When and why should I trade minor pieces? After looking at bishop placement and bishops compared to knights i came to the following question:

When would it be beneficial to trade a knight for a bishop, or vice versa?

This includes the following:

Trading a fianchettoed bishop and a centralised bishop
Trading a bishop of a particular colour and a bishop of the other colour
Trading a knight and a bishop
Trading an outposted knight for a bishop
Trading a bishop for a centralised knight
Trading two knights when one side would be left with a bishop while the other would be left with a knight
Trading an undeveloped, or otherwise "out of the game" piece for a developed and active piece, both knights and bishops.

How does the value of a knight or bishop change depending on the current situation in game?

What examples are there of this?
Why does this happen and how can I trade these pieces to my own advantage?

Example from GM (or other high level) games demonstrating one or multiple points would be greatly appreciated.

Guidelines of when to trade

  First of all, you trade down when you're ahead in material. The more
  material that comes off, the bigger your advantage gets.
  Next, you trade off when you have a spatial disadvantage. If your
  opponent is crunching down on you, by trading off pieces, you
  relieve the pressure on your position.
  Third, you trade when an exchange will make one of your surviving
  pieces more powerful. For example, when trading bishop for knight,
  will leave you with a position with a very strong knight against a
  bad bishop of your opponent's.
  And fourth, you trade when you'll be getting rid of a very powerful
  piece of your opponent.

From Josh Waitzkin's Academy, presented in the Chessmaster program. Emphasis is mine.

The remainder of this answer elaborates on points 3 and 4, i.e. you trade minor pieces when the resulting position is favourable to you, and the types of positions that favour the Knight or the Bishop are highlighted below.

When a Bishop is stronger than the Knight

  Bishop and knight are of approximately equal value, but in the endgame, situations favouring the the bishop are considerably more common than those favouring the knight.

Why is this? Firstly, Bishops are stronger in open games, and endgames, with a large reduction in material, are often open.

Secondly, if play is on both sides of the board, then the bishop can cover both sides better than a knight can.

Here is an example:

[FEN "8/8/1k3b2/1p3p1p/pPp2P2/P1P3P1/8/1N2K3 w - - 0 1"]
[Site ""]
[White "Onoprienko"]
[Black "Khasangatin"]

  1. Kd2            Kc6
  2. Ke2            Kd5
  3. Ke3            Bg7
  4. Kf3            Bh8
  5. Ke3            Bg7
  6. Kf3            Bf6
  7. Ke3            h4
  8. gxh4           Bxh4
  9. Kf3            Bf6
 10. Ke3            Ke6
 11. Kf3            Kf7
 12. Kg3            Kg6
 13. Kh3            Kh5
 14. Kg3            Be7
 15. Kh3            Bh4
 16. Nd2            Be1
 17. Nb1            Bf2
 18. Kg2            Be3
 19. Kf3            Bc1
 20. Kg3            Kg6
 0-1

Here we see that:

White's pawns were locked onto dark squares, hence were targets for the Bishop
The Knight was entirely passive, guarding the Queenside pawns
The Bishop was able to triangulate to lose a tempo when White was in zugzwang. A Knight cannot do the same
Play was on 2 sides of the board, which is to the Bishop's advantage

Source for quote and example: Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn.

When a Knight is stronger than the Bishop

  The Bishop doesn't always defeat the Knight. The Bishop's weakness, that it can only reach half the squares on the board, is exacerbated when it is a 'bad' bishop.

Let's take a look at an example:

[FEN "8/1p6/3p1k2/2pPp1p1/P1P1K1Pp/3N3P/3b4/8 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Nunn"]
[Black "Upton"]

  1. Kf3            Ba5
  2. Nf2            Bc7
  3. Ne4+           Kg6
  4. a5             Kh6
  5. Ke3            Kg6
  6. Kd3            Kg7
  7. Kc2            Kf8
  8. Kb3            Bxa5
  9. Nxd6           Bb6
 10. Ne4            Bd8
 11. Nxc5           b6
 12. Ne6+            1-0

Here we see that:

The position is closed, meaning White had time to maneuver the Knight to the ideal squares
The Bishop was hemmed in by it's own pawns and had no targets. It was effectively a spectator

Source for quotes and example: Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn.

The Bishop pair

  Two Bishops are often a powerful force in the endgame. They have the long-range power of a single Bishop, but without the lone Bishop's weakness of only being able to reach half the squares on the board.

In this example, we see 3 themes as to how the Bishop pair can beat tBishop and Knight:

The long range of the Bishops means that whenever the Knight moves or makes a threat, then the Knight can be easily harassed or the threat can be parried
White's pawns are soon placed onto dark squares, whereas Black has a dark square Bishop. Black is playing with a passive, purely defensive Bishop
In the final position, the a3 Bishop dominates the Knight in one direction, i.e. the Knight cannot move to c1, b2, b4 or c5. In general, a Bishop separated by 2 squares like this dominates the Knight:

[FEN "7k/7p/p7/5B2/2b5/Pn2B2P/8/7K b - - 0 1"]
[White "Ye Rongguang"]
[Black "Nunn"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1. Kg7 Kg2
2. Bd5+   Kg3
3. Na5 Bd4+
4. Kg8 Kf4
5. Nc4 Bc5
6. Kg7 h4
7. Kg8 Kg5
8. Ne5 Kf6
9. Nf3 Bf2
10. Bb3 Bg4
11. Bd5 a4
12. Nd2 Be1
13. Nf3 Bg3
14. Nd2 a5
15. Bc4 Be1
16. Nb3 Bc3
17. Nc5 Ke5
18. Nb3 Kd6
19. Kf7 Bh5+
20. Kg8 Kc6
21. Kf8 Bb4+
22. Kg7 Kb6
23. Kf6 Bg4
24. Nc1 Bc8
25. Nd3 Ba3  1-0

Source for quotes and example: Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn.

The Exchange: Bishop vs Rook

  I must prepare you for the fact that we are not at all dealing with simple material here [on the material imbalance of the Exchange in the endgame]. There are preciously few general rules that can be formulated.

In the sections where I consider the exchange, it is important to think about whether a player would prefer to have Bishop vs. Rook or Knight vs. Rook. From the quote above, there are no guidelines per se. The positions require tactical analysis. However, a Bishop vs. Rook has better drawing chances than Knight vs. Rook. For example:

In this position White has built a fortress, and a draw is assured.

