Elephant gambit game analysis I would like to get some explanations on the mistakes and blunders of my game posted below.
My Lichess rating is around 1770, so I do not know if the mistakes of the game are hard to spot for my level or not.

I am more interested in getting an explanation about why the moves are bad, rather than which are the best moves (I can do that with the computer).

[Title "bird67-chessAlleyne, Lichess, 11/9/19"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 { C40 Elephant Gambit } 3. exd5 c6?! { (0.74 → 1.78) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qxd5. } (3... Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qc5 5. Bb5+ c6 6. Ba4 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8. h3) 4. dxc6?! { (1.78 → 0.85) Inaccuracy. Best move was Nxe5. } (4. Nxe5 Qxd5 5. d4 Nf6 6. c4 Qd8 7. Nc3 c5 8. Be3 Bd6) 4... Nxc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bb5 e4 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Ne5?? { (0.95 → -0.59) Blunder. Best move was Qe2. } (8. Qe2 Bf5 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. d3 Qe7 11. dxe4 Qxe4 12. Qxe4+ Bxe4) 8... Qd6? { (-0.59 → 0.55) Mistake. Best move was Qd4. } (8... Qd4 9. f4) 9. d4 Ba6 10. Be3 Rb8 11. Rb1?! { (0.10 → -0.54) Inaccuracy. Best move was b3. } (11. b3 Rd8) 11... Be7?! { (-0.54 → 0.00) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qc7. } (11... Qc7 12. Ne2) 12. f3?! { (0.00 → -0.72) Inaccuracy. Best move was Bf4. } (12. Bf4 Nd5) 12... exf3? { (-0.72 → 0.68) Mistake. Best move was Nd5. } (12... Nd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5 14. fxe4 dxe4 15. c4 O-O 16. Qa4 Rfc8 17. O-O f6 18. c5 Qe6 19. d5) 13. Qxf3 c5? { (0.34 → 1.50) Mistake. Best move was O-O. } (13... O-O 14. Qxc6 Rbc8 15. Qxd6 Bxd6 16. Kd2 Bb4 17. Kc1 Bb7 18. Nd3 a5 19. Re1 Bxg2 20. Bg5) 14. Ne2?? { (1.50 → -0.61) Blunder. Best move was Nc6. } (14. Nc6) 14... cxd4 15. Bf4?? { (-0.18 → -1.78) Blunder. Best move was Qc6+. } (15. Qc6+ Kf8 16. Bf4 Qxc6 17. Nxc6 Re8 18. Nxe7 Kxe7 19. Nxd4 Kd7+ 20. Kd2 Ne4+ 21. Kc1 Nf2) 15... Qb4+? { (-1.78 → -0.64) Mistake. Best move was Rc8. } (15... Rc8) 16. Kd1? { (-0.64 → -2.15) Mistake. Best move was c3. } (16. c3 dxc3) 16... O-O 17. Nc6 Bb7?? { (-2.59 → 1.64) Blunder. Best move was Bxe2+. } (17... Bxe2+) 18. Bxb8?? { (1.64 → -1.26) Blunder. Best move was Nxb4. } (18. Nxb4 Bxf3 19. Bxb8 Bxg2 20. Rg1 Rxb8 21. Na6 Rb6 22. Rxg2 Nd5 23. Kd2 Rxa6 24. Rg4 d3) 18... Bxc6 19. Qxc6 Qxb8 20. Nxd4?? { (-0.99 → -5.76) Blunder. Best move was Qf3. } (20. Qf3) 20... Rd8?? { (-5.76 → 0.00) Blunder. Best move was Qf4. } (20... Qf4) 21. c3 Qf4?? { (0.00 → 1.92) Blunder. Best move was Nd5. } (21... Nd5 22. Kc2 Ne3+ 23. Kd3 Ng4 24. Kc2) 22. Qf3?? { (1.92 → 0.00) Blunder. Best move was Kc2. } (22. Kc2) 22... Qg5?? { (0.00 → 3.65) Blunder. Best move was Rxd4+. } (22... Rxd4+ 23. cxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Ke2 Qc4+ 25. Qd3 Qg4+ 26. Kf1 Qf4+ 27. Ke1 Qb4+ 28. Kd1 Qg4+ 29. Qe2) 23. Rf1?? { (3.65 → 1.53) Blunder. Best move was Kc2. } (23. Kc2 Qg6+) 23... Bc5 24. Ke1?? { (2.07 → -1.14) Blunder. Best move was Rc1. } (24. Rc1) 24... Ng4?? { (-1.14 → 0.74) Blunder. Best move was Qe5+. } (24... Qe5+ 25. Qe2 Bxd4 26. cxd4 Qxd4 27. Rxf6 Qxf6 28. Rd1 Rb8 29. Rd2 g6 30. Qf2 Qe6+ 31. Kf1) 25. Qxf7+?! { (0.74 → 0.00) Inaccuracy. Best move was Rd1. } (25. Rd1) 25... Kh8 26. Rf5?? { (0.00 → -16.83) Blunder. Best move was Qf4. } (26. Qf4 Qe7+ 27. Kd2 Bxd4 28. Qxg4 Bxc3+ 29. Kxc3 Qe3+ 30. Kb4 Rd4+ 31. Qxd4 Qxd4+ 32. Ka3 Qd6+) 26... Qe3+ 27. Kd1 h6?? { (-13.91 → 0.00) Blunder. Best move was Qd3+. } (27... Qd3+) 28. Kc2?? { (0.00 → -9.63) Blunder. Best move was Rxc5. } (28. Rxc5 Rxd4+ 29. Kc2 Rd2+ 30. Kb3 Qxc5 31. Qe8+ Kh7 32. Qe4+ Kh8) 28... Bxd4 29. cxd4 Qe4+ 30. Kd2?! { (-10.54 → Mate in 3) Checkmate is now unavoidable. Best move was Kb3. } (30. Kb3 Rb8+ 31. Ka3 Qxb1 32. Rb5 Qd3+ 33. b3 Qxb5 34. Qc4 Qxc4 35. bxc4 Ne3 36. Ka4 Nxc4) 30... Rxd4+ 31. Kc3 { White resigns. } 0-1

Thanks in advance.

I think there are a few things here.

When playing a gambit line that maybe you do not know, the first thing I would recommend is not necessarily taking it. Either 3.Ne5 or even 3.d4 look safer.
On move four, you had the choice of taking two pawns, one that developed his N, and the other, which took a center pawn. The center P was easily the right way to go since you could then support it with d4.
After that, you totally neglected your king's safety. 5.Bb5 followed by a quick 0-0 was in order.
9.d4 letting him keep your king in the center with Ba6 was close to the fatal mistake practically. Your position according the computer is still OK, and might even have a small plus, but as a human, it is all but impossible to play accurately there. You need to keep that idea in mind: Is a position easy or difficult to play? Tal made a living giving the other guy a position that was tough to play, even if Tal's sacrifices were not always sound.
I liked that you played Rb1 instead of b3 weakening the dark squares. That was very good as that additional weakness might have been fatal.
When under attack, you should always be looking for ways to trade down, especially trading queens, thus missing the obvious 14.Qc6 hurt. You were virtually winning there.

The rest was really just tactical miss after tactical miss by both sides.

Lastly, after going through that with my computer and Stockfish compared to the lichess engine, I would say that you need to take some of the evals with a grain of salt.

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 c6 4. dxc6 (4. Nxe5) 4... Nxc6 5. Nc3 (5. Bb5) Nf6 6. Bb5 e4 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Ne5 (8. Qe2) 8... Qd6 (8... Qd4 9. Nxc6 Qc5) 9. d4 (9. Nc4) Ba6 10. Be3 Rb8 11. Rb1 Be7 12. f3 exf3 13. Qxf3 c5 14. Ne2 (14. Qc6+) cxd4 15. Bf4 (15. Qc6+) 15... Qb4+ 16. Kd1 (16. Bd2) 16... O-O Nc6 Bb7 18. Bxb8 (18. Nxb4 Bxf3 19. Bxb8 Bxg2 20. Rg1 Rxb8 21. Na6 Rb6 22. Rxg2 Rxa6 23. Nxd4) 18... Bxc6 19. Qxc6 Qxb8 20. Nxd4 Rd8 (20... Qf4 21. c3 Ne4 22. Nf3 Rd8+ 23. Kc2 Qf5) 21. c3 Qf4 22. Qf3 Qg5 (22... Rxd4+ 23. cxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Kc2 Qc4+) 23. Rf1 Bc5 24. Ke1 Ng4 25. Qxf7+ Kh8 26. Rf5 Qe3+ 27. Kd1 h6 28. Kc2 (28. Rxc5) 28... Bxd4 29. cxd4 Qe4+ 30. Kd2 Rxd4+ 31. Kc3 0-1


What would be the Elo rating of a computer which plays all optimal moves? What would be the Elo rating of a computer which plays all optimal moves?
By playing all optimal moves, I mean that it always wins if possible, or else draws if that is the best result possible.

ELO is not an absolute measurement; it is only meaningful relevant to the ELOs of other players. This is because it is only calculated based on performance against other rated players. The "Maximum ELO", which seems to be what you're looking for, is therefore equal to the ELO of a player at such a time when his ELO is so high that he cannot gain any ELO points for defeating the second-highest-rated player.

The answer to your question, then, relies on at least the following two questions:

What is the highest-rated opponent that this theoretical machine could always defeat?
How much higher than that rating does an ELO need to be, in order not to gain any points from a victory?

The problem is this: if you play this machine against itself, the outcome is undefined. If we assume (since we don't know) that Chess is a fair game (Black and White have equal winning/drawing chances), then this machine can't raise its ELO indefinitely by repeatedly playing and defeating another version of itself, because it'll lose half the time and not get anywhere. So without hacking the system (see below), there is an upper bound somewhere.

What that upper bound is, however, is very fluid and somewhat ill-defined, because players' ratings are always in motion, and because rating systems are not equivalent. So to give you a value, let me make a couple of simplifying assumptions.

"Perfect play" is always a victory. (If draws are possible with perfect play from one side, it doesn't change the endpoint, but it does make it take longer to reach the top).
We use the FIDE ELO system, including the k-factor tiers (the k-factor will be 10 in the range we care about).
FIDE only uses integer ELO values.
The highest-rated opponent for this machine is Magnus Carlsen, currently rated at 2881.
Magnus is willing and able to play against this machine as many times as needed for the machine to reach its peak ELO. Between games against the machine, Magnus will play other humans to regain his 2881 ELO rating.

Given these assumptions, the machine will max out at about 3351 ELO1, where if it wins, its ELO will increase by less than half a point (+0.49 to 3351.49), which will be discarded (rounded down to 3351).

If a competitor achieves an ELO above 2881, than the upper bound increases. This fact allows us to pull the following (very silly) stunt, if we so choose:

We have a machine that always wins.
Presumably, we could build another one.
We pit the machine against Magnus until it achieves FIDE ELO 3351.
We disable perfect play on the machine (Machine 1). We set Machine 1 to always lose.
We build another machine, Machine 2, and play it against Machine 1 until it cannot gain more ELO points.
Repeat steps 4-5 with new machines ad nauseam to create a machine with an arbitrarily-high FIDE ELO.

1 I haven't done all the calculations myself by hand. I just plugged the appropriate numbers into this calculator. It's entirely possible that the formula used there differs from the current FIDE rules, but the basic premise is the same even if the numbers are inexact.


