chess GUI. Hence I decided to debug it with Arena.

I tried the following two standard debugging methods :

In the properties of the project used to compile my engine I put (the path to) arena.exe in the command to execute when the debug is launched, and then, when debug is triggered and arena opened, I load in Arena a new engine corresponding to my engine, I put breakpoints in my code but each has a "no symbols loaded".
I launch Arena, I load a new engine in it, the engine being the compiled debug version of my engine, and then in visual studio I make an "attach to process" and add Arena as process to attach to. Then the breakpoints in my code in visual studio have also "no symbols loaded".

Am I missing something or not?

I am not sure if CSE is the most suitable place to post this question but I wanted to give it a try before maybe posting on gamedev.stackexchange.com.

Precision 1. I have the same problem if I take StockFish's source code, compile it in a console project in Visual Studio 2019 and try to do as explained above.

Precision 2. I also finally posted on SE here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59687256/debugging-a-console-chessengine-exe-used-in-another-application-a-chess-gui

Did you set she compiler / linker flags correctly? (/DEBUG in the linker, /Od and /Zi in the compiler - which flags did you set?) Is the pdb-file located in the same directory as the executable? You can also manually load the pdb after breaking in your code and see, if symbols appear. If not, look at the flags.

To avoid the "attach to process", you can also put a

  __debugbreak();

in your code. This also avoids any mishaps with choosing the wrong process to attach to.
I would probably put the break somewhere where the "uci" command is handled.

But both methods to attach the debugger are valid and should normally work.


Can a chess engine tell you why a move is bad or good? Can any chess engine tell you why a move is bad or good? For example, say a chess engine says the score against my opponent is currently +2 in my favor. I then make a move and my score drops to say 1.4. Can any engine tell me what I did wrong such that my score dropped from 2 to 1.4 (assuming I didn't hang a piece or pawn etc.)

It seems to me that having chess programmers make their programs even stronger is now pointless and it would be much more beneficial to the average chess player if they could have their programs instruct us why a move is bad (or good), assuming they currently cannot do this.

Sort of (but not really) - and it's actually getting harder for engines to do this for you.  To understand why, you have to understand how the evaluation goes.  Engines typically can make snap evaluations on a given position, giving it a raw point value.  Then, whatever the position is, they play forward, trying to find the line forward that optimizes that score for both sides.

It's important to understand, that '2.0' or '1.4' score aren't the evaluation/score for the current position.  Instead, it's the evaluation N moves down the line, with each side playing the best move the engine found.  This is why the "Current evaluation score" jumps around while the computer is thinking.  It's not that the 'score' for a position changed - it's just that it found a different line moving forward that ended up in a different position (which had a different score.)

In the past, engines sucked.  Not just because of sub-optimal algorithms, but because of very slow hardware - if you think compounding interest is powerful, it's nothing compared to Moore's Law.  So computers back then were just looking a few moves into the future.  Which made it relatively easy for a human to follow the logic - your score went down because you're losing your knight the next turn.

But now?  If your score went from '2.0' to '-0.3', it's possible it's because, due to some unavoidable tactics over the next 7 moves, that you'll have to give up the exchange in order to avoid losing your queen or getting checkmated.  But it's hard to show the leap from "Here's the position now" and "Well, I evaluated 20 billion positions going forward, and trust me when I say that you sacrificing the rook for their bishop was the best you could hope for."


Is there any opening line which is downright catastrophic? I have played 1.a4, h4, f4 in an engine and it gave me the opening line's name. I mean, how could it be considered a line as it, at least IMO, don't do anything that defines a good opening. (fight for center, develop your pieces etc.)

If you mean "Is there any first move for white which is catastrophic?" then the answer is "No". There are first moves for white which look bad. Na3, Nh3 and f3 would be my candidates but they are not catastrophic.

Na3 could be followed up by moves like b3, c4, Nc2, Bb2, for example, to get a playable position. Perhaps not the best use of first move advantage but certainly not catastrophic.

The problem for black when white makes a "bad" first move is to try and steer the opening into one where the "bad" move is really a bad move in the context of that opening or at least irrelevant so that white's first move advantage has gone.

White's contrasting problem is to try and steer the opening towards one where the "bad" move becomes good. For instance, after 1.h4 if white can steer black into fianchettoing his king's bishop and castling kingside then 1.h4 could become a strong threatening move.

If by "opening line" you mean a sequence of moves then, yes, there are catastrophic lines and yes, they do often have names. The most famous is  probably Scholar's Mate:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Scholar's Mate"]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6?? 4. Qxf7#

The shortest possible mate and so the most catastrophic is Fool's Mate:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Fool's Mate"]

1. f3 e5 2. g4?? Qh4#


Statistically, what is the best opening? Statistically, what opening has white won with the most?

Such as, 1.e4 e5 2?

What is the move that white makes that has won the most games?

Here is a tongue-in-cheek answer. The 4 move checkmate (1. e4 e5 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5?? 4.Qxf7#) is an opening where White has won 100% of the time.

The reason why I post this answer is to highlight a few flaws in the question you asked:

Maybe if you find an opening with a high win ratio, you will build your reportaire around it? This is flawed logic as Black can sidestep your preparation, which may lead you into a bad line. Instead, play the openings that feel right for your playing style
What is an opening? Ultimately the opening are just the first few moves in the game. Crucially for a statistical question, you didn't say how many moves you are looking at. The first? The first 10? Assuming best play with Black? In most chess games, there are many moves other than those in the opening stage that determine the outcome of the game. I'd suggest you concentrate more on the middle and endgame than the opening


Antichess pawn promotion The rules of antichess specified in Wikipedia state that the rules of regular chess should be followed except

 Capturing is compulsory.
 When more than one capture is available, the player may choose.
 The king has no royal power and accordingly:
     it may be captured like any other piece;
     there is no check or checkmate;
     there is no castling;
     a pawn may promote also to king.
 Stalemate is a win for the stalemated player.

It doesn't specifically call out who would choose what piece a pawn gets promoted to. It makes sense to me that since the game is antichess, when you promote a pawn it is a bad thing and your opponent would get to choose what piece it should be. Is this the correct way of playing or do you get to promote your own pawns?

Your summary of the rules left out an important one, namely, how else can you win a game besides being stalemated. The answer is that the player who runs out of men wins. (I suppose you could consider having no men to move a kind of stalemate.) And "antichess" is a new name for the chess variant traditionally known as Losing Chess or Giveaway Chess.

The answer to your question is that, when a pawn reaches the 8th rank, the owner of the pawn decides what to promote it to. I have looked at several books on chess variants, and haven't found a clear statement on that point. Apparently, it never occurred to the writers that anyone would think that the opponent gets to choose the promotion rank.

The rules for Losing Chess at The Chess Variant Pages (surely a more authoritative source than Wikipedia) do not say anything about the opponent choosing the promotion rank of a promoted pawn. Some of the endgame studies in John Beasley's article involve pawn promotion, and it's clear that the owner of the pawn is doing the choosing. Here's one from Hans Klüver (Chess Amateur 1923):

[FEN "8/P6/8/k7/P7/8/8/8 - - - 0 0 "]

Losing Chess. White to play and "win".

The solution:

  1.a8N! Kxa4 2.Nb6 any 3.Na4 Kxa4

Of course if Black controlled the promotion he would choose a queen or rook.


For White, which variation of the King's Indian Defence tends to lead to the most solid, positional, slow, strategic, quiet and closed positions? I am a 1750 Elo player with a very positional, quiet and strategic style of play.

I would like to know which variation I should play when, as White, I face the King's Indian Defence: 1...Nf6 2...g6

The variation must meet these two conditions:

On average it must tend to lead to positions which are as much solid, positional, slow, closed, quiet and strategic as possible (I want nothing sharp and tactical).
I should be able to play it both by beginning with 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 and by beginning with 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4

Don't hesitate to suggest me more than one variation, so that if I don't like the first variation maybe I shall like the second one.

According to Joe Gallagher-Starting Out The King's Indian Defense and David Vigorito-Attacking Chess-The King's Indian Volume 2 the most solid line for White in King's Indian is the Fianchetto variation. I tend to agree with it.

Before explaining why, let me just show you the tabya so I can better explain my point of view :

[Title "KID, the Fianchetto variation"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d6 6.O-O Nc6

After briefly looking through the lines ( there is a vast amount of work to review ) I came to the same conclusion as the above writers based on the following :

Center remains fluid, so Black can not pursue standard ...f5 idea as in other lines;
Because of the first point, and the fact that fianchetto castling is very hard to crack, White king is ultra safe ;
White has more space;

It is not easy for Black to find counterplay, but he can reach equality if he knows how to play this line. Tactical shots are limited to the rook sacrifices along the b-file so Nf6 + Bg7 battery can profit from discovered attack, but otherwise things are positional and dynamic.

There are several sub-variations here, but I would recommend you to play Panno line, since Yugoslav attack is quite sharp and theoretical.

[Title "KID, the Fianchetto variation-Panno line"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d6 6.O-O Nc6 7.Nc3 a6 8.h3 Rb8 9.e4 b5

White has 2 options here, cxb5 and e5 but I advise you cxb5 as it is safer one. Play will become dynamic, but you have dodged a lot of theory and sharp tactical mayhem from Classical line or Saemish attack... For detailed coverage of this line get Vigorito's book. It is printed in 2011 and is very well written, in my opinion.