[FEN "8/8/p3kBp1/6P1/7r/1P6/1KP5/8 w - - 0 2"]
[White "Zuidema"]
[Black "Kostro"]

In this example of Knight vs. Rook, the outcome is a draw, but the Knight side has to work much harder for it.

[FEN "8/8/6R1/3k2P1/p2n4/2K1p3/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[White "Smyslov"]
[Black "Fischer"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1. a3             Ra6
2. Nb3            Rxa3
3. e2             Ra1  1/2-1/2

Source for quote and examples: Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics, 2e

The Exchange: Knight vs Rook

  A firmly defended Knight or Bishop in the centre is only slightly weaker than a rook.

Quote attributed to Grigory Levenfish.

In the example below, we see Black's c5 Bishop and e5 Knight are so centrally dominant that White has to come up with an interesting exchange sacrifice to generate attacking chances. If White could swap minor pieces for the Bishop and Knight, then the game would be about even, but that is impossible to do immediately in the starting position.

[FEN "r4rk1/1pqb1ppp/p2ppn2/2b1nP2/3NP2Q/2NBB2P/PPP3P1/R4R1K w - - 0 1"]
[White "Mitkov"]
[Black "Rublevsky"]

  1. Rf3            Nxf3
  2. gxf3           Kh8
  3. Rg1            Qd8
  4. e5             dxe5
  5. Rxg7           Kxg7
  6. Bh6+           Kh8
  7. Bg5            Be7
  8. fxe6            *

Source for quote and example: The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess by Andy Soltis.

Miscellaneous ideas e.g. tactical considerations, outposts, Bishops of opposite colour etc.

Here I give a few examples of exchanging minor pieces under miscellaneous themes:

Tactical considerations

Of course, winning material, mating or converting into a won endgame take over all general considerations on when to swap minor pieces.

In this example, White enters a won King and Pawn endgame by creating some dangerous passers:

[FEN "8/1p3pp1/p1k1pn1p/P6P/2P3P1/2BK1P2/1P6/8 w - - 0 1"]

  1. Bxf6           gxf6
  2. f4             Kd6
  3. g5             fxg5
  4. fxg5           Ke7
  5. gxh6           Kf8
  6. b4              *

Removing a defender of an outpost

In this example, White eliminates the key defender of the d5 square, then pounds the backward pawn on d6:

[FEN "2rr2k1/p3q1b1/1p1pb1pp/4p3/2P5/1PN1Q1P1/P4PBP/2RR2K1 w - - 0 1"]

  1. Bd5            Kh7
  2. Bxe6           Qxe6
  3. Rd3            Rc7
  4. Rcd1           Rf7
  5. Ne4            Bf8
  6. Rd5             *

Bishops of opposite colour as a drawing resource

Here White is down 2 pawns, but by trading Bishop for Knight, a Bishop of opposite colour ending arises, which is usually a draw:

[FEN "8/4kp1p/Bp3np1/2p5/P2b4/8/3B2PP/5K2 w - - 0 1"]

  1. Bg5            Ke6
  2. Bxf6           Kxf6

Source for examples: Practical Chess Exercises by Ray Cheng.

Summary

The decision on whether to trade Bishop for Knight is complex, but it depends on:

Tactical considerations, such as mating, winning material or forcing a won endgame
The Pawn structure - closed structure favour Knights, open favour the Bishops. Moreover, consider whether a Bishop has targets, i.e. enemy pawns on the same coour complex to attack
Piece activity - centralised minor pieces are worth close to a Rook's value in some positions


What is right way to set up King & Queen In the beginning of game? I know this is very basic question, but I just started playing and want to know. How do you set up king and queen the right way?

Heading

I generally get confused between the King and Queen and what square they start from. I recently read this about chess setup. I just want to be sure, as I am still confused.

It starts with the board being setup correctly, and that means a light square in the right-hand corner. Then, the queens each go on their own color.

 [FEN ""]


Controlling the center versus occupying the center - What is the difference? I would like to know if there are any general guidelines which help determine, at what moment to occupy a center square or to just control it? Are there any books or articles that anyone know of which deal with the differences with example?

Also I am trying to understand what is the difference between controlling the center with pawns versus pieces.

Hypermodern theory , or controlling the center from a distance rather than occupying it immediately, came about in the early part of the 20th century as a new way of addressing the old problem of center control.  However, as many knowledgeable people have pointed out, it's easier to try to get something from the start rather than giving it away first and then trying to get it back, and hypermodern openings are not seen that often at higher levels of play now.  In other words, they don't feel that it's as good as the classical approach of contesting the center immediately, and I would certainly suggest that you first become proficient with those openings before attempting to specialize in hypermodern openings. But books from the early hypermodern period by Reti or Nimzowitsch for example will go into detail about that type of play.  I haven't kept pace with what the more modern books on this subject might be. Distant center control is done by fianchettoing the B's on the "b" and "g"  files. Attacking the enemy center pawns is done with the "c" and "f" pawns supported generally by the B's. Or you can control the center before your opponent has occupied it with initial prophylactic "c" pawn (Sicilian Defense) or "f" pawn (Dutch Defense) moves.  Attacking the center this way would have to be done fairly early before development has been completed and it has been too solidly defended.  The rationale is that by diverting/removing the enemy center pawns, you will then be left with the more important center pawns of your own with which to subsequently occupy that area.


What are some puzzle apps for android? I'm a big fan of lichess's tactics training, because puzzles include both winning material and checkmate sequences, and the puzzles are taken from actual games.

Unfortunately this feature isn't available on the lichess android app. Is there some other app that meets most of these requirements?

is free
has no limit on number of puzzles
has both checkmate tactics and material-winning tactics
has sufficient variety in puzzle difficulty
has a puzzle rating / gives you a tactics rating

Any recommendations are appreciated, thanks!

Mobialia chess free have some tactical puzzles.It is mainly used for connecting to icc and fics. The tactical puzzles are taken from real games. So although, there's only a limited no of puzzles(a few hundreds), doing them over and over can help one perfect the basics.It is mainly intended for players below 2100 fide rating.


What is the consequence of removing the two-square first move rule? In this related question I see that en passant and two-square first move for pawns were introduced together between 1200 and 1600. What was the reason for adding these rules? Put another way, has the variant of chess without the two-square first move rule been studied and found to be less interesting or enjoyable?

The purpose of the two space first move rule was to speed up the game, and the (military) theory behind it was that soldiers leaving "camp" and marching to the "battlefield" could march at double "time" (speed) before the actual fighting began.