Why don't people develop a annotation symbol for "best moves"? In chess, exclamation points ("!") indicate good moves and the double exclamation point ("!!") is used for very strong moves. However, I do not know any symbol for "best moves". There are moves which may not be surprising or involve any particular skill but are objectively the best move or one of the best moves in a particular position. With the help of modern engines, it may not be too difficult to see if a move is "the best" in a certain position.
When analysing games, one knows immediately that there is no room for improvement for such moves if such a symbol is used; isn't it convenient?

Moves that are significantly worse than the best option are annotated with ?!. If the difference between the move in a game and the "best" move is not big enough, then it doesn't matter whether some engine gives one a 0.02 better evaluation than the other.
In some sense, you could argue that !, !! and no annotation at all already indicate that the move played was the best possible option (or in the latter case, just as good as it)


When en passant is the only legal move Consider the following position:
8/7p/5K1k/8/7p/7P/5PP1/8 w - - 0 1

1. g4 hxg3

In the above postion, White plays g2-g4. The only legal move is hxg3, en passant. I heard someone say that since the en passant capture is optional, Black can refuse to play it and have the game declared a draw by stalemate. I think this is nonsense and believe that as long as there are legal moves available there's no stalemate.
Who is right?

You are right, this is nonsense. From the FIDE laws of chess, article 5:

  The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’.

If capturing en passant is possible, it is a legal move so if it is the only option, Black is required to play the move. (Or not to move at all and lose through the clock.)


How many different ways are there to checkmate in the early game? We all know the shortest possible checkmate is 4 ply:

f3 e5

g4 Qh5#

This isn't the only possible move order. In fact, there are 8, depending on whether white moves the f or g pawn first, whether he moves the f pawn to f3 or f4, and whether black plays e6 or e5. Of course, this makes up only a tiny fraction of the possible 4-ply sequences of moves, but these are the only ones that end the game.
What I'm looking for is, for small numbers of ply, how many sequences of moves end in checkmate vs not ending in checkmate. Ideally what I'd like is something along the lines of

4 ply: X non-checkmate sequences, 8 4-ply checkmates
5 ply: Y non-checkmate sequences, 8 4-ply checkmates, N 5-ply checkmates
6 ply: Z non-checkmate sequences, 8 4-ply checkmates, N 5-ply checkmates, M 6-ply checkmates

and so on for as deep as this is reasonable to do.
This is inspired by a Math.SE question about the probability of two players making random moves resulting in the same chess game. I suspect the short games heavily dominate this probability, which should make the probability easy to approximate, but it'd be nice to have the real numbers to work with.

There are no checkmates from 0-3 ply.

4 ply: 8 checkmates, 197,281 total nodes
5 ply: 347 checkmates, 4,865,609 total nodes
6 ply: 10,828 checkmates, 119,060,324 total nodes
7 ply: 435,767 checkmates, 3,195,901,860 total nodes
8 ply: 9,852,036 checkmates, 84,998,978,956 total nodes
9 ply: 400,191,963 checkmates, 2,439,530,234,167 total nodes

"checkmates" is the number of checkmating moves made on the final ply. So for 5 ply, there are 347 checkmating sequences of exactly length 5.

These values are from: https://www.chessprogramming.org/Perft_Results

Currently there is no checkmate data for 10 ply and above, presumably due to the computational resources needed.

To obtain more specific data (e.g. the lines themselves), you would need to write your own perft program which saves lines ending in checkmate.


Does white have an advantage? It is often debated that white has an advantage over black. Some even say that with perfect play on both sides, black simply cannot win. Is there any research that backs up this claim, or is it mere speculation by the greats such as Rauzer?

Also, if this has been or could be proven true, could the black pieces be given some sort of aid to make them equal to the white ones?

These statistics come from a database of over 600,000 games:

White wins   37.35%
Black wins   27.41%
Drawn        35.23%

http://www.chessgames.com/chessstats.html

The stats suggest that White has a significant, measurable first-mover advantage. Not an overwhelming advantage, but better than the house advantage in any casino game.

Is that advantage structured into the game or psychological? Comparative stats on games between mature chess engines may help to decide that.


Does everybody has a different natural ability to improve in chess? I have seen some players quickly increase their ELO within months, and some within years. Is there some genetic intelligence in those players (like someone in their family also played chess)? I ask this because my tactics (blitz) rating is not improving. I did about 3000 puzzles this month. After 2500 of them, I can't get past ELO 1560, and that's why I'm thinking about leaving chess. Is there really a natural gift?

Different people have different abilities for chess, just like for any other activity. Some people are "gifted", others aren't. Your chances also diminish with age, but almost every human can make it past 1560 (or 2000 for that matter)
That being said, you won't improve much in just one month. Consistency is much more important than intensity. Try making a reasonable amount of puzzles every week rather than doing thousands of them one month only to burn out for the next.
Also note that tactics skills are the most important aspect you need to train, but not the only one. Have you tried contancting a coach? Even if you can't afford it on a regular basis, it may be good for you to book a season and define a training plan.


Unusual chess notation I recently bought a chess book that had unusual chess notation, such as B x KP;  P X B, Q - R5

Does anyone know what type of notation this is and how to read it?

That's descriptive notation. Click that to go to the wiki page.

It is an obsolete notation, having been replaced by algebraic or figurine algebraic notation.

B x KP means, Bishop (B) takes (x) Kings (K) Pawn (P).

Q-R5 - Queen (Q) Moves To (-) Rook's (R) Fifth square (5)

Then there are ways to show castling, etc.

EDIT - doubled pawns.  Descriptive Notation doesn't care how pieces got on the squares where they sit. Just name the piece and where it is going. If you were white and had a pawn on e4 and another on e6 (or K4 and K6, in descriptive) and you moved the pawn on e6, your move would be P-K7.

One thing about descriptive, is that the squares are numbered with respect to the side that is moving.  Say you wanted to move your Queen from her initial square to the opposite edge of the board. Your move, as white, would be Q-Q8 (Queen moves to the Queen's eighth square).  Now suppose you wanted to make the exact same move, but as black. This move would also be Q-Q8. Both moves are notated with respect to the side making the move.


Alekhine's defence: Exchange variation 5.e5? After a brief study over the exchange variation in the Alekhine's defence, On the fifth move Black can choose an extremely sharp line with e5 but i couldn't find it anywhere explained as either a bad or good move or even played.

It's losing for Black because 6.c5 N(6)-d7 7. dxe!  Black can't capture the pawn on e5 because 8. f4! wins a piece (e.g., 8. ... Nd7 9. Qe2+) so Black must play 7. Nxc5 and after 8. Bf4 White's pawn on d6 is a dagger in Black's heart.  The chess engines say White is winning.


Analyze, improvement - My game without blunders? When I first created this account I posted about how I am in a slump and kept blundering important games.

As of today, I think I have gotten out of that slump and I understand CHESS much better.

Here's my game, and I think I have no blunders here:

[Event "Unbalance Chess"]
[Site "windows"]
[Date "2015.09.20"]
[Round ""]
[White "Level 19"]
[Black "4444"]
[Result "0-1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... c5 2. Qf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. exf6 dxc4 7. Qxb7 Nc6 8.
Ne2 exf6 9. Nbc3 Rb8 10. Qa6 Qe7 11. O-O Nd4 12. Qxc4 Be6 13. Qd3 Rd8 14. f3 c4
15. Qe4 f5 16. Qe5 f6 17. Qa5 g6 18. Re1 Nc6 19. Qb5 Bd7 20. Nb1 Ne5 21. Qa5
Bh6 22. f4 Nc6 23. Qc3 g5 24. Qxc4 gxf4 25. a3 f3 26. gxf3 Ne5 27. Qb3 Be6 28.
Qc3 Rg8+ 29. Ng3 f4 30. Kh1 fxg3 31. hxg3 Rxg3 32. b3 Qg7 33. Re2 Rg1+ 34. Kh2
Bf4# 0-1

If there are any blunders please analyze and help me improve my practical play (tactics).

As noted in the comments, after 7.Qxb7??, the reply ...Bc6! simply traps the queen, leaving White completely busted. This may be the most obvious thing both players failed to notice in this game, and one of the few concrete ones I will bring up in this answer.

To me, it looks like this game is not an elite game, and it would be interesting to know your overall strength. I can assure you(without even analysing deeply), that black made more "mistakes" in this game than just missing 7...Bc6, but they may be more or less relevant depending on your level of self critisism, and ambition.

Let's take for example the position after 10.Qa6 by White: Did you consider playing ...Nb4, threatening both the queen on a6 AND a nice fork on c2? To me, not considering the move could be considered as a mistake, but at that point you already had quite a nice position, so most reasonable moves by black should be enough to win by then.

But there are other considerations to be made in the game. I think, that in this game, you did not develop your f8 bishop efficiently. This I view as a mistake, but it's not a tactical mistake, rather a positional one. But White never capitalised on this in any way, so you weren't punished for it. And this is the important point I wanted to make with this answer:

In this game, you outplayed your opponent, and the reason for it was that your opponent didn't play well enough to stop you from bullying his queen around the board. Therefore, your opponent will have a much easier time to learn from this game than you will. Your opponent got the "You play badly, and here's why"-treatment from you this game, but you didn't get the same treatment from anybody! Therefore you think you played great, no matter what the reality of your play is like.

This is the reason why it's easier to learn from your losses than from your victories in general. I would advise you to go through this game yourself with a bit more self-critisism, if you really want to take anything from it.


On what basis were players chosen to compete in the Magnus Carlsen Invitational 2020? In the Magnus Carlsen Invitational 2020, Magnus Carlsen invited 7 of the world’s best players to compete with him in the first professional online chess tournament. However, I wasn’t able to find an explanation of why Magnus selected these particular players.
My initial thought was that he would more-or-less invite players from the 2020 Candidates Tournment. However, Wang Hao and Alexander Grischuk, who qualified for the Candidates Tournament, did not participate in the Magnus Carlsen Invitational. Alireza Firouzja, who was invited to the Magnus Carlsen Invitational, did not play in the Candidates Tournament.
My second thought was that Magnus would choose the top-rated players. This turned out not to be true, since, in April 2020, Alexander Grischuk, who was not invited, was #6 while Anish Giri, who was invited, was #10.
My final thought was that perhaps Carlsen just invited his friends. But this doesn’t seem to be the case, since, e.g., there seems to have been some friction between Carlsen and Giri.
On what basis did Carlsen invite players to this tournament?

Magnus Carlsen had the major saying in the selection. There was no "objective" qualification of any kind, besides the hope to create an interesting line-up.

Firouzja was included because he beat Carlsen in the Banter Blitz Cup, so a "rematch" would attract many viewers.

Disclosure: I work for chess24. I wasn't involved in the decision process, and I can't publish everything I know about this.


Why is it funny to say Giri played the Evans Gambit? At 0:55 in this video, Youtuber agadmator claims Anish Giri played the Evans Gambit in the Italian Game:

[fen ""]
[Black "Anish Giri"]
[White "Kirill Alekseenko"]
[Event "Candidates 2020 (Joke Line)"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4

It becomes clear thereafter that agadmator was joking, as he immediately smiles, says "No, he didn't", and continues with the actual line.

However, I don't have the background to understand what makes the humour transparent here.

Is this joke referencing an amusing history or reputation of this line?
Is it just such an obviously bad move that no one can take it seriously on face value? If so, why?

I'm discounting the explanation he just made an error in his annotations because of the deliberate way he looks at the camera when he announces this, but I'll accept an argument for any interesting lines that spring from this position.