Do not forget that KID is a sharp opening and that you can not "sterilize it", you can only reduce the level of sharpness and that is it.


Is 1.e4 the best first move for White from a theoretical point of view? Assuming that the principles of classical chess in the opening are still valid (which thing I very much believe), may we say that "from a theoretical point of view" 1.e4 is the best first move for White? (Occupying the center, freeing two pieces). No other first move can do that.

According to some GMs, d4 is the best first move.
Alekhine, commenting on a Slav in his greatest games book, claims it gives White more chances of gaining an advantage.  After taking the c pawn, Alekhine further comments that White now obtains an appreciable advantage. (Quoted by Hans Berliner.)
Hans Berliner, in his book The System--A World Champion's Approach to Chess, claims, and Fischer agrees, that the advantage of the first move is the ability to attack the opponent's pawn center first.  Since both agree that the King's Gambit is dubious, that leaves the Queen's Gambit as the only sound opening.

Many GMs have said d4 is better:  although they claim it is due to needing a deeper understanding of chess.  Anna Zatonskih states it better that you can make some minor inaccuracies and still have a good game.  In e4 games, one mistake could cost you the game.


What are electronic chessboards used for? I once saw a GM on YouTube using an electronic chessboard, a board that could be plugged into a computer. I liked the idea. What is it used for? When should one consider buying it?

I assume you are referring to DGT-style electronic boards.
I think the main purpose of those boards is to broadcast chessgames - e. g. on a beamer in the playing venue or on the internet. It is also useful (if it doesn't fail) for blitz games or, more generally, in any game situation where none of the players write down their moves any more if you need to comprehend the course of the game as an arbiter.
I don't see lots of uses outside a tournament context. The GM you referred to may have used it to record what he did on the board. Some people feel better analyzing on a "real" board rather than using the chessbase broadcast or some screen-capture method.
The only reason I could see to buy one as a person that does not intend to do the things mentioned above would be if you were too lazy to write down what you play in practise games or if you want to practise blitz games (although even here I could think of much cheaper alternatives if I look at the prices they sell at).


How can I find my performance rating? I’ve noticed that in tournaments grandmasters are given a performance rating for how they played in that tournament. Can this be applied to individual games and how can I see mine when I play a game?

Under FIDE rules, the performance rating is calculated by taking the average of your opponent's ratings, and then adding a factor from a table based on performance.  Let's say you played 5 games, against people rated 1380, 1390, 1400, 1430, and 1900, and had 3 wins and 2 losses.  You scored 60%, or 0.6.  According to the table in section 1.49 of this document, in this case your performance rating would be adjusted upward by 72 points.  The average of your opponent's ratings was 1500, so your performance rating would be calculated as 1572.

The downside to this method is that the ratings averaging can be skewed by one opponent with a very high or low rating.  If you changed the 1900 opponent in the above example to a 2900 opponent and decreased the wins to 2, the performance rating would increase to 1628, even though you performed worse.  If you instead changed the 1900 opponent to a 1000 opponent and increased the wins to 4, the performance rating would go down to 1560, even though you performed better.

The USCF ratings estimator calculates performance rating by calculating how a player at a particular rating would be expected to do against the given opponents, and comparing it to the actual result.  In the example above, a player rated 1563 would be expected to score 3 based on those opponents, so that's the performance rating.

The downside to this method is that there's not just a simple formula you can figure out in a few seconds.  The upside is that it's less prone to being skewed by one very high or low rated opponent.


What would a playable chess variant with a complexity comparable to Go look like? What would a playable chess variant with a complexity comparable to Go look like?

Simply increasing the board size is a very direct way to increase the complexity of the game, but this comes at the cost of losing playability. No human would be interested in playing chess on a 100x100 board unless the rules were dramatically different.

Actually it is not really correct to say that "simply increasing the board size [...] comes at the cost of losing playability". The complexity of Go on a board of the same size as chess (i.e. 8×8) would be not high at all, in fact less than chess according to my intuition. But it is true that there is some reason why we humans have a vague feeling that increasing the size of the Go board is not what gives Go its intrinsic complexity, whereas increasing the size of a chess board (say duplicating the pieces and putting them on two sides of a 16×16 board) makes it feel less playable. Based on a mathematical view, it seems to me that the main reason is the difference in the nature of pieces. In chess, many pieces can move from one end of the board to the other. In Go on the other hand, each piece has a fixed location and has a semi-local effect, in the sense that it can exert an effect on another location on the board only if it is in some unbroken chain of pieces that reaches over there. Also, the objective function is a global and fine-grained one in Go (i.e. territory), but a very local and coarse-grained one in chess (i.e. checkmate or stalemate of opponent king). Together, these two factors make Go scalable to large boards without losing playability (except for taking longer), unlike chess.

As you noted, simply increasing the branching factor is not desirable, because otherwise all we would have to do is to increase the board size and number of pieces! To increase the complexity but retain human playability, in a fully scalable manner, one can try to make the objective global and fine-grained, or make the pieces have more localized effects than in ordinary chess, or both. Here are some ideas:

Fine-grained objective: Remove check/checkmate/stalemate/castling, allow the king to get captured, and add an extra kind of move, to ascend any of your pieces that is at the final rank. Passing is allowed whenever there is no valid move. The goal is simply to ascend more pieces than your opponent.
Semi-local effect: Restrict the movement of pieces; each piece requires half a unit of energy per king step from its original location (e.g. moving a knight always requires one unit), and capturing an opponent piece requires 1 extra unit of energy, and each player has 2 units of energy per turn, except that White has only 1 unit on the first turn. For instance, on your turn (except for the first turn) you can push two pawns one step each and move a king twice, or you can move a queen one step (0.5 units) and use a pawn to capture an opponent piece (1.5 units).

These two ideas can be used separately or together, and they can clearly be tweaked in innumerable ways to smoothen or sharpen the game play. For example:

Smoother (1): Break ties in number of ascended pieces by comparing how many moves were taken to ascend the last ascended piece. A tie is still possible if both players make the final ascension move at the same time.
Sharper (1): Narrow the focus by changing the goal to count only the number of ascended pawns, while other pieces cannot be ascended.
Smoother (2): Increase the (square) board size by a factor of k and the number of pieces by a factor of m and simultaneously increase the number of units of energy available per turn by a factor of k×m. It is obvious that this is just making the army and the board more continuous, and the game mechanics retain the same flavour as the original (2). But this will greatly multiply the branching factor (more than exponential in k×m). Setting (k,m) = (2,2) should make for a nice long strategy-heavy war on the board.
Sharper (2): Make the pieces have more varied distance limit per energy usage. Doing so will make the strategy sharper because the stronger pieces (like the queen in the original chess) can maneuver more easily to where they are needed, but usually are best used as supporting pieces except when they can capture and get away.


How do I learn to visualize algebraic notation? So, now based upon the recommendation from this question, How do I learn to understand the middlegame?, I bought how to Reassess Your Chess. It's pretty interesting, but I am struggling some with visualizing the analysis.

I am used to some analysis, as I went through the course on chesstactics.org. However, this is usually only 2-4 moves long and doesn't generally include other variations.

Just getting through the first chapter took me a couple of hours. After each move I had to stop, visualize, consider, read the next move, stop, visualize, consider. It's slow moving. I can do it, but I am not very good at it, and I forget what he is talking about by the time I get through the analysis.

Is there a good way to learn to be able to read this notation and "see" it without having to just pull out a board?

I think that improving your analysis and visualization skills is very important. I posted a question on this topic recently as well (How can one improve their over-the-board analysis skills?).

But your question is more specific and I think you need to NOT try and study the Reassess Your Chess book in your head. The material he covers is too complex to be followed mentally for a class player. Also, because your visualization skills are not well developed you are going to waste far too much time and energy on firming up the image of the board and not be able to dedicate enough of your mental CPU to actually digesting the ideas in the book.

Notice that I use the Chess Success book in my visualization training. McDonald's book has diagrams every 5 to 8 moves and his analysis is very direct with shallow trees. It's really a great tool for doing visualization training. And even though I am fully able to follow the moves in this book and accurately draw the images I still go over each game with his analysis using a board after I do my training so that I am certain I have understood everything he has said.

You need to separate the idea of study and training. When you are studying a book like Silman's or Pachman's you need a physical chess board and a computer board as well to get the full benefit. Those types of books are for study. Use something simpler for visualization training.

Here is some advice from USCF Life Master A.J. Goldsby on how to study a chess book (from his Training Program page).

  Many people think studying a chess book can be done by reading and
  occasionally looking at the diagrams. Nothing could be further from
  the truth!

  The only correct way to study a chess book requires  AT LEAST  one
  chess set.  And a good little analysis set on the side. Maybe a
  magnetic set to boot.

  Basically, to really get any real instruction from ANY chess book, you
  must set up the position and play through the example. (More than
  once.) NEVER (!)  (Even if you can play blindfold chess like me!!);
  think you can follow a series of moves in your head. Set up your board
  and  play through  every example  and every single variation!