The one thing that could prevent this was an enemy pawn on his fifth rank (your fourth) adjacent to the marching pawn (soldier). Think of your soldier as being "ambushed" by the enemy en passant on the way to taking up his designated position on the battlefield. He never arrives there, even though his marching orders tell him to march two squares in one move.

Not having these rules would make for a slower game.


USCF Ruling - Resignation confusion after reaching results sheet At a tournament I was participating in last weekend, there was an interesting situation that happened and the TD did not know how to handle the situation.

White said something along the lines of "I think you should resign," but thought White had said "I think I'll resign". Black put his hand out and White shook Black's hand. Neither player said anything after this, but packed away the set and only when they went to write their result did they realize that they misunderstood each other.

What should happen here? Is the game drawn because they shook hands?

The correct decision here is to send the players back to finish their game.  There's a very good rule of thumb that TD's use in situations like this - if the two players don't agree on the result of the game (there's no "meeting of the minds" between the players), they should go back to the board and continue the game.

It's up to the TD to set the clock times as reasonably as possible.  For example, if it's an hour into the round of a G/60 tournament and a spectator saw that white was up 10 minutes on the clock, it might be appropriate to set the clocks to 25 minutes for black and 35 minutes for white.  Nothing is going to be perfect, but so long as both players have at least a few minutes, allowing the players to determine the outcome on the board is going to be far better than the TD adjudicating the game.

As a rule, the absolute last resort for TD's should be to adjudicate the result of a game.  Everything possible should be done to allow the result to be determined by the players via play.

Finally, the TD does have some discretion in cases like this.  If the next round is about to start, and there's no time to allow the players to finish the game, the TD can have the players adjourn their game and pair the next round using his or her best guess as to the result.  One trick with adjournments is that the TD can pair the players as if one of them has won the game and the other has drawn the game.  This has the benefit of making sure that neither player gets unduly easy pairings in the next round before the result of the game is actually determined.


Existence Flanking against Center Control as I learnt at School of Chess,
there are 7 different school with unique 'accentuation',

Philidor, believed that maintaining the mobility of pawns was the most important strategic factor of chess
Modenese school, emphasized rapid development of the pieces for an attack on the opposing king, aiming for checkmate or winning material in the process
English school, allowed attacks after strategic advantages were obtained when the position was prepared – control was gained over the center and key points
Romantic chess, characterized by brash sacrifices and open, tactical games
Steinitz, strengthened defensive techniques and advocated strategic maneuvering to gain enough of an advantage before launching an attack
Hypermodern school,  emphasizes control of the center by attacking it with pieces especially from the periphery
Soviet hegemony, believed that a weakness that could not be attacked was not a real weakness

So I 'separated' them then I have two condition, Center Control and Flanking.
When I played with my houdini, Top 3 as first move is always represent and replied (White view) with [d4 or e4 or f4] which means that houdini rules implement Center Control.
And if I used Flanking method, I always seem to lost too quickly  [or maybe just because my stupidity.. ^^].

Are there real Flanking advantages against Center Control (some official game and/or proved calculation) since 'it' born after Center Control??

Thanks,
Ahmad

This is a hard question to answer because you take a very broad, abstract, historical concept (the existence of "schools" in chess, with a particular list that I've definitely not seen before) and then you connect that with a very concrete, peculiar little thing (the moves Houdini suggests in the opening position if it doesn't have an opening book).

I'll just write a bit about both and then I hope you'll understand the difficulty. This is all completely my unsourced opinion and impression of current chess, I'm not going to give sources.

Those schools are a broad overview of the history of the development of chess strategy. First people thought one thing, then that got refined, then someone wrote a book claiming the opposite... That's interesting to read, but there are lots of reasons why it's not that useful to someone currently learning chess, in my view:

Reality wasn't as black and white as those "schools" make it seem. In the end, all of them played chess, they were good, and often if a strong move was available, they would play it. Some players used some techniques more often than other players did. And when they wrote books, they would argue vehemently against other books, because that sells.
That said, most of these discussions were pre-WWII, and the thinking nowadays is closer to what is "Soviet hegemony" in your list: if it works, it works. And since the coming of computers and their great defensive skills, we've found that there are way more things that work than we used to think. Flank openings, classical openings, extremely deep tactical lines, very quiet endgame openings, they all turned out to be playable. Both "hypermodern" and "classical" openings are extremely popular nowadays, and most players play both!
A discussion of "schools" is at such a high level of abstraction that you to wonder if that could ever help you find the best move in some concrete chess position during a tournament, which is in the end the only thing that counts when you're trying to get better at chess.

Then, Houdini. Chess programs aren't very good at the opening, compared to established opening theory. Some reasons why that is:

They don't need to be good at opening theory, because they use opening books. So they are tuned so that they perform best at the later stages of the game.
Opening theory is the compiled knowledge of hundreds of years of human research. Computers are strong, but not remotely close to strong enough to recompute the equivalent of that research in a couple of minutes.
Even if they were, thousands of people have computers running continuously to work on openings, and your single Houdini is up against that too.

So, forget about using Houdini in the opening position. Look at what is popular among strong players. And they use a broader selection of openings than ever.


Random position from database How do I get a random position in chessbase 13 software from megadatabase to guess the best move , is this facility available in chessbase software which is availabe is softwares like Chess Hero, Or is there any other software provides such facility?

Although it isn't chessbase 13, https://www.chessable.com/ is a site, designed to help you learn chess, that works in a similar manner to that described in the question.

The student gets books (usually openings, but there are some endgames) and learns variations - but the default learning pattern is to be shown random positions from those variations, and "guess the move".  (This isn't really a "guess," since you learned the variation, but still...)

The base part of the site is free (and a number of books are free); there are other learning elements that are only available to paid members.  The "library" is growing, including works by several FMs, IMs, and even a few GMs.

TL;DR: It's the same idea as the question, just not on as wide a database.  (One could argue this allows the student to focus on an area; one could also argue it's not as powerful.)

For full disclosure, I have nothing to do with the site itself, though I am a paying member: I've just had such luck with it I'm like a walking billboard.


Who was the first modern grandmaster? According to Wikipedia, the modern system for awarding FIDE titles evolved from the "Dorazil" proposals, presented to the 1970 Siegen Chess Olympiad FIDE Congress. On the same Wikipedia page it is written that, to qualify for the grandmaster title, a player needed to achieve three GM norms within a rolling period of three years. Exceptionally, if a player's contributory games total thirty or more, then the title could be awarded on the basis of two such norms. (I guess the 2500 rating requirement was added later.)
I would be curious to know who was the first player to obtain the GM title under this new system. A bunch of players obtained the GM title at the beginning of the seventies (see here).