The joke is based on the perception of Giri as a very solid, "drawish" player. There always seems to be one top player who is the butt of such jokes. It used to be Leko, nowadays it's Giri.

Take a look at this reddit thread for example or this chess24 April's fool.

The swashbuckling Evan's is the last opening Giri would ever choose to play, or so the jokester suggests.


Looking for online Swiss pairing software I would appreciate if somebody could recommend a good Swiss pairing program. I'd prefer online version with multi-language option and free version but cheap one is also good.

I've found http://www.free-swiss.com/ but do you know other ones?

You could try this free service: https://swisssystem.org/

It’s simple and easy to use. It works fine on mobile devices. The maximum player count is 200.


What are some resources for someone past beginner but not yet intermediate? I've been playing chess off and on for the better part of 15 years, however, I've never done it enough to count myself as any good at it. I'd like to get better, but intermediate guides go over my head, and "chess for beginners" is all about rules and simple stuff I picked up a long time ago. I'm looking for something that can help me improve from my weird in-between state to an intermediate level.

I will go ahead and assume that your playing strength is roughly at ~1100 Elo, since that is what I consider to be the approximate level of an "advanced beginner", so to speak.

To a player of your level, I would give the following advice:

Chess is a game which consists of three main phases: The opening, the middle game, and the endgame. These three phases are characterized below.

The opening: The part of the game where both sides have yet to get their pawns and pieces into action. Both sides should strive to take control of the center, develop their pieces, and put their king somewhere safe.
The middle game: Both sides come into attack range of each other, and a battle for the advantage is begun. Many things happen, and the ability to think of "a plan" is vital not to get lost completely.
The endgame: If the game is not already decided in the middlegame, one can expect that both players are somewhat comparable in strength, causing them to eventually trade down pieces until not very many are left. Since there are not many pieces left, the ones that are still present matter more than ever, and tactical ability combined with concrete knowledge of basic endgames is key to playing the endgame with success.

Q: What does an advanced beginner need to know about the opening to up their game?

A: In the opening, one needs to know about the basic opening principles, and one should strive to apply them into their games. For instance, look into the thread Good openings for a beginner (for white), and xaisoft's answer, which outlines some opening principles. The following link also gives some advice on how to conduct one's opening play as a beginner: https://www.chess.com/blog/NimzoRoy/chess-opening-principles.

Q: Why is it good to follow the opening principles? Why shouldn't I just learn concrete opening variations?

A: The opening principles are the easiest means to get you to a playable middle game, and if you follow them you would be surprised at how often they will succeed in guiding you towards the right moves in the opening. As to why one should not focus on learning concrete opening variations as a beginner, it mainly has to do with the fact that it's too early for a beginner to do that.

The reason you study specific opening theory is to try to get a concrete advantage out of the opening, and at the beginner scene, most players don't know opening theory, and will thus not very likely play the exact lines you've studied. This means that you will have to spend an unreasonably big part of your studying on openings, which will impede your progress in the other two major phases of the game. Also, as a beginner, it is extremely difficult to learn specific openings well, since that requires understanding of the ideas in certain positions(which is very hard to attain if you don't know much about planning in chess in general), and not just knowledge of precise variations.

Q: Ok, so I applied the opening principles, and got my pieces out and all that. What's next? What about the middle game?

A: Following the opening principles, unless you're facing some really nasty opponent, the following will most likely happen:

You will most likely have a pawn or to in the center of the board.
Most of your light pieces(knights and bishops) are likely out of their starting positions.
Your king is likely castled already.

Now it's time to start looking for short-term and long-term goals for you(and for your opponent!). In the middle game, the thing that will make you reign supreme over beginners is tactics, and plan-oriented play. Most beginners are not very procifient at tactics, and do not play their moves according to a clear-cut plan.

Q: Ok, so what are tactics? How do I learn them?

A: The term tactics is an umbrella term that involves concrete, often forced, sequences of moves in a position. These sequences can be one move long(like capturing hanging pieces), or more long, and complex(like conducting a well planned attack successfully against the opposing king).

Normally, the difficulty of a tactical sequence is determined by how long it is; shorter sequences are easier, and longer sequences are harder.

As a beginner, one should focus on learning to find these shorter tactical sequences(1-3 moves deep) consistently. To do this, use the following guidelines for calculating(looking for) tactical variations:

THE GOLDEN RULE FOR CALCULATING TACTICS

At every move in a tactical sequence, consider the responses in the following order of priority:

First, consider all the checks in a position;
Then, consider all the possible captures in the position;
Consider other moves.

Using this will help you to spot the details that make or break a tactic.

But starting out with tactics, one should definitely look for some common tactical ideas that will further aid one's play. Here is a good list, with examples, of a wide array of tactical ideas: https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples. Learning how to apply these in one's games is not easy, and practice is crucial. Playing games is very good to improve calculation, and solving tactical exercises, on for example http://chesstempo.com/, can be very beneficial as well.

Q: Ok, great! So, what about plan-oriented play? What is it, and why is it good to learn?

A: By plan-oriented play, I simply mean that one should always make a move according to some plan, and not just make an arbitrary move with no clear purpose other than wanting the game to progress. Bent Larsen, one of the great players in the 1960's and 1970's, has the following very famous quote attached to his name: A bad plan is better than no plan!

What this means is that a you need to have a goal in mind - however misguided - to ever hope to beat your opponent. If chess were boxing, this advice could be that no matter how unrefined, it's better to throw punches aimed at your opponent, than it is to just throw your arms around aimlessly and run around in circles.

As a beginner, go for simple plans, like trying to win a pawn or piece by threatening it with your pieces. Or you can try to use tactics, to gain material or to try and mate your opponent's king.

The plan can even be long-term, like "I don't want to get checkmated on the first rank, and I don't want my knight on f3 to be pinned. Therefore I will go h3, to create luft for my king, and prevent my opponent from stepping on g4."

If you don't find an immediate plan, it could help to "talk with your pieces", and try to improve their placement. By this, I mean that you should try to evaluate if a piece is badly placed or not, by trying to give your pieces some personality traits:

The knights like to stand in the center, where they can move very freely, and control the enem forces. Even better if they are defended by a pawn, and there are no annoying enemy pawns to chase them away! The knights don't like very much to stand on the edge of the board, which leaves them restricted. But as long as it's not a corner square, it may be tolerable. In general, the knights are stronger in closed positions(not many open lines).
The bishops like best to stand placed on long, unrestricted diagonals. This way, they can be relatively safe, and at the same time work to make the opponent's pieces stumble over each other to avoid the scary bishops in the distance. Since the bishops are so mobile, they like to have multiple targets in the enemy camp. The bishops dislike being treated like pawns, and they absolutely hate having to be trapped behind their own pieces, with no hope of coming out to play in the near future! The bishops are stronger in open positions(many open lines to work with), with pawns on both sides of the board.
The rooks like open ranks and files, and in particular, they love to work together. The best thing they know is to "double up" on an open file, and then just crash into the enemy's position. This can be devastating for the opponent, since the rooks are real powerhouses. In particular, the rook likes to go on the seventh rank, where it will run around, scaring the enemy pawns, and severely restricting the movement of enemy pieces. Rooks are, like bishops, stronger in open positions, with open lines to work on. However, they are also more vulnerable, since they are more valuable than a bishop or a knight.
The queen boasts with unparallelled power at the board. She likes to spread terror in the enemy camps, and will gladly cooperate with other friendly pieces to get her way. She likes the center, where she has free access to almost any part of the board, but she hates getting in the line of fire from the enemy lines(that's no way to treat a lady!), and wants to stay safe, if possible. Therefore, she often waits until after the opening to get out, when the coast is clear, in some sense.
The king is the most important piece, and he knows it. Therefore, he makes a point of staying safe at all cost. During the middle game, when the battle is in full swing, the king wishes to sit back and ride out the storm in safety, behind his loyal pawns and pieces. However, when the dust settles somewhat, and the endgame approaches, he feels it's a lot safer to go out and show who is the real boss! Boasting with striking power close to that of a rook, he will join up with his allies to end the battle, using his flexibility to drive away those who dare oppose him. However, he is still quite gun-shy, to be honest.

Knowing your pieces is the fundamentals to learning how to use them properly, and it's a vital part of learning how to go from beginner to intermediate player(it's at the core of so-called positional play). Searching for "planning in chess" should bring you some helpful online resurces.

Q: Do I really need to study endgames if I want to improve? They are boring, and I never even reach them in my games, so what's the point?

A: If you really wish to improve, the endgame is essential to study in some detail. However, the endgame has an unfair reputation of being boring. Granted, there aren't as many "flashy" moves. However the tactics are never-ending, and in many cases the endgame is a battle on the knife's edge. So even if it doesn't look very flashy from an onlooker's perspective, I can promise you: it is when you learn to truly appreciate its many finesses!

Also, if you're never reaching endgames in your own games, it often means that either you or your opponent tries to avoid the endgame at the cost of a potential loss, or it means that your games are very lop-sided(someone gets mated or loses many pieces early on). As soon as you play someone of equal ability, you won't get fooled by your opponent's tricks, and your opponent will not very easily fall for your traps either. Therefore, to win, you will need to be able to outlast your opponents, and be prepared to face them in the endgame. Expecting never to reach an endgame is equivalent to expecting that at least one player will make a severe mistake early on.

With that being said, at the beginner level, you don't really need to learn everything about endgames immediately! Learn the basic mates with rook, queen, etc., and learn the basic concepts of pawn endgames(there's a wiki page on this topic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame). Some basic concepts of rook endings could also prove useful, and in general, the more endgames you study, the better! However, don't push yourself if you can't stand studying endgames further. If you want a good book on endgames to use as a beginner, I'd recommend Silman's Complete Endgame Course. It divides the different endgames after player ability, rather than piece configuration, and you can use it to improve later as well.

That concludes it, I think. I cannot think of anything more I'd say to an advanced beginner seeking to improve. Good luck with your ambition!


What is the winning move here and why? B1b2rk1/p3pp1p/6p1/q1Pp4/3b1B2/2n4P/P2Q1PP1/2R1K2R b K - 0 17

Stockfish rates this position as -2.94, so Black is clearly winning. Or is it so clear? After 1... Bxf2+ 2. Qxf2 Ne4+ 3. Bd2 Nxf2 4. Bxa5 Nxh1 5. Bxd5, White obtains the Bishop pair in an open position and a passed pawn. This is not the winning move. (Actually, there are two: The alternative is 1... Qxc5.)

However, I cannot fathom how Black is better. Sure, material is even in terms of points, the White LSB is locked in and eventually Ba6 will be played, but when is eventually and how?