  When I study, I often set up a chess board on my table. I have a
  little peg set off to one side, that I keep the current position on.
  And I also usually utilize one magnetic set. I play over every single
  move, line and variation. Often I will question a line, and spend a
  lot of time analyzing lines the author may not have even looked at.
  (As a Master, I have an obligation to try to find as many mistakes in
  analysis as I can. And on top of all this, if it is a very complicated
  game, I more often than not will have the position set up on at least
  one chess computer, analyzing the game and the variations.)

Even though we live in a very digital age I think it is important to use a real board as well as to keep another board with the current position so that you can quickly go back to the original position and consider it at the same time as you are looking at another position for analysis on your main board.


Why is it called the Max Lange attack? Why is it called the Max Lange attack and not simply the Lange attack? After all, we don't have openings called the Richard Reti opening or the Wilhelm Steinitz defense or the Frank Marshall attack. Is the Max Lange the only opening with a first and last name?

Well, they don't have an explicit protocol on whether to use the first name, the last name, or both the first and last name. Though admittedly, the Lange Attack sounds more right than the Max Lange attack.

There is a completely different story for how an opening gets its name. There are a couple openings that are named after people that didn't even play the opening or come up with the opening itself. Furthermore, there are openings named after animals or whatever; the Sicilian dragon, the Halloween gambit, the English opening, the French defense, the Hedgehog, the King's gambit, etc.

It might be based on the individual. They try to come up with a formal name of a variation based on the person's name, but to some people, it is more formal to use only the last name or the other way around (Grandmaster Tarjan instead of Grandmaster James or Grandmaster James Tarjan). On top of that, if you are lesser known or not famous, then it is considered more formal to use both the first and last name.

You have the Ruy Lopez, but not many other openings that use the first name. It is likely a result of the guy's preference. Again, an individual story for every opening, and it is cultural and normal to use only the last name, but there is ought to be a line that uses the first and last name too.


Programs to help beginners to practice Chess I'm a beginner in chess and I want to get better at this game. I was wondering if there are some programs that help you to practice your game. For example: practicing the openings, that contains checkmate puzzles, etc.

Chess Tempo has a great section on openings used by real players as well as statistics regarding the openings(player win %, draw %, opponent win %, etc.) and also an interactive board which lets you step through each move of the opening.


How should I continue? I have reached 2000 rating in rapid at lichess. I am a student, so I have to keep up with my schoolwork. I get around 1/2 to 1 hour on chess on each weekdays and 2hrs on weekends. My question is, if I want to get better, do I have enough time to get a higher rating or it's unlikely for me to improve?

Thank you in advance.

With the time you say you have to spend on chess, of course it's possible to improve. You should remember that chess should never come first though, and it's just a game you enjoy. If you're not aiming to be a professional, don't spend hours on end every day studying it.

Here's a list of chess literature I think would benefit you, at your skill level:

Grandmaster Preparation series by Jacob Aagard. If you can work through all the books in it (I believe there are 5) you'll definitely improve.
My Great Predecessor series by Garry Kasparov. He annotates games of all the world champions (as well as many other strong players), and it's incredibly instructive. I also learned a huge amount of chess history from the series.

Other than that, it's good to continue playing online and doing tactics training. Even if you did only 1/2 hours per day of reading/playing/tactics, you'll start to see improvement. Also, since school should come first, I'd recommend not exceeding 1/2 hours per day, unless you're absolutely set on becoming a GM / professional (which I don't recommend).


Can the pawn take the rook in this position? I have a question regarding the way that pawns are allowed to attack. Sorry I’m a beginner, but me and my friend are playing and I don’t want to make this move if I’m not allowed to. I have a picture of how it is. I’m clear he’s white, am I allowed to attack his Rook?

Pawns are a pretty complex piece. They can make the following types of moves:

Move one square forward, if that square is not occupied by any other piece.
Move two square forward on their first move, if neither of those squares is occupied by any other piece
Capture a piece diagonally in front of it
Capture an enemy pawn "en passant".
When they get to the 8th rank, they can "promote" to a Queen, Rook, Knight or Bishop

So, in the position you're showing, your pawn can capture either the enemy rook or the knight, but not the pawn right in front of it.


How high is the level of professional blitz tournaments? A GM has an elo of at least 2500, and Magnus Carlsen has an elo of almost 2900, so I think you can safely say that most games between grandmasters at a level of 2400-3000 elo. This is obviously very vague, so I think you can best describe it as: Most of the games among GM's are at a level similar to 2 chess computers, with an elo rating of 2500-3000, playing against eachother.

If you take this description into consideration, how high would the level of games be at a blitz and at a bullet tournament for grandmasters? Would they be significantly lower (like for example 2000-2400), or would a good grandmaster like Magnus Carlsen still play at a level around 2700-2800?

There is insufficient data to answer objectively. However, there are a few things that can be said with confidence:

a player's bullet rating should always be less than or equal to his standard rating, because more time allows for deeper middlegame calculations
you can't accurately predict a player's bullet rating by his standard rating and vice-versa
some chess clubs have formulas for matches with time handicap where the stronger player gets less time depending on the rating difference between his and the weaker player, but in most cases the stronger player is a strong bullet player too and wins anyway
grandmasters keep their knowledge of openings and endgames in bullet time controls
certain flawed strategies work better in bullet chess
there are many grandmasters out there who are critics of fast chess
there are many grandmasters out there who have a style incompatible with short time controls

To get the data to answer your question, you would probably need to examine a lot of games between players of similar strength where one plays standard and the other one plays bullet and see from the results if you can consistently find the rating gap, and there aren't many volunteers for that.


What does "White is down a rook for a pawn" mean? I am not a native English speaker and I'm learning to play online chess.
I often find a sentence with this pattern.

White is down a rook for a pawn.

What does it mean? Could you elaborate on this sentence and make it much more understandable for me?

It means that white is down a rook, and up a pawn compared to black. So black has one more rook than white, and white has one more pawn than black


Capablanca vs Lasker - 1921 WCC http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241495

[White "Capablanca"]
[Black "Lasker"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/pb1n1ppp/Bp3q2/2p5/3P4/Q3PN2/PP3PPP/2R1K2R b K - 1 16"]

This is the 5ht Match game for the 1921 World Championship.

Lasker played 16...Bxf3 giving up the exchange.

Capablanca wrote:

  Dr. Lasker thought for over half an hour before deciding on this continuation. It is not only the best, but it shows at the same time the fine hand of the master. An ordinary player would never have thought of giving up the exchange in order to keep the initiative in this position, which was really the only reasonable way in which he could hope to draw the game.

Capablanca sounded like the position was already hopeless for Black ("hope to draw the game").

Q: Was 16...Bxf3 really Lasker's only reasonable move? Was Black's position really that bad? Couldn't he just take the bishop?

After 16... Bxa6 17. Qxa6 the problem is that black has no play. His white-squared bishop is really important in the upcoming attack on the white king (this is the only play black can try), so if he exchanged it on a6, white would have a very comfortable position (mainly thanks to the attack on the black's weak queenside) and nothing to fear.

EDIT: I completely omitted the fact that black's pawn down. Of course that is somewhat important, too... :-)

You may oppose me with the fact that white managed to exchange these bishops anyway (see move 18. gxf3 later in the game), but at least black destroyed white's perfect pawn structure.

My second point is that you can't always take Capablanca for granted. He wasn't the most modest player in the world :-) and the fact that he already had known the result of the game when he was commenting it is also important. He was indeed one of the greatest players, but sometimes I find his comments biased.


Why did I get only 5 points even though I won? I'm learning chess and I practice in the chess.com app. I don't understand how the winning points are calculated in every match.

Most chess sites use some variant of the Elo rating system

If you have a much higher rating than your opponent, the expectation is that you will win. So if you do win, then we haven't gained that much information, so the change in rating for both you and your opponent will be small. If your opponent wins, there will be a much larger change in rating as their win was less expected.

In your case, you have a rating of 775 and your opponent had a rating of 651. Since you have a much higher rating, winning didn't result in a large rating increase. If you had won against someone much higher rated than you, you would have experienced a much larger rating increase.

Mathematically, the rating change of each player is calculated as some empirical constant (K, 32 is often used) multiplied by the difference between the actual score and the expected score of that player against the other. The expected score is calculated from the difference of the two ratings.


PGN with arrows and circles I recently imported a PGN file that I got from chesscafe.com into lichess.org, and was surprised to see arrows and circles on the board! Looking at the file, I figured that these graphical elements are encoded in comments like this:

{[%csl Rd4,Gd5][%cal Rc8f5,Ra8d8,Re8c8] Black will try...}

where %csl gives the color and locations of the circles and %cal gives the color, beginning, and end of each arrow.

This doesn't seem to be documented in any PGN spec I've seen, so I suppose it is an extension. My questions are: who introduced this extension, which other software supports it, and is it documented anywhere?

The original PGN standard was created and published in 1994 by Stephen J Edwards. Here is a copy of his original standard: Portable Game Notation Specification and Implementation Guide.