The Wikipedia reference gives 3 names for 1970 - Bukhuti Gurgenidze, Walter Browne and Anatoly Karpov.
Wikipedia's Bukhuti Gurgenidze article lists only the Tbilisi tournament taking place in December 1969.
Walter Browne's Wikipedia article says this:

His zonal result earned him an invitation to an international
grandmaster tournament in San Juan, Puerto Rico. There, he gained the
Grandmaster title by tying for 2nd–4th places, with Bruno Parma and
Arthur Bisguier, behind reigning world champion Boris Spassky

So, San Juan was his final norm.
In neither case do we know from these sources when the actual title was awarded because titles are not awarded until federations apply for them on behalf of the players and applications cannot be considered and approved until there is a FIDE congress or board meeting.
For Anatoly Karpov we do have a specific date in Bill Wall's blog:

In June, 1970 Anatoly Karpov tied for 4th place at an international
tournament in Caracas, Venezuela, gaining a Grandmaster norm.  He was
awarded the Grandmaster title at the 1970 FIDE Congress in Siegen in
September, 1970 at the age of 19. He was the world's youngest
Grandmaster.

Given that Browne and Gurgenidze's tournaments took place in 1969 it is unlikely that their title applications came in after Karpov's. The Siegen congress was the congress at which the changes were made and so it could be that all three were agreed at the same time. In any case, Karpov is certainly one of the first.


In a simul what happens with timing when only one player is left? When only one player is left in a simul, does he have to move at once or does he have 5 seconds per move?

The idea that there is a 5 second limit on thinking time in a simul is just nonsense. Early in the simul when the ordinary players have plenty of time while the simul giver is going round all the other players the player is expected to have his move ready and play immediately the simul giver arrives at the board.

That said, it is not unheard of for a player to "pass" or request a pass. Usually, in a well organized simul, there will be rules saying whether passes are allowed and if so how many (usually only one or two).

The simul giver is also not required to move immediately, particularly when it comes down to just 2 or 3 players. Believe it or not, he is often thinking about tricky positions in other games while he is making moves in the more routine positions and he is also affected by the cut down in numbers and the reduced thinking times.

Back in 1972 when I faced the late Viktor Korchnoi in a simul he rocked back and thought for a minute or two over one of my moves in the opening. He later accepted a draw which probably tells me a better player than me would have won my position ;-).


Is learning the English Opening helpful for learning the Sicilian Defence? How about vice versa? Is learning the opening 1. c4 e5 as white helpful in learning the opening 1. e4 c5? How about vice versa?

Are the ideas behind the Sicilian Defence as black very similar to the ideas behind the English Opening as white?

I'd say learning the Sicilian is great for playing the English. Ideas from the Closed Sicilian, King's Indian attack and many others appear all the time in the English with reversed colors.

However, I don't think it works the other way around, as the main lines in the Sicilian come form the opened variation, where the extra tempo is often critical and therefore the ideas played change way too much.


Lisitsin gambit vs From's gambit The Lisitsin gambit usually involves a bishop on d3 and a knight on g5. From's gambit has only a bishop on d6, but the gambit-accepting side has less development than the Lisitsin. How would this affect the play in both openings, and is the Lisitsin gambit good while the From Gambit dubious?

As a person who has experience in the Bird's and Dutch openings, I would say that both of them are somewhat bad responses to the Birds or Dutch. In the From's, generally white has the edge but its not as if black doesn't have counterplay. In the Lisitsin, usually something like 1Nf3 f5 2e4 fxe4 3Ng5 Nc6 4d3 e3 is something close to equal.
There is a version of the from's gambit that goes
1f4 e5 2fxe5 d6 3exd6 Bxd6 4Nf3 Nf6, which is similar to lisitsin as black often plays Ng4. In the "main" variation of the froms, black is playing g5 and white typical response is to play g3, d4 Qd3. In the lisitsin, however, as white is more developed, black often gives the pawn pack to neutralize the attack.
So the answer the question, The main difference between the from's gambit and the lisitsin gambit is that in the Froms gambit, white often keeps the extra pawn, parries black threats, and has an edge(though positions are often complicated with chances for both sides). In the Lisitsin gambit, white's attack is often neutralized because black gives back his extra pawn in order to not allow white to develop the light square bishop quickly. The game is close to equal.
So in both gambits, if the acceptor doesn't hasn't much knowledge in the gambit, it can be very dangerous. However, if the acceptor is an experienced dutch player or bird player, then there will be no problems and the gambiteer would have had better chances with more mainstream responses.


Regarding Chessbase softwares I have bought Houdini 6 pro ( ChessBase version ), for the primary purpose of practising by playing games against Houdini 6 pro (and other engines I own)
I cannot figure out how to play a game against it (Not friendly game with dumbed down engine) . I want to play games with the engines full capacity (using ChessBase GUI)
Is this possible or is ChessBase just a database program.
Thanks in advance.

Chessbase is indeed just a database program, albeit a very powerful one. If Houdini doesn't already provide it then you will need some kind of front end to play games against it.

One of the best free ones is Scid vs PC. This is available for download on Sourceforge and if you need more help getting started with it then there is much useful information on the Watford Chess Club website. There it explains in great detail what you need to do to get Scid to use other engines like Houdini.


How to use the Ponder option in stockfish / UCI I'm trying to understand stockfish Ponder functionality. I'm very interested to let stockfish think when the opponent is thinking. From what I understand you can do it as follows

$> uci
$> ucinewgame
$> position startpos moves e2e4
$> go wtime 599999 btime 600000
   ... // after 2 seconds
   bestmove d8a5 ponder a2a4
$> go ponder wtime 599999 btime 598000
// wait for opponent --> a2a4 (ponderhit)
$> ponderhit
   bestmove a7a5 ponder b2b4

But there is also a Ponder option

$> setoption name Ponder value on

No matter what I set it too

$> setoption name Ponder value 3

it doesn't complain and I'm not sure what it does. The behaviour is identical, I still have to manually do go ponder....
How should I use this option and what exactly does it do?

The only purpose of the "Ponder" UCI option in Stockfish is to inform the engine about that you will use pondering so that it can consider this fact in its time management, as can be seen in https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/46ce245763705c89dba60dcfda549dc1f64eb48b/src/timeman.cpp#L131-L132:

  if (Options["Ponder"])
      optimumTime += optimumTime / 4;

Since the option is boolean, you should enable it by setting it to "true", i.e.:

setoption name Ponder value true

Stockfish will then use a more aggressive time management, since it knows that it will also be able to use the opponent's thinking time.