Bxf2+ gives away all your advantage because of the precise line you mention. The correct move is e5 (to protect your bishop with tempo, note 1...e5 2.O-O exf4 3.Qxd4 doesn't work because of Ne2+ fork), followed by Ba6, preventing castling and attacking the trapped a8 bishop. Notice Bc6-Bd7-Bg4 doesn't really save the bishop as shown below: (covering some side-variations as well, rather called for as it's a very concrete position)

 [title "1...e5"]
 [fen "B1b2rk1/p3pp1p/6p1/q1Pp4/3b1B2/2n4P/P2Q1PP1/2R1K2R b KQq - 0 1"]

 1...e5 (1...Qxc5 {also a good move with similar threats except the queen discovery} 2.O-O Ba6 3.Rfe1 Rxa8 4.Be3 Bxe3 5.Rxe3 d4 {easily winning: two pieces and a pawn for the rook, together with a passed pawn and dominant knight}) (1...Ba6 {The immediate Ba6 is not good enough probably but it's a fun line, the idea with Ne2+ forking bishop and knight while still taking on a8.} 2.Qxd4 Ne2+ 3.Qd2 Qxd2+ 4.Kxd2 Rxa8 5.Be3 Nxc1 6.Rxc1 {still a pawn up but it's opposite colored-bishop so always big drawing chances.}) 2.Bh6 Ba6 3.Bc6 (3.Bxd5 Rd8 4.Bf3 Bxf2+ {wins on the spot for black}) (3.Bxf8 Bxf2+ {however white recaptures loses on the spot} 4.Kxf2 Ne4+) Rc8 4.Bd7 Rxc5 5.Bg4 Bxf2+ 6.Qxf2 Ne4+ {and you're winning the house.}


Software for reading aloud the moves of a chess games in Arena or SCID vs PC I have just downloaded the Arena and SCID vs PC GUI clients. Both seem wonderful and work seamlessly with most of the chess engines like Rybka and Stockfish. I can't wait to get started by analysing the chess games of the masters.
I also have a physical chess board, and would like to play out such games by having someone sound out the moves: for each move read out by the "voice-assistant", I would move the pawn or piece to the appropriate square. This help me with drilling the coordinates of the 64 squares down into bones and improve my chess visualization. Besides I am also quite a tactile learner.
Sure, I can read the moves and then move the relevant piece with my hand, but that seems too distracting to look back and forth between the board and the screen.
Having some sort of "extension" (just like in Firefox) to Arena or SCID vs PC that can read of the moves of a game recorded in PGN, one-by-one (which can be paused at the press of a key) could be immensely valuable. Does anyone here know of software that has this built in? Or possibly any hacks? (Other than having my dad read out the moves of course...haha.)

Scid vs Pc offers Speak-out-moves.
Assuming Version 4.21. (latest at the time of writing)

Go to Options Sounds
Under Move announcement, tick from the list what you want. For eg. Announce new moves will speak out loud the new moves on board.

For a basic installation, the Sounds folder must be chosen (on top of Move Announcement). For that, Scid offers a set of sound files. To download and call use it with Scid,

Go to support files
Choose and download sounds.tgz
Put it in your Scid vs Pc installation folder. For eg. C:/Scid vs Pc/lib.
Extract sounds.tgz file which contains sounds.tar. Extract sounds.tar that contains sounds folder.
In the Scid vs Pc gui, under Options Sounds Sounds Folder, choose C:/Scid vs Pc/lib/sounds.

Restart Scid vs Pc and you will be good to go.


Carlsen vs Karjakin individual encounter results statistics so far? I wonder how many times Carlsen and Karjakin played so far and who won the more number of games. Any idea?

There is a list of chess games between them here; I'm not sure if any games are missing. The list includes blitz, rapid and blindfold games, but there's a convenient statistics block at the top of the page:

  LIFETIME RECORD:

  Classical games: Magnus Carlsen beat Sergey Karjakin 4 to 1, with 17 draws.
  Including rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Sergey Karjakin 18 to 8, with 22 draws.
  Only rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Sergey Karjakin 14 to 7, with 5 draws.


From a full board to a pawn endgame in the shortest possible number of half-moves Is any game known where all the pieces (except the pawns) are still on the board, and where a piece (not a pawn!) is captured at each half-move, leading to a pawn endgame?

In other words, is there a game where a "full" board is transferred to a pawn endgame in only 14 half-moves?

Here a game where the tranformation is made in 16 half-moves:

[Event "URS-ch26"]
[Site "Tbilisi"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[Round "15"]
[White "Kortschnoj, Viktor"]
[Black "Geller, Efim P"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E69"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1959.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "19"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 c6 6. e4 d6 7. Nge2 e5 8. O-O
Nbd7 9. b3 exd4 10. Nxd4 Nc5 11. h3 Re8 12. Re1 a5 13. Rb1 Nfd7 14. Be3 h5 15.
Qd2 Ne5 16. Red1 Qe7 17. Kh1 Bf8 18. Re1 Bg7 19. Re2 Qc7 20. f4 Ned7 21. Bg1
Nf6 22. Nc2 b6 23. Ree1 Bb7 24. Nd4 Re7 25. Re2 Rae8 26. Rbe1 Ncxe4 27. Nxe4
Nxe4 28. Rxe4 Rxe4 29. Rxe4 Rxe4 30. Bxe4 c5 31. Bxb7 Qxb7+ 32. Qg2 Qxg2+ 33.
Kxg2 Bxd4 34. Bxd4 cxd4 35. Kf3 Kg7 36. Ke4 Kf6 37. Kxd4 Kf5 38. Ke3 Ke6 39.
Ke4 Kd7 40. f5 g5 41. Kd5 Kc7 42. g4 1-0

Such a game more than likely doesn't. The game that you give is amazing enough in that 16 already exists. Without access to a database, however, I don't know for sure. Perhaps someone could try to do that, and search in one or two. But again, more than likely it doesn’t exist due to the extreme conditions and setup that a real game would have to arrive at the do it, not to mention that there are two minds involved.
Just for fun, as a related note that isn't an answer, here is the fastest possible game with such a sequence.
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 7/3/2020, Non-Unique Proof Game in 15.0 Moves"]
[FEN ""]

1. e3 e6 2. Qf3 Qf6 3. Qxb7 Qxb2 4. Be2 Be7 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. O-O O-O 7. h3 h6 8. Kh2 Kh7 9. Qxa8 Qxa1 10. Qxb8 Qxb1 11. Qxc8 Qxc1 12. Qxf8 Qxf1 13. Qxe7 Qxe2 14. Qxf6 Qxf3 15. gxf3 gxf6


File format/interface for home-brew engines (and implementation in lichess) I'm a hobbyist chess programmer. I've built a few engines from scratch, had lots of fun, and am generally pretty proud of what I've made (I estimate ~1400-1500 though it's hard to tell).

I was very excited when I found out you can make a bot account on lichess. After a few hours of messing around, I successfully played a game against Stockfish running on my computer through the lichess interface, so I think I (sort of) know how to connect an engine to my bot account.

However, for all the engines I've made in the past, I have made my own board representation and move in/output. Obviously I'll need to make some modifications to them in order to connect them to lichess. When connecting Stockfish to my account, I used the Stockfish .exe file you can download online. The lichess interface accepted it, so I'm guessing there's some semi-standard way to make interface with engines. I would like to make one of these interfaces.

Questions: am I correct that there is a standard way to interface with an engine? If so, how would you go about making one? Are there any good guides to doing so?

Or perhaps more generally: how would you adapt a "from scratch" engine to play on lichess?

I'm almost entirely self taught programming wise, and am very conscious of the gaping holes in my understanding of computers/programming. Pointing me to any resources would be very helpful.

There are plenty resources available. First of all, you may be interested in the Universal Chess Interface protocol. This is a text protocol that many engines use. A compiled list is available here.

The protocol specification is available for download here (last link on the page).
There is also a python implementation of the protocol.

Last but not least, there exists a lichess API implementation in Python, so you could talk to lichess directly.


'Build up Your chess' but a level lower I've bought first tome of 'Build up Your chess' but it is too difficult for me. I am looking for the comprehensive self-study book exactly like 'Build up...' but for a little weaker player.

I don't know of any books that follow the format that Yusupov uses in his series.

The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis, and Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Averbakh and Beilin are both good initial books. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff is also a nice book.

There are also series of books, such as Yasser Seirawan's Winning Chess ... series, and Lev Alburt's books.


Three questions on GM Larry Kaufman's article about the average relative value of the chess pieces I have three questions related to this article written by GM Larry Kaufman: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evaluation-of-material-imbalances-by-im-larry-kaufman
.
Question n°1:
Kaufman rounded all his results to the nearest quarter... But what are the exact results Kaufman obtained?
.
Question n°2:

The average value of either knight or unpaired bishop came out about 3.14 pawns. This value is a bit depressed by the inclusion of endings with no other pieces, as in such endings the bishop is worth only about 2½ pawns and the knight even less, partly because the minor piece side cannot win if its last pawn is exchanged. As long as there are other pieces on the board (so minimum mating material is not a major issue), the minor piece is worth about 3¼ pawns.

He calculated the average values of the minor pieces and got 3.14 pawns. Then he calculated the average values of the minor pieces but by excluding some endings and got 3.25 pawns. And then he disregarded the true average values of the minor pieces, and instead he prefered to take the average values of the minor pieces with excluding some endings... Why? Being unable to win because of insufficent material is a part of the game, so I think it should be taken into account into the average values of the minor pieces.
.
Question n°3:

There  is some differences between the best values for humans and the best values for computers...
[...]
For human players:

Knight = 3.5
Bishop (unpaired) = 3.5
Rook = 5.25
Two Bishops = 7.5
Queen = 10

What is he talking about? Firstly the values he had previously calculated were calculated using games made by humans only, not computers. Secondly his new values "for human players" are too inflated (if we compare them to other approximations of the pieces made by other people). So I see no reason to say that the previous values were actually for computers (a statement which seems to be simply false), and to therefore inflate all of them by +0.25.

When Kaufman was doing the research, he was studying specific imbalances.  Basically he searched his database for high level games that featured a specific material imbalance and then determined which side won.  That's a slight oversimplification of his method, but the gist is that the research didn't actually give point values for each of the pieces, merely the average number of pawns required to re-balance the material.

To address your second question, I agree that the fact that minor pieces can't win on their own needs to be considered, but it's very easy during the game to keep track of this possibility.  It's far more convenient to know that a piece is better than 3 pawns in the opening and the middle game but worth less than 3 pawns in the endgame.  Having two values for the two separate situations is more conducive to quick evaluations than trying to say that the pawns are "gaining" value once an endgame is reached.

For your last question, human players don't evaluate positional nuances in terms of point values.  Humans will think things like "white is better because he has the d5 square" or "black is better due to the bishop pair", but rarely will a human think "the d5 square is worth 0.30" or "the bishop pair in this position is worth 0.44".  Computers, on the other hand, rely solely on this pure number crunching.  Basically the computer values are calculated in light of the fact that enough positional advantages eventually outweigh some material considerations, but humans generally separate the material calculations and the positional valuations.  In the human case, it's reasonable to think in half pawns and in extreme cases in quarter pawns, but at the end of a long variation, whole numbers become more expedient.  Computers could not care less as to the exact values, so the "real" values can be used when developing engines while humans still tend to rely on rounded values.


Chessbase 13 for automatic game analysis How can I use ChessBase 13 for automatic game analysis? I am new to ChessBase 13 and I don't understand its functions completely.
I have more than 1 chess engines installed manually

This is related to this question where the answer given is ChessBase but not described how to use it.

The company ChessBase sells a series of engine GUIs (Fritz, Houdini, Komodo, Rybka) that blundercheck or do full game annotation. The ChessBase program lets you run an engine while you go through a game, or can add games with a similar opening, but it won't do an automatic full game analysis the way that the engine GUIs do.


Why is 6. Nge2 better, and 7. d5 a necessary push in this game? I have two questions about a recent game that I played on Lichess.

Question 1:

Why is it necessary for White to push d5 now in the game, in this position, and why is Be3 a blunder?

I did play d5 later in the game on move 10, but I cannot understand why, if no disruptive move such as c5 or a well timed e5 (although probably impossible here) is made, I should push d5 at all.

Question 2:

Why is e2 the best position for the King's knight, and not f3 in the next diagram (on move 6 by White)?