Here it mentions the use of "%" as an escape string:

  There is a special escape mechanism for PGN data. This mechanism is
  triggered by a percent sign character ("%") appearing in the first
  column of a line; the data on the rest of the line is ignored by
  publicly available PGN scanning software. This escape convention is
  intended for the private use of software developers and researchers to
  embed non-PGN commands and data in PGN streams.

So, % in the original specification was for "the private use of software developers".

By 2001 this was already being used with Stephen Edwards dropping out from maintenance of the standard as remarked in this supplement for enhanced PGN:

  Steven Edwards, the author, appears unfortunately to be no longer
  involved with  PGN and there is now no defined means of arbitrating
  and implementing proposed  changes. There is also a huge body of
  software which implements the current  standard and would break in
  various ways if it were changed.

The document's main proposal is the further definition of how "%" should be used for embedding commands in PGN. This was targeted at time commands:

  3.2 A generalised format for embedding commands in comments.
  3.2.1 Position An embedded  command may occur at any position in a standard PGN comment, ie  between { } . For example: {Optional leading
  comments [%clk 1:05:23] optional trailing comments} where  [%clk
  1:05:23]  is the embedded command string.

  3.2.2 Structure The command string is structured as follows.

  A leading tag of [% A command name consisting of one or more
  alphanumeric characters. A space character. Either a single parameter
  or a comma delimited list of parameter values. A closing tag of ]

%csl and %cal are relatively new commands following the 2001 extension definition. I found references to their use on the ChessTempo website in their Comment Markup Annotations Chapter 18. PGN Viewer BETA Version

  The PGN viewer supports some special markup that allows arrows, square
  highlighting and mini-board insertion to be rendered on the board or
  move list.

  Arrows To have a move show arrows on the board when it is played, you
  can embed the following type of string into a comment on the move:
  [%cal Gc2c3,Rc3d4]

  the '[' and '] characters are the start and end of the arrow markup.
  The %cal indicates you are requesting a coloured arrow to be drawn.
  This example will draw two arrows a Green arrow from the c2 to c3
  squares, and a Red arrow from the c3 to d4 squares. The colour letters
  supported are R=Red, G=Green, Y=Yellow and B=Blue. Square Colouring To
  have a move highlight squares on the board when it is played, you can
  embed the following type of string into a comment on the move: [%csl
  Ra3,Ga4]

  The %csl indicates you are requesting a coloured square. This example
  will highlight two squares, a3 will be highlighted Red, and a4 will be
  highlighted Green. The colour letters supported are the same as used
  by the arrow annotations.

It looks like Chesscafe and lichess are following this beta version.


What is the Sicilian Cochrane Attack? In my club and local tournaments, opponents playing White often do an early Bc4 when I start a Sicilian. Usually I begin an Old Sicilian, eg 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6. My opponents may play Bc4 on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th move. A recent example is 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4. Usually my UCI or engines code this as B20, aka the Sicilian Cochrane Attack.

I searched for. detailed ECO listings, but I couldn’t find this under B20, or anywhere else. Web searches revealed that John Cochrane played 5. Bc4 in a Petrov variation and 4. Bc4 in a variation of the King's Gambit. I also couldn’t find anything about Bc4 in the Sicilian.

So, what is Sicilian Cochrane Attack?

John Cochrane is known for his dashing and creative playing style – liberally sacrificing pieces and always attacking. He played an early Bc4 against many openings including the Sicilian. Here are 3 examples against Howard Staunton, regarded as the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851. These games may explain the origin of the name Sicilian Cochrane Attack.

On the 2nd move

[Title "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, London m2 (1842)"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 exf4 5.O-O g5 6.d4 cxd4 7.c3 Bc5 8.cxd4 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qb6 10.Kh1 Bxd4 11.Nc3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Ne7 13.g3 d5 14.Bxd5 Bh3 15.Qh5 Bxf1 16.Qxf7+ Kd8 17.Ba3 Re8 18.Rd1 Be2 19.Bc6+ Bxd1 20.Qxe8+ 1-0

On the 3rd move

[Title "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, London m2 (1842)"]
[FEN ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Bc4 e5 4.f4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Qe2 Be7 7.O-O d6 8.Ng5 O-O 9.fxe5 dxe5 10.Qf3 h6 11.Nxf7 Rxf7 12.Qg3 Na5 13.Bxf7+ Kxf7 14.Qxe5 Nc4 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Qe2 Ne5 17.Bf4 d3 18.Qd2 Nxe4 19.Qe1 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Qd4 21.Nc3 Bf5 22.Bxe5 Nf2+ 23.Rxf2 Qxf2 24.Qxf2 Bxf2 25.cxd3 Bxd3 26.Rd1 Re8 27.Rxd3 Rxe5 1/2-1/2

On the 4th move

[Title "John Cochrane vs Howard Staunton, London m2 (1842)"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 h6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.h3 Qc7 9.hxg4 Qxc4 10.Nxe5 Qxd5 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bf4 O-O 13.Re1 Re8 14.c4 Qa5 15.Bd2 Qc7 16.Nd3 Rxe1+ 17.Bxe1 Qxc4 18.Qf3 Nc6 19.Bd2 Re8 20.g5 hxg5 21.Bxg5 Nb4 22.Bf4 Bxf4 23.Nxf4 Qc1+ 24.Kh2 Qxb2 0-1


How can I tell when to sacrifice? What are factors to consider when and when not to sacrifice? For example, imagine in a game where your opponent puts his bishop in direct sight of yours and you're not sure whether to take it or not? Is it safe to assume that one of the factors would be if your bishop is bad, then it might be a good idea to sacrifice it especially if the opponent has a good bishop?

Sacrifices have the following goals:

exposing the king: for example after your opponent castled, sacrificing the bishop to take the pawn diagonally to the king.
cut the escape of the king: this one is hard to explain, but basically after the sacrifice, if the opponent recaptures, the king can no longer occupy this square. Note that this can also happen even if there was an enemy piece originally, and you sacrificed by capturing it, but under the scenario that the new piece there have different mobility (e.g usually a knight) so after a check this new piece can't block it as opposed to the old piece.
gaining (or making the opponent lose) tempos: sometimes you find combinations that allows you to make important moves in time, or make the opponent lose time that he doesn't have. One example is if the two players are about to promote, but you sacrifice a piece so that the king blocks his own pawn or moves into a square that will be attacked by the promoted Queen (so when you promote you deliver a check).
gain control of the center (or any other particular area): this usually happens by sacrificing pawns from the flanks to be recaptured with enemy pawns from the center.
weaken the pawn structure: in very closed positions, these kind of sacrifices are almost always played. I can't give examples since I have never done one and usually don't understand them without computer analysis.
removing of the defender (deflecting): when a piece is the only one stopping the inevitably, it is usually worth taking it down no matter if you lose material.
luring a piece to unwanted squares: luring the king into forks, screws, etc. Another example is when a enemy bishop is preventing your pawns to advance, making him move out of that diagonal is deadly.

Some quick examples from one of my games:

[FEN ""]
1. e4  e5 2. Bc4  d6 3. Nf3  h6 4. O-O  Nf6 5. Nc3  Be7 6. d4  exd4 7. Qxd4  O-O 8. Be3  Nc6 9. Qd3  Bg4 10. Bxh6  gxh6 11. e5  Nxe5 12. Nxe5  dxe5 13. Qg6+  Kh8 14. Qxh6+  Kg8 15. Ne4  Be6 16. Rfe1  Bxc4 17. Nxf6+  Bxf6 18. Re3  Bg5 19. Rg3  f6 20. Qg6+  Kh8 21. Rh3+ 1-0

(#1) - 10.Bxh6 might not be the best move from that position, but it is not a bad one either, there is a very dangerous pin by the white bishop that together with the Queen can do amazing things. The main idea is to expose the enemy king.

(#3 and #6) - 11.e5 if the Knight moved, I would have achieved #6 over the bishop, however he didn't and decided to take the pawn, I didn't care which way he take the pawn, my #3 is achieved since all I wanted to free the Queen diagonal.

(#6) - 15.Ne4 I attempted to remove the defender of the bishop, with the plan of capturing the bishop with this line 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Qg6+

(#3) - 16.Rfe1 is also interesting, some people would say it is not a direct sacrifice though, but it is deliberately not protecting a piece. The main idea is to don't waste any time and activate the rook ASAP, while still having a chance to protect the other piece if he decides to go for NxN first.


Way to Logically Predict Approximate Chess Rating in Pop-Culture Games After seeing a video of an analysis on the chess game in A Game of Shadows between Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty, it made me wonder what their fictional ratings would be around. Other games like the Harry Potter chess puzzle and Einstein vs. Oppenheimer have also interested me, so what would I analyze to predict their ratings?

A few ideas I have had was to compare general rating trends, such as ratings when openings are mastered, when prominent use of strategy is used, the speed (I think it was a 5-min blitz in AGOS. Also looking at how far they calculate ahead, the rate they calculate, how they prepare for future threats, etc. I could also look into the history and check the openings used, and the general theories of the time and how much they diverge.

I also note how these games are fictional and may not be perfect or even set up with the era in mind, but it still seems like an interesting thing to do.

Also, if you have any other examples they are appreciated.