This is consistent with how the UCI protocol defines the ponder option:

        *  = Ponder, type check
            this means that the engine is able to ponder.
            The GUI will send this whenever pondering is possible or not.
            Note: The engine should not start pondering on its own if this is enabled, this option is only
            needed because the engine might change its time management algorithm when pondering is allowed.


Yes or no: should a 'reverse' Ruy Lopez be played as black? I'm currently learning the Ruy Lopez opening and typical defences. But every single example I've seen, it is played as white.

Is there any reason why you cannot or shouldn't play Ruy Lopez as black, moving the bishop to b4?

If so, what initial moves by white would preclude or make opening with Ruy Lopez inadvisable when playing as black?

I think that this question comes from a fundamental misunderstanding that many beginners have but more experienced players don't even notice, which I wrote about in this answer.

The short version is that openings describe moves made by both players, not by one player. The Ruy Lopez is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, not "1.e4, then 2.Nf3, then 3.Bb5".

Given this, there is no real way to "play the Ruy Lopez as Black", since you're a move behind. The only theoretical way you could get to that position is something like 1.e3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4, which would never happen.

...Bb4 mostly makes sense when 1) there is a knight on c3 and you want to undermine its support of e4 and d5, or 2) by checking you can force White to interpose a piece or pawn in an awkward way. These situations do come up but none of them are a "Ruy Lopez as Black".


Is it too late for me to start professional chess? I am 25 years old. I play online chess regularly and I am rated about 1900 on chess.com. And I recently won a local tournament. Now I want to start playing professional chess. Here are some of my questions:

Is it too late for me to be ambitious? I am aiming for a GM title in 5 years time. I don't doubt my learning abilities or memory, as is usually the case for the older aspirants, since I solve problems for a living (computer science/ mathematics). However I am not sure if I can afford the kind of time needed.
So my second question is about time:

How many hours do serious players put into preparation and analysis? I estimate to be able to put in about 30-35 hours a week.
How many tournaments/ games does it take to be a GM? I need an estimate. Is 5 years too little? I am imagining playing 3-4 tournaments a year.

GM is a long way. So here are more basic questions:

How does one find the right tournaments? I don't want to travel too far. Also I don't want to pay hefty fees to enter tournaments. And the participants should be all roughly around my level or slightly better.
What FIDE rating does a rating of 1900 on chess.com equate to?

I will write from the perspective of my home country, USA. If you are in a different country, you can likely find parallels.

  Is it too late for me to be ambitious?

It is never too late to learn more.

  I am aiming for a GM title in 5
  years time. I don't doubt my learning abilities or memory, as is
  usually the case for the older aspirants, since I solve problems for a
  living (computer science/ mathematics).

5 years is not much time from going from an amateur skill level to earning a GM title. I am also a CS/Math guy. A good one. It doesn't always translate to chess as my lofty 1650 USCF rating will tell you.

  How many hours do serious players put into preparation and analysis? I estimate to be
  able to put in about 30-35 hours a week.

That should do it.  Expect to be very good in 5.5 years of extremely focused work. (10,000 hours for mastery...)

  How many tournaments/ games does it take to be a GM?

Unanswerable. But expect hundreds and hundreds of serious, focused games. Not blitz. Tournament speed games.

  Is 5 years too less? I am imagining playing 3-4 tournaments a year.

It is hard to image anyone with no over-the-board rating can become a GM in 5 years. A few young adults do it and they get their names in Chess Life for it. You need to be playing serious games every week. Plan on some sort of a local tournament every month, plan on 3 or 4 nights at your local chess club playing opponents as serious as you are.  And get an instructor.

  How does one find the right tournaments? I don't want to travel too far. Also I don't
  want to pay hefty fees to enter tournaments. And the participants should be all roughly
  around my level or slightly better.

USCF tournaments are generally very affordable as chess is not a profitable venture for 99% of the participants. Check the USCF web site for chess clubs near you.

Becoming a professional at anything worthwhile is not cheap. Expect to pay thousands annually in hotels, food, transportation, instruction, equipment, entry fees, and so forth.  If you aren't willing to invest you should temper your expectations.

  How much a rating of 1900 on chess.com translate to in real?

It doesn't. There is no reliable way to compare that rating with any other rating.

You've set yourself a lofty goal.

I recommend you play some rated games and earn a rating. This will tell you how hard you'll have to work to become a GM. Let's say your rating is 2000 USCF.  That's an very respectable 'expert' rating. To be a GM, you would have to improve to about an 2600 USCF.   So you'll need 600 points. Every 400 points of improvement means that your old self would have no appreciable chance of defeating your new self. So you'd have to make a Herculean 400 pt improvement, and then become dominant over that new self.


Best way to play against Glek system? I just wanted to ask which is the best way to play against the Glek system. It's quite a rare opening.

So there are two lines. One line is with Bc5 and the other is with d5. Which line according to you is better for Black, or is there any other system that will bring a better position for Black?

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Nc3 Nf6
g3

and the other one is

e4 e5
Nc3 Nc6
g3

and in this position one of my opponent developed his knight on e2 instead of f3, cannot call it a Glek system though! But can any one tell the plans to fight this line too?

At one point, I considered picking up the Glek variation, but I found the variation of 4... d5 to be far too problematic. Keep in mind, that the principle idea of the variation is to retain a knowledge advantage, but most importantly, retain plenty of opportunity for out-playing the opponent.

On this line, the d5 line puts direct challenge to the idea. Further, 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Bg2 Nxc3 7. bxc3 From here, you should find a nice niche line. I recommend starting with 7... Bc5 or Bd6.

If you put any length of study into this line, you will face no issue what so ever in this variation. Most important though, especially for this line, is to master the principles of the strategy here instead of long series of lines.