There does not appear to be any annoying pin of the knight on f3 by a bishop on g4. Plus, I do not think it is disadvantageous to have doubled pawns on my position(if needed I could play Bd2 when Black plays Bb4). Lastly, and more importantly, the knight on f3 can jump to e5 if possible.

Nf3 is not horrible (it actually transposes into a position that Kasparov once had as White, and won.) I think the reason the engine doesn't like it is that after your proposed Nf3 Bb4 Bd2, Black may play Bxc3.  If that knight is on f3, than after you retake with Bxc3 or bxc3, Black can safely take on e4. If instead the knight was on d2, then you just play Nxc3 and e4 is defended. (See the blunder by Black a little later where he doesn't take on e4.) You do have other options after Nf3 to not lose the pawn, but your pawns may get doubled.


How do I find players to play in person? How do I find events (free/paid) that would allow me to play chess locally with other players?

Almost every city has a local chess club. You can always join your local club and find other events or activities through your club.


1. e4 with backup plan I recently started playing 1. e4.  Since black has a big choice of replies, I would like to learn one opening at a time. If black plays something I haven't learned yet, I would like to resort to a King's Indian setup (pawns on d3, e4, g3, bishop on g2 and knight on f3) which I am familiar with and enjoy playing.

Obviously this backup plan does not work with all of black's replies (e.g. not with the Scandinavian 1. e4 d5). With most others it should be ok-ish, but perhaps there are also slight differences.

My question is: Against which openings is the KIA setup not all that great? Or alternatively, which openings should I learn first so that I don't have to resort to the KIA backup plan?

When you play 1.e4, you should have a plan against:

d5 - Scandanavian
Nf6 - Alekhine's
d6 - Pirc
c6 - Caro-Kann
g6 - Modern
c5 - Sicilian
e5 - King's Pawn
e6 - French
Nc6 and other garbage.

I would say you can go for a King's Indian Attack setup against all of them except the Scandanavian and the King's Pawn openings. You just need to know where to place your pieces based on your opponents opening choices and what pawn structures you want to achieve against them.

So, Scandanavian and 1...e5 it is not so great against. Everything else you can make do with minor tweaks. I like 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 and if 2...Nf6 3.Bb5+ lines in the Scandanavian. White gets easy development and Black's pices sort of get in each others way a bit.


At a strategic impasse Is there a general guideline for how to parlay a lead in development and a slight positional advantage into a definitive win? I'm playing a game now online, and I'm stuck for a way to keep and exploit the upper hand. I get stuck like this a lot, and I figure it must be for lack of principles or tactical vision.

Converting advantages such as a lead in development or a better position are practices that operate on a higher level (conceptually, at least) than tactics. The most common forms of tactics are those than result in the gain of material or a mating net, much more tangible results than say a weak square or an initiative. Pure calculation and a sharp tactical sense are important aspects of chess, but for the majority of the game they will be largely separate from positional play. Therefore, I would say that this is more supportive of your statement that it is a lack of understanding of principles rather than a weak tactical vision.

Let's address the specific examples that you outlined in your question. First, what does a lead in development entail? There is one main principle that you can utilize - initiative. The initiative is dictating the flow of the game. You can force your opponent to respond to your moves, allowing you to execute whatever plan you want while placing his own goals on hold. In such, it is common for positions where one side has the initiative for that player to launch an attack, given that the opponent is not adequately prepared.

If you can elaborate on the "slight positional advantage" (Minor piece difference? Pawn structure [backwards, isolated, doubled, hanging, passed]? Open files? Weak squares? Space? etc.) that you mentioned in the question, I can recommend other plans that are associated with the appropriate imbalances.


Why not 7.Bb4+ before playing Ne7 in the French Defence: Advance, Paulsen Attack? After playing 5.Qb6 which I believe is the final move of the Advance variation of the French, my opponent played 6.a4. I followed with cxd4 and them by cxd4 as well. After that I couldn't remember the best theoretical move so I just played 7.Bd7, as I often find it hard to activate it later on when opening with the French.
[fen ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a4 cxd4 7. cxd4

I analysed the game with Stockfish and looked at the database on 365Chess, and saw that the most played move in this position was 7.Bb4+ which makes sense: developing the bishop with tempo, adding some pressure, without real risk before continuing development. However I let Stockfish run until depth 42 and these were the top 3 moves:

Bb4+ apparently isn't such a good move in this position. Any ideas why ? As I've said, I don't see the problem with playing 7.Bb4+ then 8.Nge7 for example. I acknowledge that it lets the opponent develop their knight on c3 but don't have the chess level to know why it's and advantage for them more than it is for me apparently.

Look at the stockfish lines after Nge7, or, Bd7, or a6. In all of them, black play Na5-b3 sooner or later, and for that the knight on b3 needs the queen's support. In that regard, Bb4+ is really not helping after, say, white plays Nc3 and the bishop on b4 blocks the queen from controlling the b3 square. Apparently Stockfish likes the Na5-b3 maneuver so much that anything else is inferior here.
Actually, a4 is just terrible, so black should easily equalize here with or without Bb4 (from a French player perspective).


Is a gambit still a gambit if it's calculated through to the end? I recently gambitted a knight (I call it a gambit as I gave away a knight without being able to take back).
However I had calculated through all the possibilities and five moves or so later I have an extra pawn and a better position. Does this still count as a gambit or doesn't it as I know I can get the material back?
Essentially, what is the actual definition of a gambit?

No, it's not a gambit; a gambit is 'just' a sacrifice which is part of (well-known) opening theory, nothing more, nothing less.
But, technically, what you describe is not even a real sacrifice, but a 'sham sacrifice'.
Wikipedia gives the following definitions:

Real versus sham
Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:

In a 'real sacrifice', the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.
In a 'sham sacrifice', the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate.  A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice. (Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995, Dover, ISBN 0-486-28449-2)

In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic, positional, or other non-material advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit.  Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called 'speculative sacrifices'.

If the name 'sham sacrifice' sounds too negative to you, just call it a 'tactical combination'.


Awkward situation. Take it or leave it! Imagine a situation where our queen, opponent's bishop and opponent's king are in same vertical line such that if bishop was not there, there would be a check.
Now the opponent, somehow unnoticeably removes the bishop from the line which straight leads to our victory.
.
.
So is this a fouls and should be reversed or a rule or something??
Answer please,!!!

This depends on the rules you are playing under:

In blitz chess with very short time control, an illegal move, such as putting your king into check, usually loses.

In Fide rated tournament games only the second illegal move loses, so he would just have to put the bishop back and make a different move with the bishop (such as taking your queen …).

In olden times there was the rule that you'd have to take back an illegal move and make a king move instead, as a way of punishment, because quite often making a king move would just be a loss of time.
I think this is a good compromise for casual games.

I remember an anecdote about this old rule:
Two masters were playing and after 2…Qd5 white wanted to attack the queen with 3.Nc3. But he fumbled the piece and played 3.Bc3 instead.

The king move punishment unfortunately led to immediate mate …

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qd5 3.Ke2 Qe4#


Is there any word on what will happen to the Candidates Tournament 2020 if one of the players tests positive for COVID-19 (coronavirus)? With FIDE moving forward with the Candidates Tournament 2020, in my opinion against better judgment, they have announced what medical screenings will be done, but have they announced what would happen should one of the players test positive for COVID-19 during the tournament?

There were over 400 people at the opening ceremony yesterday, and I think it would be a public relations nightmare if one of the players contracts it.

Yeah, in fact, the tournament has been put on a pause with the current standings, because they are not able to continue: https://www.chess.com/news/view/2020-fide-candidates-tournament-postponed


Longest sequence before a certain capture Inspired by a recent question, what is the longest possible sequence before White can make a certain capture? Basically, White is trying to capture a chosen piece, and Black optimally defends that piece from capture.  But White will be able to capture it in a finite number of moves. However, the positon must be legal, i.e. it is possible to reach

The longest sequence I have come up with is 156 moves. White wants to capture Black’s bishop.

[FEN "2Bk4/p2P2pp/2pPp3/8/p7/P1p1p1P1/2P1P1Pb/5K1N w - - 0 1"]

1. Ke1 Bg1 2. Kd1 Bh2 3. Kc1 Bg1 4. Kb1 Bh2 5. Ka2 Bg1 6. Ka1 Bh2 7. Kb1 Bg1 8. Kc1 Bh2 9. Kd1 Bg1 10. Ke1 Bh2 11. Kf1 a6 12. Ke1 Bg1 13. Kd1 Bh2 14. Kc1 Bg1  15. Kb1 Bh2 16. Ka2 Bg1 17. Ka1 Bh2 18. Kb1 Bg1 19. Kc1 Bh2 20. Kd1 Bg1 21. Ke1 Bh2 22. Kf1 a5 23. Ke1 Bg1 24. Kd1 Bh2 25. Kc1 Bg1 26. Kb1 Bh2 27. Ka2 Bg1 28. Ka1 Bh2 29. Kb1 Bg1 30. Kc1 Bh2 31. Kd1 Bg1 32. Ke1 Bh2 33. Kf1 c5 34. Ke1 Bg1  35. Kd1 Bh2 36. Kc1 Bg1 37. Kb1 Bh2 38. Ka2 Bg1 39. Ka1 Bh2 40. Kb1 Bg1 41. Kc1 Bh2 42. Kd1 Bg1 43. Ke1 Bh2 44. Kf1 c4 45. Ke1 Bg1 46. Kd1 Bh2 47. Kc1 Bg1 48. Kb1 Bh2 49. Ka2 Bg1 50. Ka1 Bh2 51. Kb1 Bg1 52. Kc1 Bh2 53. Kd1 Bg1 54. Ke1 Bh2 55. Kf1 e5 56. Ke1 Bg1 57. Kd1 Bh2 58. Kc1 Bg1 59. Kb1 Bh2 60. Ka2 Bg1 61. Ka1 Bh2 62. Kb1 Bg1 63. Kc1 Bh2 64. Kd1 Bg1 65. Ke1 Bh2 66. Kf1 e4 67. Ke1 Bg1 68. Kd1 Bh2 69. Kc1 Bg1 70. Kb1 Bh2 71. Ka2 Bg1 72. Ka1 Bh2 73. Kb1 Bg1 74. Kc1 Bh2 75. Kd1 Bg1 76. Ke1 Bh2 77. Kf1 g6 78. Ke1 Bg1 79. Kd1 Bh2 80. Kc1 Bg1 81. Kb1 Bh2 82. Ka2 Bg1 83. Ka1 Bh2 84. Kb1 Bg1 85. Kc1 Bh2 86. Kd1 Bg1 87. Ke1 Bh2 88. Kf1 g5 89. Ke1 Bg1 90. Kd1 Bh2 91. Kc1 Bg1 92. Kb1 Bh2 93. Ka2 Bg1 94. Ka1 Bh2 95. Kb1 Bg1 96. Kc1 Bh2 97. Kd1 Bg1 98. Ke1 Bh2 99. Kf1 g4 100. Ke1 Bg1 101. Kd1 Bh2 102. Kc1 Bg1 103. Kb1 Bh2 104. Ka2 Bg1 105. Ka1 Bh2 106. Kb1 Bg1 107. Kc1 Bh2 108. Kd1 Bg1 109. Ke1 Bh2 110. Kf1 h6 111. Ke1 Bg1 112. Kd1 Bh2 113. Kc1 Bg1 114. Kb1 Bh2 115. Ka2 Bg1 116. Ka1 Bh2 117. Kb1 Bg1 118. Kc1 Bh2 119. Kd1 Bg1 120. Ke1 Bh2 121. Kf1 h5 122. Ke1 Bg1 123. Kd1 Bh2 124. Kc1 Bg1 125. Kb1 Bh2  126. Ka2 Bg1 127. Ka1 Bh2 128. Kb1 Bg1 129. Kc1 Bh2 130. Kd1 Bg1 131. Ke1 Bh2  132. Kf1 h4 133. Ke1 Bg1 134. Kd1 Bh2 135. Kc1 Bg1 136. Kb1 Bh2 137. Ka2 Bg1 138. Ka1 Bh2 139. Kb1 Bg1 140. Kc1 Bh2 141. Kd1 Bg1 142. Ke1 Bh2 143. Kf1 h3 144. gxh3 gxh3 145. Ke1 Bg1 146. Kd1 Bh2 147. Kc1 Bg1 148. Kb1 Bh2 149. Ka2 Bg1 150. Ka1 Bh2 151. Kb1 Bg1 152. Kc1 Bh2 153. Kd1 Bg1 154. Ke1 Bh2 155. Kf1 Bg1 156. Kxg1

Dows anyone know of a longer such sequence, or possibly create a longer one?