You will need statistics to estimate playing strength from a single game. It's of course possible, but you will be need to read journal articles.

  https://ailab.si/matej/doc/Using_Heuristic-Search_Based_Engines_for_Estimating_Human_Skill_at_Chess.pdf

"Using Heuristic-Search Based Engines for Estimating Human Skill at Chess" is considered as a baseline for estimating human skills from a single game. The idea is simple; assume a computer engine plays much stronger chess than humans; we should be to use the difference in evaluations for statistical inference.

I have personally implemented this paper for a chess company. The system is working.


Main Ideas behind Spanish Game, Cozio Defense I've been practicing the Spanish Game so I can have better tournament results with it,

Spanish Game

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6

Spanish Game, Cozio Defense

and I asked my friend to play the Cozio defense,

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

And the game that popped up was

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. Nc3 g6 ({Center control}) 5.d4 exd4 6.Nd5 Nxd5 7. exd5 Qe7+ 8. Kf1 Ne5 {Either way I can't castle, but since I have space I'll keep my queen} 9. Qxd4 Bg7 {Pin the knight to the rook, and I have decent control over white squares and development so I didn't feel threatened that bad and nabbed the pawn} 10. Bf4 f6 {Really good spot to develop and incorporate bishop with some unfinished ideas of attacks} 11. Re1 O-O

From here came a bunch of exchanges initiated by white that lead to a slow endgame and draw.

What are the main ideas and advantages of this opening?

P.S I don't think Nxd5 was the strongest move from analysing it in an engine and noticing it in the game I had tempo on the e5 square.

and my comments on the moves didn't show in the pgn (I'm not quite sure how to annotate those), but the basic idea was I am a positional player.

-I am playing White

Indeed, 6...Nxd5 is not the main line. I remember some games with 6...Bg7 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bf6 Kf8, which is supposed to be a normal line, playable for Black.

In your game continuation, 8.Be2, keeping castling rights, looks good, e.g. 8...Ne5 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Re1 0-0 11.Nxd4 d6 12.f4 with a better development.


Variation of Attack besides Center Control and Flanking Does in official games, had happened when a player didn't concentrate his attack to center or by flanking??

In this case, my possible attack is used side of board when opponent had castling the king to certain side.

I've this method in my childhood, but seldom to see it in chess engine except versus weak opponent.

Attacking isn't necessarily generalized to areas of the board. For example, I can attack your queen with my pawn, and this isn't a localized concept. Your question seems to imply that you're asking about attacks on the opposing king as you specify attacking the side of the board where your opponent has castled. There exist far more aggressive strategies than controlling the center or flanking out the opponent. Consider tactics, square and file control, general initiative, and development as alternatives.


Is the Four Pawns Attack against the Alekhine opening promising for White? The latest version of Stockfish 12 thinks that the Four Pawns Attack is the most promising variation for White against the Alekhine Defense 1.e4 Nf6, But it evaluated the position resulting from the Four Pawns Attack vs the Kings Indian as close to zero. Is it really all that practical?

There's a concept in chess called the equilibrium. Basically, things start off more or less equal, and both sides try to upset the equilibrium in their favour (i.e., gain an advantage). If one side makes a mistake and upsets the equilibrium in their opponent's favour, then their opponent is "justified" in playing in some way to capitalize on this mistake. This often involves being aggressive and attacking. If it weren't for the mistake, the equilibrium would be maintained, causing such an attack to not work and be rebuked (assuming optimal play).
I don't know whether the Four Pawns Attack is the best line against the Alekhine, but at the very least it's one of the best. The reason it works is that White is justified in playing this way. Black has spent multiple tempi moving his knight around the board, mainly for the sake of provoking White's pawns forward. This upsets the equilibrium a bit in White's favour, giving him a free hand to be aggressive without getting punished.
Meanwhile for the KID, the opening is generally quite well regarded. Black develops quickly and is basically being no-nonsense in his approach; this ensures the equilibrium more or less gets maintained. Therefore, White isn't as justified in attacking so early on. He can certainly try with the Four Pawns, and while he's still equal Black has the resources to defend effectively.
Also, while it's true that the KID doesn't control the centre much on the first few moves, it is of those openings where Black can get away with this. So this doesn't drastically upset the equilibrium in White's favour.


Would an ensemble of chess engines beat the best one? In many areas such as prediction and classification, ensemble methods tend to outperform individual methods. This made me wonder if it would make sense to pick a few of the top chess engines and work with them together to make a stronger one.
Let us assume the total amount of hardware is fixed to what people use for typical benchmarks, and that the time is fixed as well. In addition, we would not be changing the engines themselves to work together, but just making a wrapper around them that they are practically unaware of.
Hence my refined question:
How hard would it be to beat the number 1 engine in the world, by an ensemble of engines with fair resources?

The answer is "No".
If you have a defined fixed set of resources - CPUs, memory, cache, etc. - and you allow one engine to have full use of them then that engine is going to be able to analyse to a greater depth than if you take the same set of resources and split them in some way between several different engines. Inevitably the single engine analysing to a greater depth is going to perform better than several engines analysing to a much lesser depth.


How to deal with an opposing pawn storm? During some recent games I played, I have lost because my opponent advanced their pawns very far, attacking my pieces and forcing them to retreat. In some cases the pieces became trapped as well. Although these pawns may have been overextended, the few that I picked off because they were so far extended failed to compensate for my massive space disadvantage. The only times I won was when I could exploit holes made in my opponent's structure in this way, or ended up with passed pawns. Nevertheless, these were mostly the result of mistakes made later in the game, and I was under a lot of pressure throughout. How can I counter overextending pawn storms?

For example, I can end up in positions such as this one, in which my pieces have been forced backward by my opponent's pawn advances.

[fen "r1bqkb1r/2p2p2/2n2n1p/1p2p3/p2pP1p1/P2P2B1/BPPNNPPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 1"]

It's a mistake to view the pawns themselves as overextended targets that you might get to "pick off" as you say in your post. After all, Black's main objective with the pawn storm is probably to open up lines to attack your king, and so your snapping up such overextended pawns really only furthers Black's goal.

As already pointed out in comments in this thread, the strong engine Stockfish recommends the move 1.f4 in your diagram position. And when I opened your post and looked at the position, that was my almost immediate reaction as well. Why? Not because I'm even remotely as strong as Stockfish, of course; rather, I was just reflexively applying a classic positional maxim:

  An attack on the wing is best countered by play in the center.

That advice really goes double in this position, where the opponent's king is still in the center, and would need a few moves to get out of there. (Moreover, since Black has overextended on both wings, her king ultimately doesn't have anywhere all that safe to go.) In particular, 1.f4 carries a direct threat of capturing on e5, and if the knight on f6 gets forced to move, White is ready to capture on f7 with dire consequences for Black in the form of a vulnerable king open to attack in the middle of the board. Black's best response is probably nipping any ideas of fxe5 in the bud with the en passant capture 1...gxf3.

You might object that we've given Black what I claim she wanted out of her pawn storm, providing a half-open g-file to attack our king, but the point is that we can show Black's pawn storm to be premature by continuing to follow the above maxim. After e.g. 2.Nxf3 Bd6, we just continue to pry at the center with 3.c3! Note that Black is nowhere near getting an attack off the ground, but we've again given her something concrete that she needs to deal with immediately: 4.cxd4 is a serious threat because of an e5 pawn fork in the air.

Bottom line: Black's pawn storm is an overextension, but not because those pawns are now ripe for the taking. The real flaw in Black's play is that she's been pushing pawns for an attack that she's not yet ready for. That's why the proper response is to fight back in the center, demonstrating that she should have been spending her time developing some pieces first and taking care of her own king's safety. Here are just a few short variations, some featuring very poor Black moves just to illustrate the threats; but even in the lines where Black plays more sensibly, note that in the final positions, White is fully developed and ready to play in the center (and against Black's king), while Black is in no position to harass White at all.

[fen "r1bqkb1r/2p2p2/2n2n1p/1p2p3/p2pP1p1/P2P2B1/BPPNNPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.f4 gxf3
( 1...Bb7?? 2.fxe5 Nh7 3.Bxf7+ )
( 1...exf4 2.Nxf4 )
( 1...Bd6 2.fxe5 Bxe5 3.Qe1 )
2.Nxf3 Bd6 3.c3! dxc3
( 3...Bg4? 4.cxd4 Nxd4 5.Nexd4 exd4 6.e5 )
4.Nxc3 *


When is castling possible? Is castling possible if any of the squares involved in the castling are under attack, or is this a problem only if the squares moved through by the king are under attack and not the ones moved through by the rook?

Yes, you can, as long as the king doesn't pass through or end up on an attacked square.

From FIDE Laws of Chess:

  The right to castle has been lost:

  if the king has already moved, or
  with a rook that has already moved.

  Castling is prevented temporarily:

  if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or
  if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.


Is Anand possibly cheating (the metal detector)? While I write this question, I am certain I completely miss the spirit of the world championship. But however, I got curious about how well the cheating-countermeasures at the championship actually work.

Before the match, I watched a TV program which explained how the games would be, and they showed us a metal detector that the players had to go through before every match. The purpose of the metal detector was to find devices that could be used for cheating.

In today's match (number 7), I notice that Anand is wearing his wrist watch. I would believe this would trigger the metal detector, and I doubt they would dismantle it to check if it's ok.