Sample Game

Here is a nice execution by the French GM Laurent Fressinet where he managed to win against this opening (played against the eponym himself, the German GM Igor Glek)

[FEN ""]
[Site "Katernberg GER"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Glek, Igor"]
[Black "Fressinet, Laurent"]
[WhiteElo "2537"]
[BlackElo "2658"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C47"]
[Opening "Four Knights"]
[PlyCount "111"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Bg2 Nxc3 7. bxc3
Bc5 8. O-O O-O 9. d3 Bg4 10. h3 Bh5 11. g4 Bg6 12. Ng5 h6 13. Ne4 Bb6 14.
Ba3 Re8 15. Kh2 Qd7 16. Rb1 Nd8 17. f4 exf4 18. Rxf4 Ne6 19. Rf1 c6 20. Kh1
Bxe4 21. Bxe4 Ng5 22. Bg2 Re6 23. Rf5 g6 24. Rf4 Rae8 25. Qf1 Bc7 26. Rf6
Bb8 27. Bc5 Re2 28. Bg1 Rxc2 29. Rf2 Rxc3 30. Re2 Rxe2 31. Qxe2 Rxd3 32. h4
Ne6 33. Rxb7 Qxb7 34. Qxd3 Qc7 35. Qb3 c5 36. Bd5 Qf4 37. a4 Be5 38. Qf3
Qxf3+ 39. Bxf3 Bd4 40. Bh2 c4 41. Kg2 c3 42. Bd1 Bf6 43. Bg1 Nd4 44. Bxd4
Bxd4 45. Kf3 Kg7 46. Kf4 Bf2 47. h5 Kf6 48. Kf3 Bb6 49. Ke4 Kg5 50. Kd3 Ba5
51. Be2 gxh5 52. gxh5 f5 53. Bd1 Kf4 54. Ke2 Kg3 55. Kf1 f4 56. Bc2 0-1


Not in stalemate, but why is this a draw? I was practicing with stockfish level 8, having two rooks in the endgame whereas stockfish has only one. At the 78th move, it was declared as a draw. But, it was not a stalemate. Can anyone please help me, finding out why is this a drawn match ?

The game ended because of the 50-Move-Rule.

From Wikipedia:

  The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty moves (for this purpose a "move" consists of a player completing their turn followed by the opponent completing their turn).

The last capture was made by white at move 28. (Rgxg6), so the game is declared a draw on move 78.


Checkmate possibility for Black In this lichess game, in the given analysis line for move 32, is it possible for Black to win in two moves after 35... Kc7?

[FEN "8/R4k2/2p3p1/2N4p/3n4/3P1pPb/PP3P1P/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Ke8 2. Ra8+ Ke7 3. Ra7+ Kd8 4. Ra8+ Kc7

[Title "Anonymous-Anonymous, lichess.org. Rapid Game, 5/12/2020"]
[FEN ""]

 1. d4 g6 2. d5 e5 3. e4 Bc5 4. Nf3 a5 5. Nc3 Ba7 6. Nb5 Ne7 7. Nxe5 Nxd5 8. Qf3 f6 9. Nc4 Nb4 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O d6 12. Nxa7 Rxa7 13. e5 dxe5 14. Be3 Nxd3 15. Bxa7 Nc6 16. Qxd3 Qxd3 17. cxd3 Nxa7 18. Nxa5 f5 19. Rac1 c6 20. Rc5 f4 21. Rxe5 f3 22. g3 h5 23. Rfe1 Kf7 24. Re7+ Kf6 25. Re8 Rxe8 26. Rxe8 Bd7 27. Rd8 Ke7 28. Nxb7 Bh3 29. Rg8 Kf7 30. Ra8 Nb5 31. Nc5 Nd4 32. Ra7+ Kf6 33. Ne4+ Ke6 34. Nc3 Kd6 35. Rf7 Ke6 36. Rf4 Ke5 37. Rh4 Bg2 38. h3 g5 39. Re4+ Kd6 40. Rxd4+ Kc5 41. Re4 g4 42. Re5+ Kd4 43. Rxh5 gxh3 44. Nd1 Kxd3 45. Ne3 Ke2 46. Nxg2 hxg2 47. Re5+ Kd3 48. Rc5 Kd2 49. Rxc6 Kd1 50. b4 Ke1 51. b5

The position after 35 ... Kc7 is a win for Black.

The immediate threat is mate with Ne2+ and Bg2;
if 36 Kg1 Bg2+ 37 Kg2 Ne2+, still mate with the same two moves
in reverse order -- but not 36 Kg2 Ne2+ 37 Ne6+! and 38 Nf4.
If 36 Re8 Ne2+ 37 Rxe2 fxe2 and it's still mate in a move or two with e1Q
because White's own Pd3 is in the way of defending with 38 Nd3.

White has a better defense with 36 Ne6+!, disrupting the mating net by
forcing Black to capture with either B or N.  Material is then about equal,
but after 36 Ne6+! Nxe6! (not Bxe6 37 h4 or 37 Kf1) the Kg1 is still trapped
and the Knight threatens to go back to d4 and thence to e2 for the same mate.
After 37 Ra4 g5! (not yet c5 38 Rh4! dislodging the Bishop,
e.g. 38 ... Bg2 39 h3 and the wK escapes to h2) Black's plan is c5, Nd4,
and mate.  White will have to give up the Exchange (e.g.
38 Rc4 Nd4 39 Rxd4 cxd4 -- even worse is 39 Rxc5+ Kd6)
and now White is behind on material, with King still trapped and
the d3-pawn about to fall too, so Black should win the endgame
in due course.


What advice would you give a novice in Chess? I am a bit of a new blood when it comes to Chess. Oh I know how to play but before I started getting more serious it was more like flailing about and hoping for the best. Recently I came to the conclusion that a game like Chess can be quite beneficial towards my cognitive development and I simply love the elegance and depth of the board.

But I was hoping to get some advice from the more advance players. (Which from my experience level would be about everyone, lol.)  As in,

What would you wish someone told you when you first started getting into playing?
How do you resist stagnation? Is there some etiquette that players are expected to know but don't necessarily teach?

1) Study the games of masters. I would recommend earlier masters like Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, etc. Studying their "simple" games will better your understanding to study more "complicated" games of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand or Carlsen.

2) Study the endgame. I recommend Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn.

3) Practice and improve your tactical skills. There are many online tactics websites that can help you in that regard, like chesstempo.

4) Enjoy playing chess! Without enjoyment, it's difficult to learn. But don't waste time playing useless 2 or 3 minute blitz games. These won't help you to improve much. Play games with longer time controls, especially in tournaments if possible.

5) Get a good chess engine to analyze your games. I would recommend Stockfish, which is a free engine. However, if you're willing to spend more money, I recommend a powerful engine like Houdini with Chessbase 12. Note that you can also use Stockfish with ChessBase 12. I often use it myself. It's a very strong engine and Houdini is just very sligtly better (for beginners, that shouldn't make much of a difference).

6) Never leave any of your games unanalyzed. That's a serious waste of the time you have spent playing those games and also a loss of the things you could potentially have learned. Never put off analyzing a game for more than a week. My experience is that you remember the lessons learned from your games the earlier you analyze your games. Of course, you need to make good notes on your games.