Fun concept! I think you can at least retract a couple of moves from your extended example: R: 1. a5-a4 a2-a3 2. a6-a5 fxRg3 3. fxNe6 Nf8xRe6+


Should I recapture the queen with my king or knight in the Scotch Game? I watched the following video on the Scotch Game by NM Dereque Kelley, and he clearly points out that 3...d6 is not a good move on Black's part because it causes all sorts of problems, especially coming from 4. Bb5 pinning the knight.  But if Black does play 3...d6 and 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8+ follows, we arrive at a position that I have been in many times as White and as Black.  As Black, I normally would play 5...Nxd8, but in the video, Dereque says that this is not an option because it leaves the e5 pawn hanging, so Black must capture with 5...Kxd8 and give up castling rights.  Is this really the best move given that castling is a fundamental part of the opening?  I understand that 5...Nxd8 does leave the e5 pawn hanging, but what is more important here, holding on to the e5 pawn or maintaining the ability to castle?

As you say, each of the options 5. ... Nxd8 and 5. ... Kxd8 has its own drawbacks: the former drops a pawn and the latter gives up castling rights. In this situation Kelley is right that losing the pawn is significantly worse than giving up the right to castle.

In a typical middlegame that features a lot of firepower on board for both sides, a king stuck in the center of the board can be in a great deal of danger of facing a mating attack. But in this case, the king gets stuck in the center only after the queens come off the board, which means Black has much less to worry about in terms of facing an attack. This queenless middlegame is not so far removed from an endgame, in which centralization of the king is generally a plus rather than a minus. Now there are still a lot of pieces on the board, so it's not a walk in the park for the Black king; I'm just saying it's not as dire as things can be with the ladies still around.

This particular position still has certain problems for Black (which is one reason why 3. ... d6 isn't the best choice); for instance, the king having been pulled to d8 means that the f-pawn is undefended, so with something like 6. Bc4 White develops the bishop, and the Black either must waste a tempo moving the king back to defend the f-pawn, or play 6. ... Be6 to defend the pawn, allowing White the chance to give Black doubled, isolated pawns by 7. Bxe6 fxe6. That's not the end of the world, and in this kind of position those pawns do at least help control some central squares. The main point: Black will probably end up with some structural problems, or lag behind in development for a bit, but this is better than the alternative.

Losing a pawn isn't the end of the world either, it's true, but here it's much closer. After 5. ... Nxd8 6. Nxe5, White is a clear pawn up without any compensating factors in Black's favor; in fact White has a lead in development as well. This is something Black definitely shouldn't allow, especially since we really are getting toward the realm of the endgame, where having an extra pawn is of crucial importance. Going this route puts White in the enviable situation of "playing for two results," meaning that from here either a White win or a draw are nearly certain, with a loss for White being very unlikely (barring a big mistake later of course). That's one of the worst things Black can do to herself in the opening.


Tactics in Firouzja's game round 3 In round 3, Firouzja and Artemiev played a very interesting Caro-Kann game, with white constantly trying to open up the position even at the cost of pawns, in order to exploit black's exposed king position, which indeed proved to be decisive and white won.

It seems that in these Caro-Kann structures, white has to be really careful not to lose the center pawns with some combinations. For example in the game, after white castled, I noticed that although at first glance it seems the e5 pawn can be won after Nxg3, fxg3, Nxe5 using the pin, but white has the Na4 intermezzo first dislocating the queen then winning the knight on e5. Here it is diagrammed:

 [title "e5 not really hanging"]
 [fen "r3kb1r/pp1n1pp1/1qp1p1b1/4PnBp/2BP3P/2N3N1/PP3PP1/2RQ1RK1 b kq - 2 12"]
 [startflipped "0"]

 1...Nxg3 2. fxg3 Nxe5 3. Na4 Qc7 4. dxe5

This one I could figure out. But what I don't get is, instead of going after the e5 pawn, after castling, couldn't black have won the d4 pawn which is doubled attacked by the knight on f5 and the queen
on b6, while only being defended once with the queen:

 [title "why didn't black take on d4 here?"]
 [fen "r3kb1r/pp1n1pp1/1qp1p1b1/4PnBp/2BP3P/2N3N1/PP3PP1/2RQ1RK1 b kq - 2 12"]
 [startflipped "0"]

 1...Qxd4

Why couldn't black take on d4? Is it simply because after Qxd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 white has sufficient positional compensation considering all the pieces are actively posted and black's still behind in development? or are there simply direct tactics preventing Qxd4 altogether?

Good job on the first tactic: indeed e5 is not really hanging in that line due to Na4.

As for the d4 pawn, although even in the line you suggest (with the exchange of queens) white stands a tad better, the d4 pawn is in fact tactically defended! Considering that you do not mention any computer evaluations and have tried to tackle the problem on your own (which is excellent!), I reckon you're more interested in not just seeing the solution but to also see how to get there, so let's walk through it together.

To recognise the combination, take note of black's weakpoints around the king:

king stuck in the center,
the dark the square holes around black's king,
the bishop taking away the e7-d8 squares, and the potential of a smothered type of mate were the knight to land on c7,
the open d-file (thanks to Qxd4) and the fact that the d7 knight is only defended once by the king (therefore vulnerable to direct tactics).

With these in mind, now try to find forcing moves (captures, checks, threats of mate or gain of material, etc.) that exploit these weaknesses and see if you can make them work concretely.

The first move that comes to mind, challenging all the aforementioned weaknesses at once, is Nb5, with the double threat of attacking the queen and mating on c7. Rather interestingly, Nb5 works out beautifully: if black doesn't capture on b5, then they lose on the spot due to dark square weaknesses. And if they do capture the knight, then they end up further opening the position (as cxb5-Bxb5 open the critical a4-e8 diagonal towards the king) and lose due to the compromised king position and lack of defenders (in turn caused by lack of development).

Let's see how all this pans out concretely: (no time to cross check the lines with a computer, I leave that up to you!)

 [title "Lines after 12...Qxd4"]
 [fen "r3kb1r/pp1n1pp1/1qp1p1b1/4PnBp/2BP3P/2N3N1/PP3PP1/2RQ1RK1 b kq - 2 12"]
 [startflipped "0"]

 1...Qxd4 2. Nb5 cxb5 (2...Qxd1 3. Nc7#) (2...Qb6 3. Nxf5 exf5 {loses on the spot as it allows e6 opening the e-file} (3...Bxf5 4. Nd6+ Bxd6 5. Bxe6 {A real blow to black's position! Note Qxd6 at once doesn't work due to Qc5} fxe6 (5...Bxe6 6. Qxd6 {now Qxd6 works as the c5 square is guarded by the rook on c1}) 6. Qxd6 {only way to avoid mate without losing the queen is to make a run for it via f7} Kf7 7. Qxd7+ Kg8 {and white's clearly winning thanks to the domination of the bishop and queen, e.g. after Rcd1 Kh7 Qf7 wins the e6 pawn}) 4. e6 Nf6 5. exf7+ Bxf7 6. Re1+ Ne4 7. Nd6+ Bxd6 8. Qxd6 {and black has to sacrifice their queen to avoid mate}) 3. Bxb5 a6 (3...Qxd1 4. Rfxd1 f6 5. exf6 gxf6 6. Rxd7 a6 {threatening to win the rook after Ba4 b5} 7. Ne4 {Nf6 threatened with mate} Be7 8. Rxe7+ Kxe7 9. Bxf6+ Kf7 10. Rc7+ Kf8 11. Bxh8 axb5 12. a3 {and white's completely winning, being up a healthy pawn, better piece coordination, while black's king remains exposed and the 3 isolated pawn islands are useless offering no prospect of counter-play.}) 4. Qxd4 Nxd4 5. Bxd7+ Kxd7 6. Rfd1 f6 7. Rxd4+ Ke8 8. exf6 gxf6 9. Bxf6 Rh7 10. Re1 Rc7 {baiting white to take on e6 with Rxe6+ Kf7 and white's rook defending the bishop will be easily overloaded} 11. Bg5 {calmly side-stepping the double attack with Kf7} Bf7 12. Ne4 {and white's advantage is once again decisive: clear pawn up, all 4 pieces perfectly coordinated against black's king stuck in the center, meanwhile all of black pieces are bound defensively, and both the e6 and h5 pawns are extremely weak and will fall soon with slow technical play.}

What a beautiful tactical adventure! This makes for excellent practice of both tactics and calculations.

It's worth noting that in some of the lines discussed above, black is not necessarily getting checkmated or even being necessarily a piece down, instead, the position becomes heavily damaged and black ends up at least a clear pawn down, all of which is more than enough of an edge to win considering the caliber of players we are talking about.

Finally, Artemiev need not necessarily have calculated all the above lines to realise d4 is not in fact hanging. Instead and particularly for players of such strength, they either have seen it before in a game or in preparation, or based on their strong intuition they simply smell the overwhelming dangers that could arise if they went pawn hunting with their king stuck in the center.

Last but not least, calculating very forcing lines (such as the above) is in fact the easiest type of calculations due to their inherent nature of being forcing (their branch outs are limited and the remaining lines are very concrete thus requiring less positional judgement). Meaning that e.g., performing all the above calculations over the board is quite feasible for strong players, and somewhat even trivial for super GMs.


What chess app displays the name of the opening being used in the game? I used to have a chess app that would say the name of the opening being used when you played. Then my tablet broke, and I thought it would be easy to find that chess app, but no luck.

Does anyone know what app I'm talking about, or another app that says the name of the opening being used when you play it?

It isn't likely to be the app you were using, but the Stockfish iOS app displays it:

(if you play more moves, the ECO code and opening name may change, to e.g. A81 Dutch defense)

I suspect many more (or even most) apps do it, or have at least an option to enable it in the settings. Stockfish does not say the name of the opening, though.


Why are chess.com opening names and notations seemingly mismatched? I often see something like the above when playing chess online. When I played Ruy Lopez and my opponent played Classical Variation, but I transposed us to Four Knights Game Spanish Variation, I had castled in between the Classical move and the transposition (Move 4).

It seems the reason the opening name says "5. O-O" because it one of the openings where the order of moves doesn't matter. But is this a bug in chess.com or intentional for the opening name to be mismatched with the move numbers?

I think this is intentional. The opening name alludes to the position reached, not the route taken to get there. The principal move order to reach this position is to start with the classical variation of the Spanish variation of the four knights game and play 5. O-O.