Since the metal detector is a countermeasure to cheating, should they let devices such as wristwatches pass?

I seriously doubt that anyone would cheat at this level - I cannot imagine the impact it would have on the game (their career).

The organizers certainly noticed the watch, if you did. Therefore, since it was allowed at the match, they must have determined that it could not aid chess play in any way.

Their reasoning should be simple: either the watch communicates with an outside device in order to signal the player, or else the watch does all chess calculation itself.

Communication with an outside device requires radiation which is easily monitored by a counter-cheating system, and a watch that could a) internally calculate chess moves at such a strength as to aid an elite human, b) accurately yet undetectably signal the wearer from an analog clockface, and c) accurately read the chess board, is currently technologically impossible.

Hence, dismantling the watch is unnecessary until technology allows undetectable wireless communication or a computer of the described caliber becomes even a remote possibility.


How to visualize a position I'm a decent player and am pretty good at tactics and visualizing series of moves with a board in front of me. However I have an extremely difficult time visualizing positions and moves purely in my head. Are there any tricks that make mentally visualizing easier, or is it just something that comes with lots of practice?

Improving board vision

When studying on your own, use a book with many diagrams so that you can check your visualisation regularly, e.g. Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev
When studying with a partner, ask them to call out the moves of a variation then test your accuracy with questions like "what colour square is white's knight on?"

Source: Adapted from Studying Chess Made Easy by Andrew Soltis

Notes on board vision

I like to put a small (often 2 or 3 whole moves) variation into words as a mini-plan. E.g. "Moves 4-6: White gambits a pawn to develop the bishop". It doesn't have to be a deep analysis at all, just a narration to the moves to convert algebraic notation into English
"Long variation, wrong variation" - attributed to Bent Larsen in The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess, by Andrew Soltis. In other words, visualising a variation 20 moves deep is unlikely to be beneficial
Don't get side tracked by sub variations
To make the visualisations easier, study endgames (i.e. fewer pieces to visualise)
"You can't see 64 squares at the same time" - attributed to Alfred Binet in The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess, by Andrew Soltis. This is a natural limitation to human perception. Even looking at a board, you can only really see 12-16 squares at a time. Try to 'chunk' information together to reduce the strain. E.g. you can condense information into words like "White has a castled king behind a fianchetto"

Example with an opening that you want to learn using White

Suppose you want to visualise the opening 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2 exd4 7. Bxc4 Nc6 8. O-O Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 10. Re1 Nge7 11. Nb3 O-O 12. Nfxd4

Let's visualise this step-by-step, checking your visualisation against the board in the spoiler tags below:

d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4

    How close was your visualisation? The way I remember this is in words to remember the mini-plan: White gambits a pawn to get an ideal centre

PS. I've used a screenshot of the position from Ubisoft's Chessmaster, as the replayer can't be hidden in a spoiler tag: How to hide chessboard in a spoiler tag?.

3... e5 4. Nf3

    Black tries to demolish White's centre with the thematic ...e5 and White aims to protect the centre

4...Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2

    Black develops a piece with tempo. White offers a trade to develop another piece that will end up on b3 to regain the gambit pawn

6...exd4 7. Bxc4 Nc6

    Black keeps hold of their extra pawn for the time being as White will have to spend a tempo to regain it

O-O Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 10. Re1

     White castles to safety whereas Black posts the Queen to the Kingside

10...Nge7 11. Nb3 O-O 12. Nfxd4

    Black castles away. White regains the pawn. Let the middlegame begin!

Source of variation and abridged analysis: Starting Out: Queen's Gambit Accepted by A. Raetsky and M. Chetverik

Example with an opening that you want to learn using Black

This is slightly harder as the board is now rotated both for practical play and in the spolier tags. Suppose you want to visualise the opening 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O Nbd7 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O 11. Bd3 Bh5 12. e5 Nd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5 14. Qe3 Bg6

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

    White's most popular try in the Slav is to develop both knights early

4...dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4

    Black develops the light square bishop and locks it outside the pawn chain

7...Bb4 8. O-O

    Black develops a piece. White breaks the pin.

8...Nbd7 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O

    White expands in the centre

Bd3 Bh5 12. e5 Nd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5

    The centre is closed

Qe3 Bg6

    Black offers to trade bad bishop for good. Let the middlegame begin!

Source of variation and abridged analysis: The Slav: Move by Move by Cyrus Lakdawala


When is a bishop stronger than a rook? Usually the rook is stronger than the bishop. Are there situations (and obviously I'm not assuming equal material) in which the latter is stronger?

The standard value for a piece that we learn early on (Queen=9 pawns, Rook=5 pawns, Bishop,Knight=3 pawns) is often a very good guidepost for people to make proper trades and find good tactical sequences. However, it should not be taken for granted that a rook will always be better than a bishop. Let's look at one extreme example:

       [fen "rn5k/3p4/p1pP4/PpP5/1P6/8/5B1P/7K w - - 0 1"]

       1.h4 {White wins by using the h-pawn as bait for the black king, and then infiltrate on black's queenside with the white king.} Kh7 2.Kg2 Kg6 3.Kf3 Kf5 4.Be3 Ra7 5.h5 Ra8 6.h6 Kg6 7.Ke4 Ra7 8.Ke5! {White places the king as close to the queenside as possible before sacrificing the h-pawn.} 8...Ra8 9.h7! {Luring the black king away from the defense of the f6 square.} 9...Kxh7 10.Kf6 Kg8 11.Ke7 Kg7 12.Kd8 Kf8 13.Kc8 Ke8 14.Kb7 Kd8 15.Kxa8 Kc8 16.Ka7 {Zugzwang! Black's king has to move, which means that the knight is lost.} Kd8 17.Kxb8 Ke8 18.Kb7 Kd8 19.Kxa6 Kc8 20.Ka7 Kd8 21.Kb8 {and white will win by promoting the a-pawn.}

Here white's bishop was stronger than black's rook and knight together, and it's not difficult to realize why; the knight was completely paralyzed, and the rook couldn't get out because of that. Black's pieces were nothing more than a couple of sitting ducks, so to speak.

In general, a piece is only good if it is performing some specific task on the chessboard, such as attacking weaknesses in the enemy camp or defending weak points in one's own camp. If the piece just sits on the edge of the board like a bystander (as in the example above) then it's totally worthless.

The rook is often a very good piece; since it's a long range piece, it can often attack and defend at the same time, and it can easily switch targets if there are many open ranks and files for the rook to move along. The same can be said about the bishop, using diagonals instead of rank and files, but the bishop has a clear disadvantage when compared with the rook: it can only influence squares of one color! Let's look at an example where the rook dominates the bishop, from Grischuk-Radjabov, Corus 2003:

    [fen "4k3/5R2/4K3/8/5p2/5P2/3b4/8 w - - 0 1"]

    1.Rc7! {White threatens checkmate in one move, which forces black's king to move.} 1...Kf8 (1...Kd8?? 2.Rd7+ {picks up the bishop for white.}) 2.Kf6 {Threatening mate in one move again. Note how white's rook covers c3 so that the bishop cannot check the white king.} 2...Ke8 (2...Kg8 3.Rg7+ Kf8 (3...Kh8? 4.Kg6 {and black is getting mated shortly.} 4...Bb4 5.Rc7 Kg8 6.Rc8+ Bf8 7.Ra8! {Zugzwang! Black's king has to move.} 7...Kh8 8.Rxf8#) 4.Rd7! {The white rook is hitting the black bishop, as well as it threatens mate in one yet again.} 4...Bc3+ 5.Kf5 {and white wins, since the black bishop is unable to defend the pawn on f4 due to the white rook covering the d2 square.}) 3.Re7+ Kd8 4.Re4! {White's rook cuts off the black king from the kingside, and therefore Radjabov decided it was time to resign in this position.} (4.Re4 Kd7 {For the sake of completeness, this is how white wins if black plays on:} 5.Kf5 Kd6 6.Rxf4! Bxf4 7.Kxf4 Ke6 8.Kg5! {and white has achieved a well known winning pawn ending.})1-0

In this example we saw that the rook can make multiple threats at the same time and take away squares from the bishop. This because the rook had many open ranks and files to work on, which made switching targets very easy to accomplish for the rook. If the rook is tied down and restricted, it becomes way less impressive, as can be clearly seen in the following example:

   [fen "1r6/2p1p1k1/p1B1P1p1/Pp3pPp/1P3P1P/2P5/5K2/8 w - - 0 1"]

   1.Ke3 Rd8 2.Bd7 {White doesn't let black get any activity whatsoever.} 2...Kf8 3.Kd4 Rb8 {There isn't much black can do.} (3...Rxd7+ 4.exd7 e5+ 5.fxe5 Ke7 6.e6 {is just a lost pawn ending.}) 4.Kc5 Ra8 5.Kd5! {Of course there are other ways to win, such as breaking with the c3 pawn to create a passer, but this nice use of zugzwang forces black to give up the c7 pawn without a fight.} 5...Ra7 6.Kc6 {and black's king has to move away from the e8 square due to zugzwang.} 6...Kg7 7.Bc8 Kf8 8.Bb7 Ke8 {Black's king can't get to d8 in time to defend c7.} 9.Kxc7 {and black will lose everything.}

Here black has an open file for the rook, but the rook is kind of dominated by the extremely influential bishop on c6, who can block the rook's path whenever black plays ...Rd8 by placing itself on d7, while at the same time keeping the black king imprisoned on the kingside. White wins by walking the king up the board to attack the weak pawn on c7, and there is little black can do about it besides watch in horror as the position starts to crumble.