7) Watch this inspiring video! :) Bobby Fischer - Anything to Win. Caution: I'm asking you to be inspired only by the way Bobby Fischer trained to play chess and win; not to be inspired by his paranoia or his other questionable activities!

8) Study the openings and opening principles. Although this isn't that important for beginners compared to the other things I mentioned, it is nevertheless very important to play good openings to have good positions to play.


What are the time rules in Candidate Tournament? So I'm following the London Candidate Tournament and I'm a bit confused regarding the time and why some games are getting an extensions and some are not and you are eventually losing because of time.

So my question is what are the exact rules on that matter for this tournament?

Per the official rules, section 3.5: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move starting from move 61.


Conversion of Shredder elo rating to FIDE elo rating? Can anyone provide a simple formula to convert the elo rating provided by the chess program Shredder to actual FIDE rating. I am only looking for an approximate formula, maybe something like: FIDE_rating = a * shredder_rating + b, where 'a' and 'b' are numbers. The purpose of this is to get a good estimate of your FIDE rating without actually participating in a FIDE rated tournament and to give people a feel for their chances of success before enrolling in a FIDE rated tournament.

I don't think it is possible to convert the Shredder rating to a FIDE Elo rating.

In general, the rating system has the purpose to create a relative ranking of all players based on their results against one another. Your rating from playing games with classical time controls makes it possible to say something about your level of play. Already at this point it is difficult to compare ratings from different time controls (e.g. blitz versus classical).

My point is that you can use your online blitz rating to estimate what FIDE blitz rating you could get over the board (OTB). Yet, it is harder to use your online blitz rating to estimate your OTB rating with classical time controls.

One way to get an estimate of your OTB rating is

Register on a serious online blitz site
Play rated blitz games with the minimum time control of (5 min or 3 min + 2 sec per move)
Ask your opponents what their OTB rating is
Make notes on your results and the opponents' OTB ratings
Calculate your performance rating.


Standalone chess problem solver for Android Which android app can:

Solve chess problems without internet connection as well.
Support manually edit board according to the problem.
Ideally this app should allow a person to step back on any move and also provide hints on the next move.

This app is for a person who is a novice in chess, so he could try to solve the problems from the book he reads.

Did you try Droidfish ?

It runs stock Fish engine + you can edit positions.


Does playing the King's Indian against the Benko put black at a foreseeable disadvantage? I am currently in a turn based game where white opened with 1.g3. I clearly see that white probably (at least white should) will fiancetto his king's bishop on the next move, aiming to control the white squares.

I google'd 1.g3 and saw it's called Benko's Opening, and as I suspected will likely transpose into something else.

It's tough for black to know exactly how white will attack, and the king's indian does fit that scenario (not overly aggressive, gives options, and also doesn't give white a full center advantage).

So my question is, giving a game that started with Benko's Opening and black plays King's Indian, does this put black at a foreseeable disadvantage where white would easily be able to capitalize?

I can see the opening possibly taking this route

[FEN ""]
1.g3 Nf6 2.Bg2 g6 3.d4 Bg7

No, there is nothing wrong with this approach for Black. A kingside fianchetto is a perfectly reasonable response to White's. You are likely to end up transposing to an actual King's Indian if White eventually plays c4, in which White's fianchetto is a fine setup but not a killer.


Does chess improve our intelligence? This is my first question in Chess, so I hope my question is simple.

I know about chess but I am not a regular player. But my friend told me that everyday play chess is good for your mind and also for improving memory power. Is this correct?

And also I don't know some of the move rules. So, please give me some suggestion to improve my chess knowledge.

So far, studies I‘ve seen mentioned in newspapers making a claim either for or against a correlation between chess and intelligence strike me as highly dubious in their methodology. That‘s not surprising, since the concept of a “general intelligence” is itself dubious. (And it’s not even entirely clear in every context what “intelligence” actually means.)

Chess is basically a duel that two people fight with their minds. One would expect that as a pastime it’s more attractive to people who enjoy exercising their minds in various areas in general. Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that among good chess players there would also be more people than average that are good at mathematics, spatial visualisation, music and arts, programming etc.

(Speaking metaphorically: A rooster makes cock-a-doodle-doo, because the sun goes up. It's not the other way around: The sun doesn't rise because of the rooster.)

Developing, for instance, a good memory for chess games and long variations doesn’t automatically grant a good memory for reciting poetry or repeating the dance steps in a choreography or the memory necessary to keep one’s focus through deciphering a particularly difficult classical Greek text. Nor does it make you good at drawing portraits (which is for a very substantial part about having a good short term visual memory).

There might be some soft form of synenergy in that playing chess increases brain activity, brain metabolism etc. which conceivably might have a positive effect on other mental activities. That, though, would also go the other way around.


Why is 4...e5 not popular in the Smith-Morra Gambit? When I encounter the Sicilian as White, I often will play the Smith-Morra Gambit.  My opponent played 4...e5, but this does not appear to be a very popular move as there are only 2 games on www.chessgames.com that have it, one of them being here, which is apparently the first ever Smith-Morra Gambit recorded.  I didn't even see Wikipedia give it as an option, so I was curious to know why 4...e5 is not popular or in other words, what drawbacks does it have?

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 e5

Simply stated, it's because of Black's backward d-pawn; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_pawn -- as opposed to other lines of this Gambit it gives White a definite weakness to focus on well through the opening and possibly the middle-game and beyond.


What is the maximum number of en passants possible? Out of curiosity, how many en passants can theoretically be done by both sides and the fastest way to achieve that result?

Every pawn has to take a pawn in an en passant capture, and each pawn taking another pawn will leave the 5th rank. Hence, the total possible number of en passant captures in a game is simply the number of pawns halved, i.e. 8. It can be achieved in the following sequence of moves:

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. h4 a5 2. h5 g5 3. hxg6/ep a4 4. b4 axb3/ep 5. a4 h5 6. a5 b5 7. axb6/ep h4 8. g4 hxg3/ep 9. c4 f5 10. c5 d5 11. cxd6/ep f4 12. e4 fxe3/ep 13. f4 c5 14. f5 e5 15. fxe6/ep c4 16. d4 cxd3/ep

This is the minimum number of moves required for 8 en passant captures, and this is due to:

All moves being pawn moves
Every pawn advancing 2 squares at its first move


Neither Attacking nor Defending? I am a novice in chess. After about ten moves, I sometimes get into a situation where I am neither attacking nor defending and really can't figure out what my next move should be (that is I don't want to launch a premature attack, but not getting any offense from the opponent too). Is this common? and what should I do in such a situation?