It wouldn't make sense to say Four Knights Game: Spanish Variation, Classical Variation, 4. O-O because if you had reached it from that route then you wouldn't have castled on move 4. While it would make sense to describe it as a Ruy Lopez with 4. O-O, it would be undesirable to list the same position under two different openings.


How to relax when playing chess? I always tend to be tense when playing. I guess you could say I find chess somewhat stressful? I see it as a fight to win as opposed to some ordinary board game like Monopoly. I really can't relate to well with people who just play chess because they find it relaxing. For some reason though, I still like the game, even though it's stressful to a certain degree, who knows why?

Would you say this is normal chess player behavior? What do you feel when it comes to chess, I would like to hear some other players' experience. Did you feel stressed out when you first started? Are you still tense or do you find the game purely relaxing?

I play a lot of board games and a lot of chess in particular. I can tell you that every chess player has a certain element of nervous energy whilst playing. This keeps us sharp. These are the reasons I believe chess generates nervous energy in the players:

Competitiveness: Chess is purely competitive and we are all playing to win on some level, whether it is to beat the opponent, get a draw against a Grand Master, or to improve our game, i.e. beat ourselves
Skill: There is no random component. I can't blame the dice gods if I lose
Not a team game: Similar to how I can't blame the dice gods if I lose, I can't even blame my team mates! Even when chess is played as a team (e.g. Olympiad), what my team is doing during my game doesn't affect the outcome of my game
Ratings: This relates to pride, but if I am playing against someone who I see as being a weaker player (lower rating/child player/patzer), then I'll be extremely embarrassed to lose. Similarly, I want to beat higher rated players to inflate my ego


What is the earliest possible age to start teaching children how to play chess? My daughter is 4 years old, and she plays checkers very well for her age. She asked me if she can learn how to play chess too. So I am interested in what is the best age to start teaching her. Is it too early to do this?  Does anyone have any experience?

Depending on several factors, the age to start teaching a child to play chess can vary.

The mere fact that she asked you how she can play chess is a good sign that she is interested in learning.  Interest is one of the key factors because we don't want to force-feed them the game.  If I had to pick an age, I would say 4 is a good age, but it depends also on maturity.  I would also say not to expect too much and let her have fun. A great place to start is http://wwww.chesskid.com

My 2 (almost 3 year old) stumbled upon Chessmaster by accident.  He was more intrigued by the movie type intro to the game rather than the actual game itself, nevertheless, he remained interested and knows all the names of the pieces, but that is about it.  He knows that it is a game, but if I tell him something like "Take the knight", he will take a pawn on some square and go all the way across the board and take it, lol, so based on my own experience, 3 seems to be too young in most cases.  I have really yet to see 4, but when my kid reaches 4, I guess I will find out, but based upon his reaction now, I think he would have a good grasp of the rules by age 4, maybe earlier.  As for now, I just let him have fun.


Can an Optimal Stopping strategy be applied to search functions? Can the solution to the famous Secretary Problem be applied to the search function of a chess engine? Rejecting the first 37% moves and choosing the best one after that,or maybe even just checking the first 63% of the moves and choosing the best one so far?

No. What if recapturing your queen for an exchange is your first
candidate move?


Does ...Nxg4 really work? [Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

White has just played g4, after which I have replied ...Bg6.

I have uploaded the position online for brief computer analysis, and engine suggested ...Nxg4 as best.

The lines were skimpy, and I could not understand/learn how to proceed after the knight sacrifice.

QUESTION:

Can someone offer detailed analysis after ...Nxg4 ?

I need analysis of all relevant lines and branches, because I want to learn why is ...Nxg4 good in the above position.

Long story short, I have no access to engine, that is why I asked the question.

1... Nxg4 works (?) because it allows Black to force a draw.

[FEN "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxg4 2.hxg4 Bxg4 3.Kg2 (3.Re3 Qh5 4.Kg2 e5 5.Bg3 Qh3+ 6.Kg1 b5 7.Bb3 a5 8.a4 Qh5) Qf5 4.Bg3 Bh3+ 5.Kg1 Bg4 6.Kg2

Now here's Stockfish's Bg6 variation. I think it's kinda whacked. White sacrifices a few pieces to achieve a perpetual check. It is instructional in that it shows that White can choose this outcome. It never would have occurred to me to even look for it. The 11. Ne5 variation within the diagram below shows that White doesn't have to settle for that draw; instead, the Knight move keeps the game going by ceding a meaningless -.08 advantage.

I think Bg6 is completely playable if Black is seeking more than a draw.

    [FEN "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

    1... Bg6 2.Bb3 Nd5 3.Nxd5 cxd5 4.d4 h6 5.c3 Rac8 6.a4 Be4 7.Nd2 Bh7 8.Nf3 Nb6 9.Bc2 Bxc2 10.Qxc2 Nc4 11.Bxh6 (11. Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qd8 13.a5 Rc4 14.Bg3 Qd7 15.Kg2 b5 16.axb6 axb6 17.f4 b5 18.f5 b4 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Rf1 Bf6 21.Qd3 Rfc8 22.Be1 e5 23.dxe5 Bxe5 24.Ra5 bxc3 25.bxc3 Bxc3 26.Bxc3 Rxc3 27.Qxd5+ Qxd5+ 28.Rxd5) gxh6 12.Rxe6 fxe6 13.Qg6+ Kh8 14.Qxh6+ Kg8 15.Qxe6+ Kh8 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.Qe6+

It's 11:40pm here and it's racktime. If you have specific variations you want to see, let me know.

EDIT - ALNS has perhaps found a playable variation for White though it is not for the faint-hearted. White is down a pawn but has a passed center pawn.

[FEN "r4rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/q6b/2B2BP1/2NP1N1P/PPP2P2/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxg4 2. hxg4 Bxg4 3. Re3 Qh5 4.Ne4 e5 5.Ng3 Qh3 6.Bxe5 Nxe5 7.Rxe5 Bh4 8.Qf1 Qxf1+ 9.Nxf1 Bxf3 10.Nh2 Bd5 11.Bxd5 Bf6 12.Rf5 cxd5 13.Rxd5 {with Stockfish rating Black slightly better.}


Are there any very lopsided scores in openings at lower levels? I was reading this question: How to know how good an opening defense scores, and it got me wondering...Have there been very lopsided opening scores in the lower levels. For example, if we found out that the Halloween Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 scores 90% in under 1800 level category it would be quite an anomaly.

Edit:

One kind of an anomaly that I can think of at the top-level is the Traxler:

    [FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5

According to chessgames database black scored 60.1 % wins and 15.9 % draws in 308 games. Of course we don't know relative strength of the players, maybe stronger players had black pieces.

Edit:

Tony Ennis pointed out that according to 365chess.com there is no advantage for black in the Traxler.

In order to answer your question, I put together a database archive of 30000+ games played in over-the-board tournaments where both players were rated less than 2000.  Only one game had the Halloween, and there were few Traxlers.  Black died quickly in a handful of Fried Liver Attacks.  There were no Parhams 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 nor Fool's mates.

The Triangle/Noteboom complex scored very well for Black as did the Benko Gambit.  1.d4 d5 2.Nc3?! looked to be a bust, and the Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 1.e4 c5 2.f4?! didn't fare well for White.  In the Ruy Lopez, the Steinitz defence 3...d6?! and Cozio 3...Nge7?! led to a lot of Black losses.  Rubinstein's line in the French 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4?! didn't do well either.  A lot of patzers fell for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5?! 3.cxd5! and ended up getting overrun.  1.e4 c6 2.c4! did well against the Caro-Kann.


How to represent chess state with a bitboard I'm interested in programming a chess engine and using bitboards to represent the state of the game. I know there are a few open source chess engines that use bitboards, but its not so easy to look at the code and understand what is going on. I'm looking for good reference material on how to represent all the state in bitboards.

Clearly explaining how to maintain the state of the game using bitboards, and especially how to generate a list of valid moves from any given bitboard, or supplying good references to such an explanation will earn you the green check mark.

The best resource for chess engine programming is the Chess Programming Wiki, which has a large section on bitboards. Everything you need to make a bitboard-based engine is there, although it's rather spread out and sometimes written by people for whom English is a second language.


Four way chess Checkmate I don't know how many people play four way chess, but do you have to checkmate an opponent's king or actually kill it to take over his army?

According to this site you can play Four way chess with the same rules that you play in a classical game (include the notion of checkmate) with the difference that all queens will start on white squares. All pieces have the same movements than on the regular chess, the first player to start is the white pieces play continues clockwise around the board each player moving one piece per turn.

Also according to this, you can play two variants of Four way chess:

Regicide rules;
Classical Rules.

Quoting the site:

Regicide rules:

  Regicide means to kill the king, in Regicide Rules you must actually
  capture both enemy kings to win, rather than just checkmate them. When
  a players king is captured the rest of his pieces remain exactly where
  they are on the board and cannot move, except to capture another
  piece, or you may pass on any move after your king is captured. Your
  team must kill both the enemy kings to win. In Regicide Rules the king
  is a fighting piece too, so you dont have to get out of check and
  checkmate does not apply, and you dont have to announce check. You can
  even move into check. You can also castle out of check, through check,
  or into check.

and with the classical rules:

  When one player is checkmated on his turn all his pieces are removed
  from the board and his two opponents armies combine into one army for
  movement purposes, being allowed one move from either color per move
  that the defeated players partner gets. This is how we used to play
  but now we usually play Regicide Rules.


How accurate is Chess Maniac's online rating estimator? After decades away from tournament play, I decided to play in an open tourney my child entered. Trying to gauge how my game might have changed during my time away, I found an online rating estimator at Chess Maniac. I was surprised to find that it estimated me 500 points stronger than my (USCF) rating - which actually went down about 60 points at the tournament. So, how accurate is this estimator?

Edit: I realize the Chess Maniac page in question is just an estimator. I'm looking for answers indicating that it tends to overrate or underrate players and by how much. If it doesn't have a tendency one way or another, I'd like to know that.

Absolutely inaccurate. ELO rating is determined by playing a whole game of chess, not by solving a few positions without any pressure.

Please play some online games for better estimate of your playing strength.


Connecting opening book to chess engine I have file Rybka.exe and when I use it for the first moves, it always goes Nf3 or Nc3 only (even at strength 1000 and depth 1). I assume that is because it doesn't have opening book assigned (?) to it. How does one connect opening books in .ctg (or other?) formats to the chess engine? I do not want to get some GUI, but rather understand how it is done.

I don't have Rybka 4 but I do have the free version (Rybka 2.3.2). Rybka 2.3.2 doesn't support engine book. To verify this, open the engine in command, then type "uci". Look at how I did it.

Look the UCI options, we have one for multi-pv and others. But there is nothing for an opening book. If the engine doesn't support an opening book, you have to rely on a GUI to do it, for example, Fritz.

On the other hand, if you do the same thing to Stockfish, you'll see a Book options where you can specify path to your book be used by the engine.


Why not 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 Nf6 against the Reti opening? The reply 2...Nf6 to the Reti opening 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 Nf6 is not even mentioned in my three Reti opening books. What is wrong with that? There must be a well-known answer that is simply part of the professional player's erudition because otherwise this move would get attention from the authors.

This is identical to the position that occurs after the move order 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 d5. The central push d5 is common in many openings, for instance the Grunfeld, but here the timing is bad. The position after

[FEN ""]
[Title "Reti 2... Nf6"]
[Startply "7"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4

is one I often get with white when I play online, and it usually ends up very well for white. White will follow up with e4 and get an advantage in the center with tempo.