Edit: I finally managed to think of an improved example of a bishop being stronger than a rook.


Are there exercises besides tactics that beginners should know about? I'm an adult and I've been playing for a bit over 2 years on chess.com. My rating started at around 800. By playing thousands of blitz games and doing a little post-game analysis/opening review, I was able to get to 1400 in Nov. 2019. However, I struggled to push much farther this year. However, this month I started solving puzzles - maybe 20 per day or so - and gained about 200 rating points. It's crazy.
Are there any other levers like this one that a beginner should know about?

The easiest way to improve at almost any stage is hiring a good coach (not one that plays well, but one that caoches well, which is often cheaper)
While tactics should be the main focus of your training at this point, there are other types of exercises you can do. "Systematic Chess Training" by Sergiu Samarian is a great book that combines different types of exercises, but it's probably a bit too hard for you right now. "Modern Chess Planning" by Efstratios Grivas could be a more adequate alternative. There's also a couple of books by Jacobo Caselas "Entrena tu juego estratégico", but I'm not sure if there's an English translation available.
Grivas's book contains 75 games where you must choose a plan at a critical stage of each of them. The game continues with a detailed analysis. The other books I mentioned are essentially strategy teaching manuals that contain a lot of exercises.


Does anyone know who currently owns Novag's intellectual property? With Novag being gone for a while now, I'm wondering who ended up with their intellectual property - in particular, the software that ran their computers.  I'm aware that there are some ROM images of...  ummm...  "questionable legitimacy"... that exist on emulator sites for a few older Novag systems.  I'm just wondering if there's any way to contact whoever currently owns Novag's IP to see if they have any plans for further product development - and if not, if they could be convinced to make ROM images from their hardware available to the chess community...

Yeah, I know modern (and free) engines like Stockfish play a much better game than most of the old Novag gear - I just always enjoyed playing against these systems, I found their play (with the right settings) to be more "human" than an absolutely relentless modern engine.  I think it would be a lot of fun if the old Novag software could be used as the basis of a UCI engine that could plug into a modern chess GUI, sort of like has been done with some of the old Mephisto software.

This is not a direct answer to your question, but it will be helpful. I happen to miss too the playing style of the early chess computers. Those machines ran amazing algorithms on incredibly poor hardware resources (usually 128 or 256 bytes RAM and a 2 to 16 Mhz, 8-bit processors with limited instruction sets, which would make anyone laugh when compared with the cheapest smartphone of today). The resulting game style at a few seconds per move was aesthetically decent chess (rooks placed in open lines, knights towards the center and so on) that tried to use the machine resources as good as possible (instead of being purposely dumbed down like modern engines) but with the so-called "horizon effect". This allowed the attentive human player to beat the computer by means of combinations whose final result was above the horizon of the few plyes the computer was able to examine, e.g. you could trick the machine with a sacrifice for instance, or you could detect a weakness in an otherwise apparently sound position.

Yes, as a result, those chess computers played what many people like me find more human than all the PC chess software that followed. With "modern" software (meaning PCs since ~1990) it is very noticeable when randomly stupid moves are inserted in an otherwise strong play, or when the program plays something ugly with not much sense positionally that does not win you immediately but also does not allow to be beaten with tactics. There is no way you can beat modern software by being tactically strong, that has never again happened since the 90s. It is incredible that almost no one has paid any attention to this, but the solution was very simple: limiting the calculation speed of engines until matching those of the early devices. Without altering anything else: no choosing of suboptimal moves, no random noise added to the evaluation function or anything. Just let the algorithm get the most out of a position but set a very low limit to the number of positions evaluated per second and you have it.

It has been done at least once: try the open source UCI engine Rodent II by Pawel Koziol. Set the parameter NpsLimit at something between 40 and 100 and allow it between 5 and 20 seconds per move. It really plays like those old chess computers.

I am unaware of other engines that implement that possibility. Some engines limit the search depth (Rybka) but the response is nearly instantaneous. Others emulate a slow response but it is not clear what they are doing (looking at the playing style I suspect Ufim might be following this approach but it is not explicit). Others choose suboptimal moves as said (Stockfish), but nearly any author has thought of implementing the full chess knowledge and positional evaluation at arbitrarily low speed, and I hope the idea is copied by many developers. Playing against such algorithms with horizon effect is fun, and it really gives you the impression of a fight against an opponent that is trying to do his/her best, instead of a mighty opponent that is playing sub-optimally on purpose. I think that is what your question is about.


Non-Standard Knight Development From its starting square, a knight has 3 legal moves: The “standard” one (c3, f3, c6, f6), the “weird” one (a3, h3, a6, h6) and the “other” one (d2, e2, d7, e7).
In my games, I almost always do the standard move. And I completely overlook the other move by my opponent, to my detriment. When are the weird and other moves preferred?

It's probably first worth revisiting why the "standard" moves are normally preferred.
A white knight on c3 defends white's central square e4 and attacks black's central square d5. That is that knight attacks/defends/supports 2 out of the 4 central squares. In the opening those 4 squares are the most important squares on the board (unless you fall for a cheapo).
In contrast a knight on d2 only defends white's central e4 square. On d2 the knight is only half as effective as it is on c3. By symmetry the same arguments apply to knights on f3, c6 and f6.
In general in open games these four squares are the best ones for the knights on their first move. In closed positions it is not quite so clear cut. Often other factors make other squares better or just make those squares impossible.
In closed and semi-open openings these squares may not all be available and moving a knight there may not be possible. The Advance Caro Kann is probably the best example of this. After:
[fen ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5

black can't put a knight on c6 because it is already occupied by a black pawn and f6 is also out of bounds because it is attacked by the white pawn on e5.
In the Winawer variation of the French Defence white puts a knight on c3 but this is a very committal move. Black can pin the knight with Bb4 and a double edged tactical battle is likely. Consequently at higher levels Nd2 is preferred heading into a Tarrasch variation of the French. This satisfies the key requirement of the position, defend the attacked white pawn on e4, while also avoiding the pin from the dark squared black bishop and allowing the d4 pawn to be defended with the move c3.
The other reason for moving a knight to d2/7 is to protect the other knight developed on f3/6 when it is pinned to the queen thereby allowing the queen to move without risking doubled pawns if black decides to exchange bishop for knight.
Finally moves like Nh6 use the h6 square as a staging post aiming for f7 or f5. These ideas come up regularly in the French Defence. Here are a couple of examples:
[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. a3 f6 7. Bd3 fxe5 (7...cxd4 8. cxd4 Nh6 {with the idea of Nf7 to put more pressure on e5 and if} 8. Bxh6 gxh6 9. Nh4?! Qb6 10. Bxh6 gxh6 11. Qh5+ Kd8) 8. dxe5 Nh6 9. O-O Nf7

If you play openings like the French or the Caro Kann as black then you will become more familiar with these ideas. In any case you should be mindful of possible advantages in playing Nd2/7 to protect a pinned knight on f3/6 making it easier to break the pin and possible advantages in leaving c3/6 free for a pawn to support a pawn on d4/5 or to kick a bishop on b4/5.


How different would chess be if a stalemate was a win? Historically stalemate has been handled in different ways. I wonder how different chess would be if it was a win for the stalemating player.

Has enough thought been put into this so that it's possible to give a clear answer? Would there be significantly less draws and more wins for white? More aggressive play? Would changes be seen already in the opening?

A related question that already has been asked is why the actual rule is as it is. The accepted answer to that question talks mostly about history and the logic that has been given for the rule, but another answer goes into how endgame would be different with this variant instead. There it is a side issue for explaining something else, which has made someone suggest this is a duplicate question. I hope that the actual what-if question can get more thorough answers for itself than when it is a side issue of a related question. For example my issue about if changes would be seen already in the opening have not been brought up.

The ideal answer for me would be if something like AlphaZero (without preconceived notions) had spent some time playing this variant, but I guess I'm out of luck on that?

Building on SmallChess' answer, KP vs K endgames that are normally drawn would be lost. This has very big ramifications, as there are many rook endgames where the side up a pawn can easily transpose into a (formerly drawn) KP vs K endgame. For example:

The Philidor Endgame
A normal K+R+3P vs K+R+2P on the same side of the board.
A K+R+4P vs K+R+3P where the extra pawn is a passed a-pawn. If the defending rook is behind the pawn, the endgame is considered barely drawn. However, the attacking rook might be able to exchange the extra a-pawn for a pawn on the kingside, reaching the aforementioend K+R+3P vs K+R+2P endgame.

This logic can also be applied to other endgames, such as K+Q+P vs K+Q. However, Rook endgames are the most common, and by making stalement = a win, many of these fundamental endgames are ruined.

Once that has happened, it's often not difficult for the better side to transpose down into one of them (especially the Philidor).

So making Stalement a win would drastically lower the number of draws that happen when one side is defending an endgame. However, there are many cases where no one was ever winning in an endgame (i.e., even material throughout), and most of these would probably result in draws still. The reason is that many draws in equal endgames arise from an "impasse" both sides create, where neither can make progress.


Multi-threat situation [fen "7k/8/4n3/2b5/3p4/8/2N1N3/3Q3K w - - 0 1"]

This picture above depicts a very simplified situation when white pieces threaten and black pieces defend the black pawn. If the next move is to white, it is a series of captures that is coming.

How does one decide if that is good for black or not?
Is there an algorithm for that?
How long will this series of exchanges take? Until all black and white pieces are consumed, or is there a point when the exchanges should be stopped?

You appear to be referring ("series of hits") to an instructional concept in chess tactics called Counting.

NM Dan Heisman's famous Novice Nook articles includes a multi-part series dedicated to Counting which you can read (preferably in order) at:

Counting Primer: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman15.pdf
The Most Important Tactic: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman35.pdf
Is it Safe: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman65.pdf
Two types of Counting Problems: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman75.pdf
The Safety Table: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman92.pdf

Article #2 (Most Important Tactic) even contains positions similar to what you posted above.

When do you stop counting? If you were to expand on counting and instead ask "when do you stop calculating forcing lines?" I'd refer you to another one of Dan's articles regarding Quiescence Errors.


Quintuple pawns / Interesting pawn structures I played a game with an amateur that resulted in my opponent having tripled pawns right beside my doubled pawns.

I'm wondered if there were any games with quadruple pawns. After finding such games, I started thinking of the possibility of quintuple pawns (high level preferably). Are there any games with such pawn structures, or generally any interesting pawn structures as seen in the above picture? Also, as a side question, what are your picks on the weirdest and most interesting pawn structures in a game you've played/found?

According to Tim Krabbé, Kovacs - Barth, Balatonbereny 1994 was the game with the longest living quadrupled pawns (23 moves). That would imply that he (an authority when it comes to chess records) doesn't know of any games with quintupled pawns.


Is pawn promotion obligatory? According to Wikipedia, when a pawn advances to the eighth rank, the pawn is promoted as a part of the move.

However, this doesn't make it clear whether I am obliged to promote the pawn if it gets to the eighth rank.

Yes, it is obligatory.

From FIDE's Laws of Chess §3.7e (Link):

  e. When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival.


Is there a name for a rook moving in front of the pawn on a particular file? I have tried to make a diagram but cannot figure out how to do the FEN, sorry.

In a game that I played online somebody has done a rather strange thing, they moved their rook in front of the pawn on that file. In that particular game this actually resulted in them winning, but since I have never seen anything like this before I thought that it must be named something.

This manoeuvre is usually called a "rook lift".

The commentators Shahade and Seirawan try to popularise the term "rover" which is supposed to be short for "rook up and over". It's a bit of a running gag on their shows.

Here's an example in which the rook lift was pretty surprising for the live commentators:

[Event "Kramnik vs Deep Fritz"]
[Site "Bonn GER"]
[Date "2006.12.05"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Deep Fritz (Computer)"]
[Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.O-O
Be7 8.Bb3 Qc7 9.Re1 Nc6 10.Re3 O-O 11.Rg3 Kh8 12.Nxc6 bxc6
13.Qe2 a5 14.Bg5 Ba6 15.Qf3 Rab8 16.Re1 c5 17.Bf4 Qb7 18.Bc1
Ng8 19.Nb1 Bf6 20.c3 g6 21.Na3 Qc6 22.Rh3 Bg7 23.Qg3 a4 24.Bc2
Rb6 25.e5 dxe5 26.Rxe5 Nf6 27.Qh4 Qb7 28.Re1 h5 29.Rf3 Nh7
30.Qxa4 Qc6 31.Qxc6 Rxc6 32.Ba4 Rb6 33.b3 Kg8 34.c4 Rd8 35.Nb5
Bb7 36.Rfe3 Bh6 37.Re5 Bxc1 38.Rxc1 Rc6 39.Nc3 Rc7 40.Bb5 Nf8
41.Na4 Rdc8 42.Rd1 Kg7 43.Rd6 f6 44.Re2 e5 45.Red2 g5 46.Nb6
Rb8 47.a4 1-0


Why is it a good idea to teach chess in schools? There is a "movement" towards teaching chess in school and perhaps introduce chess as its own subject. What are the advantages of teaching chess at schools? In what ways is chess similar to other school subjects (e.g. math)? What "life skills" will the students learn by learning chess?

What are the advantages of teaching chess at schools?

That depends. If you like chess, the advantage of having chess classes for free from good teachers (assuming they are good) is that you play your favourite game / learn something you like / have people to play with / all of this is free. It is really good for average chess players (who will be able to find steady income by teaching others).

But knowing this you have to understand that there are people who do not like chess. How will you feel if right now you will be forced  to learn how to play the triangle (kind of funny musical instrument that I by myself find kind of lame). What would you think if your child instead of math/biology/whatever subject you find important would be wasting his time learning triangle/chess which in my opinion will not help his career (assuming he will not become pro triangle / chess player)?

Also forcing a child to do something is not a good way for him to like this something. I enjoy playing chess, but if when I was child I would be forced to go study chess - most probably I would hate this game. There are a lot of places for a person to play chess in his free time enjoying it, so why spoil the fun with compulsory things?

  What "life skills" will the students learn by learning chess

What life skills will you gain by swimming / playing the triangle? You will not drown fast in case of flood. You will become a good swimmer. You will learn how to play the triangle and will be able to properly hear/understand music. People can argue that music will make you a better person, swimming will make you more fit, organized, but I am not aware of the proper studies conducted. What skills will you gain by training to solve IQ tests every day? Will you perform well in physics, economy, history, programming? Highly doubtful, and average person who spends 1/10 of your time learning one of these things will perform better. IQ tests will make you a better IQ test solver.

The same way with chess - by learning chess you will learn how to play chess, maybe will learn abstract thinking, thinking ahead and analyzing your options.

I by myself was speaking with some of the top 200 grandmasters and based on their discussion, chess is hard to make money on. You spend thousands of hours on learning preparation, dedication to mastery. And if you are not in top 20 it is really hard to get normal money out of it. Yes, you can publish books, create videos, participate in paid tournaments (which requires a lot of time and effort), but after this amount of time spent in economy you can secure a steady good income.


Knights on b4 and g4 I suffer from knight-phobia.

If I e.g. play white and black has knights on c6 and/or f6 I tend to play a3 and/or h3 as prophylaxis against knight coming to b4 and g4. I don't like them there. I start sensing a fork choke on my neck and lose concentration.

Am I nuts or is this normal? I feel like I am losing a tempo.

Do you have a therapy? Qd2? Keep on developing and react when time? Read an article by...?

This (Guide to P-R3) NM Dan Heisman Novice Nook is all that you EVER need to read to answer your question.


Stuck around 2000 rating. Concrete advice for improving? I've been stuck around the 2000 rating mark on various different online chess websites for a few years now. I seem to have hit a wall. I'm quite busy so when I do find time for chess I tend to just play some blitz for enjoyment. But I suspect that is what is stalling my game. I've decided to spend more time studying than playing in order to finally progress further.

I am looking for concrete advice on what other players have found successful in their own experience of going past 2000. I've just ordered Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and I plan to study several key positions each week over the next year. I hope that improving my endgame will bring my overall game up. But I'd be interested to hear other ideas too.

Without actually knowing your strengths and weaknesses, I'd suggest doing the following:

Studying endgames is a great idea - it will help you to convert equal positions into wins against players with worse endgame knowledge. However - an equal position has to be reached first.

Find out what style of play you excel in - and learn how to get into positions that fit that style. The most drastic example of this might be the Fried Liver Attack. An engine really doesn't mind playing black here (I mean - it's a free knight!), but human players, even Grandmasters, are just screwed; they are just not able to calculate a complicated position like that well enough.
Improving here starts with analyzing openings and getting a feeling for positions, the weaknesses and strengths they bare and what long-term consequences your moves make. Aim to always know why you make a move. To practice this, you take any position, make out weak and strong points and formulate a plan for both sides - then think about moves you want to play to pursue your plan - and delay your opponents plans. Bonus points for moves that do both.
Take your time for this - it will help you find a plan OTB if you practice it.

At higher ratings games are usually decided by strategy, not tactics. While it is important to have a good eye for tactics, tactical opportunities will be rarer and rarer. Get a good position, keep a good position and the checkmate will come naturally! :)


Starting Elo in FIDE system for new chess game I'm developing a chess game and for the Elo system I want to know recommendations for the starting Elo level for the users.

Your starting Elo will influence how well your Elo compares to Fide Elo, USCF Elo, or the rating of other sites. The internal functioning as rating isn't affected at all.

If you want to stay close to Fide Elo you could perhaps ask the user to rank himself (and then subtract 100 points … ;-)). Otherwise you'll have to guess what the average Fide Elo of a user might be. So that depends on whether you cater to beginners or to experienced club players and is probably the reason why starting Elo varies between 1200 and 1800 on different sites.