The main difference with the Grunfeld is that there is no white knight on c3 that black can exchange the knight on d5 with, and the knight (and black's whole position) will end up slightly passive.

Sample line:

[FEN ""]
[Title "Reti 2... Nf6"]
[Startply "13"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4 g6 5. e4 Nb6 6. h3 Bg7 7.Nc3

with a slight white advantage.

Black can also try 4... Bf5 to stop e4 temporarily, but then they have to be really careful. For instance

[FEN ""]
[Title "Reti 2... Nf6"]
[Startply "15"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. d4 Bf5 5. Qb3 e6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7.e4 Nxc3 8. exf5!

is very good for white.


How to “crack” this position? I find this particular final position from a personal game intriguing. Even though there's a material advantage, there's no clear path to the victory. Does anyone have any good ideas on how to crack this nut?

[Event "Liga CS Jug"]
[Site "Niska Banja"]
[Date "2016.10.15"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Bojkovic"]
[Black "Djokic"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B41"]
[WhiteElo "2234"]
[BlackElo "2329"]
[Source "Analyze This (Free)"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "130"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Qc7 7. Be2 b6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qd3 Nc6 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. a4 h5 12. h3 Bc5 13. Bg5 Qe5 14. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Bf3 a5 16. Rfd1 Kf8 17. b3 Rg8 18. Ne2 Rd8 19. Rac1 Ke7 20. Rc2 Bd6 21. Kf1 Bc5 22. Nc3 Rg5 23. Re2 Kf8 24. Ree1 h4 25. Nd5 Kg7 26. Ne3 Qf4 27. Ng4 Kf8 28. Qc3 Bb4 29. Qxf6 Qxf6 30. Nxf6 Ke7 31. Ng4 Bxe1 32. Kxe1 d6 33. Ne3 Bb7 34. Ke2 Re5 35. Rd4 Rg8 36. Ng4 Rc5 37. Ne3 Rd8 38. Rd2 Ba8 39. Rd4 Re5  1/2-1/2

I have been looking at this with a fairly strong computer for about 15 minutes (and the judgment of having been a Master for 30+ years and forcing in plausible lines), and I am convinced that this is a positional draw.

White is obviously worse per the computer eval, but he can keep the position exactly as it is by either moving his K from e2 to d3 and back (sometimes f1 if there is a threat to take on g2), or his Rd4 back and forth to d1 if black moves the Re5 away so e4 is not hanging. So, that leaves only to look at what can black do.

You have to look at black's pawn breaks. Clearly, b5 is out as cb actually leaves white better. d5 just loses. f5, which would be the standard try, is never any good because after ef and the bishop trade on f3, that will leave a monster N to go to d5, and that will also keep black tied to the weak pawn on b6. That only leaves the attempt to double rooks on the g-file, and sacrifice on g2, but it is already defended twice, and can even be over-protected with Kf1 if it looks like it might work for black.

Lastly, on top of b6 being weak if f5 gets played, h4 also becomes an immediate target along the fourth rank.

My opinion is that if black tries to win, especially with f5, he is probably going to be worse, and it will be he, who is fighting for the draw. Sorry, I just do not think that there is a way to crack that nut. Try too hard, and you might break an egg though. :)


Why shouldn't the black king move to h7? If white plays ne6+, why shouldn't black play kh7?

1...Kh7 leads to 2. Qxh6+! Kxh6 3. Rh3+ with mate in 2. If 2...Kg8, Black is mated with 3. Qxg6 Kh8 4. Rh1 with mate in 2.


Way to make a standard tell at beginning of game in Babas Chess? I use Babas Chess as a client for FICS.

I would like to have a standard tell be issued to my opponent when a game starts like "Hello from Chicago!" or whatever, but I cannot find out how to do this and FICs itself seems to have no mechanism for this either.

Normally, I would just use the Babas Help to find the answer, but Babas is REALLY complicated and has a lot of options including scripting, so I am hoping somebody who has done it before can tell me how.

This "script" is a command universal to all chess clients that run FICS, because it is a FICS command.

alias

Usage: alias [word [string]]

The "alias" command sets up a command alias so that 'word' is equivalent to typing 'string'.

PARAMETERS ----------

alias: If no parameter is supplied all of your aliases are displayed. word: The word for the alias. If 'string' is not supplied it lists the command associated with 'word'. string: The command string to use for the alias.

EXTRA INFO ----------

In order for an alias to actually do something, the server has to process each command you type. This is what happens:

If your command begins with a $, no alias substitution is done.
The first word is compared against your "alias" list, looking for a match.
The first word is compared against the server aliases, looking for a match.
If no match is found, the word is compared against the server commands. This means you can overwrite server commands with an alias.

SUBSTITUTION ------------ If the first word of your command matches an alias, it is replaced with the alias 'string'. The rest of what you type is substituted into the alias as 'parameters'.

You can access these parameters with special characters. They all start with an $.

$$ Replace with a $ (let's you use a '$' in the new command

$@ Replace with all parameters typed after 'word'

$n Replace with parameter number n

$-n Replace with all parameters 1 through n

$n Replace with all parameters from n onward

$m Replace with my name

$o Replace with my (last) opponent's name

$p Replace with my partner's name

$. Replace with the last person I told to

$, Replace with the last channel I told to

SPECIAL NOTES -------------

Use the "unalias" command to remove an alias.
You may not create an alias for the quit command, or for the unalias command.
A list of system aliases is available from the help system_alias file.
You can not put multiple commands with one alias.
Aliases are not transitional. This sequence of commands alias foo bar alias bar baz Will NOT result in foo being equivalent to baz.

WARNING: Be careful to avoid using an alias that can also stand for another command on the server. For example, "fg" could be a chess move (for f-pawn X g-pawn), so don't have "fg" be an alias. For similar reasons, it would not be best to use "t" as an alias since it is already assigned as an alias for "tell". You could do so, of course; but then you would not be able to use the system alias for tell unless you unalias your alias.

EXAMPLES -------- Some examples for useful aliases.

alias gm say Good move! If you type 'gm' it will say 'Good move!' to your opponent.

alias gg say Good game, $o! If you type 'gg' it will say 'Good game, !'

alias greet it waves at $1. How are you? $2- You can type 'greet playername Enjoy dinner?' and it will shout '--> yourname waves at playername! How are you? Enjoy dinner?'.

alias afk set busy is away for a bit Sets your busy string to 'is away for a bit' if you type 'afk' alias s1 seek 5 0 blitz f m If you type 's1' it will "seek" a 5 0 blitz game to all those who match your formula and set it to manual verification.

alias sf seek $1 $2 f Typing 'sf 3 0' will seek a 3 0 game and your opponent must fit your formula. 'sf 2 12' will seek a 2 12 game restricted to your formula.

alias 50 xtell 50 $@ You can now chat in channel 50 by typing in '50 whatever you want to say'. By using xtell the ',' system alias will allow fast communications to another channel.

SEE ALSO -------- system_alias unalias

AUTHORS ------- Created: 22 February 2002 DAV Last Modified: 30 December 2007 mhill


How is mate guaranteed - Bobby Fischer 134 I am working through Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and #134 asks

If White plays Rook-takes-Rook-check, can he mate?

The answer is Yes, the mate is delivered by the white Queen.  However, can't it be prevented?
Here's the board:
[title "Bobby Fischer #134"]
[fen "1r1r2k1/6pp/2n4q/2p1p2Q/pp2N2P/5P2/PPPR2P1/1K1R4 w - - 0 1"]

I can see how to get mate, with the Queen: 1. Rxd8 Rxd8 2. Rxd8 Nxd8 3. Qe8  for mate.
However, if 1. Rxd8 Nxd8 2. Rxd8 Rxd8 .  This prevents the Qe8 mate, doesn't it?
So when the question asks "can he mate", yes but it's not guaranteed.  Do I understand the board correctly?

However, if black takes with Rook, then Knight takes' white's rook,
white rook to take knight, then black rook to take white rook. This
prevents the Qe8 mate, doesn't it?

No, it accelerates it. Let's look at what happens if black takes with the knight instead of the rook
[fen "1r1r2k1/6pp/2n4q/2p1p2Q/pp2N2P/5P2/PPPR2P1/1K1R4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxd8 Nxd8 2. Qe8# {oops!}

Black gets checkmated in 2 moves instead of 3


Is there any etiquette about how to proceed when a technical problem leads to a misplay in an online game? Recently I was playing an online game when I moved my king with the intent of castling. However, I apparently didn't get it far enough over, and when I "let it go", the king was placed in a square adjacent to the one it had left and the rook stayed in the corner.

I made a comment in the players' chat along the lines of "That was meant to be a castle." The other player even replied with something like "Yeah, I figured." However he proceeded to take advantage of the situation, eventually winning what had been an even game up to that point.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened to me. In fact it seems to happen disturbingly often, and I've only played a few dozen online games over the past few months. Also, I've seen some puzzling moves from opponents that I now think might have been due to trouble with the equipment, rather than just poor play.

In the game above, I considered asking for a draw right after the error, especially since my opponent acknowledged that it was a technical problem, not poor play. However I wasn't sure of the etiquette for this, and also had time considerations to worry about. Would it have been considered bad form to ask for a draw? To decline one if it is asked for from an opponent in such a circumstance?

That's called a mouse-slip, and it's part of playing online. Watch some of Carlsen's online play (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJlOlufG-JM) and you'll see even he mouse-slips on occasion. Common etiquette seems to be to continue playing out the game and try to be more precise next time.


How can someone find their Morphy number? The Morphy number is a measure of how closely a chess player is connected to Paul Morphy (1837–1884) by way of playing chess games. It's analogous to the Erdős Number for mathematicians.
People who played a chess game with Morphy have a Morphy number of 1. Players who did not play Morphy but played someone with a Morphy number of 1 have a Morphy number of 2. People who played someone with a Morphy number of n have a Morphy number of n+1.
In my case, in the early 1980s, I played Jonathan Penrose in a simultaneous exhibition, the cosmic significance of which was unknown to me at the time. Penrose is one of the few living MN3 players, having played Savielly Tartakower in 1950, who played James Mortimer in 1907, who played Paul Morphy himself "hundreds of times" from 1853. So that gives me MN4. A bit lucky: if I hadn't got that connection to Penrose, I might be hard-pressed to find my number.
Jonathan’s brother is the celebrated physicist, Roger Penrose.
So how does someone go about finding their Morphy number more systematically? Has anyone data-mined chess games databases from this perspective? Have any results been published? What are the paths implied in the Wikipedia article linked above from the MN1 to MN2 to ... to MN5 players listed there? And what's the expected MN for an active player today?
Has anyone else here managed to figure out their MN?

You'd have to find a list of players Morphy has played. Then, you'd research as many players who played each of those players. This can all be done by searching by player in a large database. Eventually you'd have a large tree, and the problem comes down to an optimal search algorithm.

You'd search "branches" with a more likely chance of giving you a small Morphy number. This means looking at players who have played more games over their career. For example, if some player A was one of Morphy's opponents who played the most games, you'd look at him first. Then, find one of Player A's opponents (call him B) who played the most games in his lifetime, and look at him first. If doing this recursively with B never leads to you (or gives a poor Morphy number), go on to C: the opponent of player A who played the second most games. If eventually you find all of Player A's opponents don't lead to you, meaning Player A isn't connected to you, go on to the opponent of Morphy who had the second most games.

But it's still a massive job to search. Even if you find a link to yourself, you need to prove/justify that it's the smallest link. Perhaps you could organize all these players into a tree and write a program to efficiently search it.