Update:

What should be the general attitude while playing the game? of course, the goal is to win, but rather, what should be in the back of the mind when moving pieces? Should it be always according to a plan or is there something else?

Help your pieces so they can help you.

Source: Paul Morphy.

The situation you describe is quite common. You find yourself in a position where there is no clear course of action. In these cases, I urge you to:

Identify your worst placed piece
Implement a short plan to improve that piece (no longer than 3 moves)

In the example below, which is position 41 of the quizzes in Mastering Chess Strategy by Johan Hellsten, we see that it's an early middle game with no major attacking or defensive duties for either side. Neither are there simplifying opportunities.

With White to move, we note that the a1-Rook is not doing anything. How can we activate it? Well, Rooks belong on open or semi-open files. The f1-Rook is already on a semi-open file, so it would be great to play Rae1. But the Queen is in the way. This led to the following plan being executed:

[FEN "2bq1r1k/rp4pp/p1p3n1/5p2/3P4/1BP2N1P/PP4P1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Kristjansson"]
[Black "Sokolov"]

  1. Qd2            b5
  2. Rae1           Qd6

If you find that you really can't decide on a move, then

  When in doubt, move a piece, not a pawn.

Source: The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess by Andrew Soltis.

This is because if the piece move is poor, you can often rectify the mistake by moving it back. Not so with pawns.

In this example (game 149 of Mastering Chess Strategy), the centre is closed implying that play should be on the wings, so White plays 1. a4?!, instead of the flexible 1. O-O* (the King is almost certain to castle kingside anyway, and this also prevents Black's queenside play). The problem with 1. a4 is that Black gets a big space advantage and his King is still stuck in the middle, whereas 1. O-O doesn't suffer from this. Let's take a look:

[FEN "1rbq1rk1/1p1nbppp/p2p1n2/2pPp3/2P1P3/P1NB1N1P/1P3PP1/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1"]
[White "Gurevich"]
[Black "Piket"]

  1. a4 (1. O-O b5 2. cxb5 axb5 3. Nxb5 Nxe4 4. Na7)            Nh5
  2. Ne2            g6
  3. g4             Ng7
  4. Bh6            Nf6
  5. Ng3            Kh8
  6. Qc2            Bd7
  7. a5             b5
  8. axb6ep         Qxb6
  9. Ra2            a5

Last but not least, regarding planning. Yes, it is advisable to have a series of short term plans (usually 3 moves or so) and to remain alert to tactical opportunities and threats. From John Nunn's Understanding Chess Middlegames on the section called Losing the Thread (emphasis is mine):

  Typical symptoms of this [playing poorly from a superior position] are planlessness, playing from move to move without any overall strategy, and spending too much time on moves.

*OK, castling isn't exactly a reversible decision, but it is more flexible, in the example position, than 1. a4?!


Major Chess 960 tournaments? Does anyone have any information about upcoming Chess 960 tournaments at the top level (i.e. GMs and IMs)? Even links to/information about past, major tournaments would be appreciated. I recently learned about Chess 960, and find it quite fascinating. I am also of the opinion that it would be more interesting to follow/study than regular chess early on in the game (since opening theory in regular chess goes as far as 25-30 moves in some openings), and beautiful novelties such as Aronian-Anand, 2013 can be prepared at home.

Present
2nd Chess 960 World cup to be played on Feb 15th,2013. The winner qualified as World Championship Candidates.
This link shows the schedule for the 3rd and 4th Chess 960 World cup.

Chess960 news from the US CHess federation website. Talks of past and current events.

Past
Here is information about a past international FiNet Chess 960 open which was won by Alexander Grischuk of Russia.

Chess960 World Rapid Chess Championship
Nakamura simply won the first three games to become new World Champion – in a very convincing manner. Link also has games information and pictures as well. This is his website which has the blog and twitter account which can hopefully guide you to what events he participated in the past as well as plans to.

Chess960 World League 2012 by Chess.com
Team Armenia won this. Here is more information

Here is the Chess960 World League 2013 Information

Additionally searching on Chessbase.com would yield more news of past championships. chess960frc.blogspot.com is a specific blog on Chess960.


Please critique my game (Caro-Kann, Fantasy variation) I'm an avid player of the caro-kann, yet I recently came across the Fantasy Variation for the first time. Although I won, I wanted to post my game for review:

[FEN ""]
[White ""]
[Black "Bad_Bishop"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3 Qb6 4. Nc3 dxe4 5. fxe4 e5 6. Nce2 {I knew we came out of book here, but I didn't know how to exploit it. I ended up trading pawns as my e-pawn was hanging} exd4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. c3 (8. Nde2?? {This simple line is interesting, as it shows the pressure on white's game even at an early stage} Bf2+ 9. Kd2 Qe3#) Nf6 9. e5 Bg4 {This move helps develop my queenside, as well as trading down against the isolated d-pawn} 10. Be2 Bxe2 11. Ngxe2 Nd5 12. Rf1? {White begins a kingside attack when his king is still stuck in the middle} O-O 13. h4 Nd7 {I wanted to open the centre and attack white's king. This move aims to either win the e-pawn, or provoke e6} 14. e6 fxe6 15. Nxe6 Rxf1+ 16. Kxf1 Be3? {My eyes lit up when I saw the possibility of a knight fork on e3, but there is no way to force it. My thinking here was just to lay a cheapo trap and hope for the best} 17. N2d4 (17. Bxe3?? Nxe3+) N7f6 (17...c5 {Immediately after playing 17...N7f6 I saw 17...c5 instead, but I don't think it works here} 18. Nxg7 Kxg7?! 19. Qg4+) 18. g4? Bxc1 {OK, it turns out 16...Be3 wasn't so poor, as I can remove the defender of g4 and win a pawn} 19. Qxc1 Nxg4 20. Qg5 {From this stage of the game, white is treatening mate, so almost all of the following moves have to be checks} Nde3+ 21. Ke2 Qxb2+ 22. Kd3 g6 23. Qe7 {I missed this move, as I thought white would play 23. Rg1} Qxc3+ {Forced, intending to trade queens and win a pawn} 24. Ke4 (24. Kxc3 Nd5+ {White should have opted for an inferior endgame rather than letting his king be pulled up the board}) Nf2+ 25. Ke5 (25. Kf3 Nd5+ {This shows the difficulty white is in. He either faces mate or large material losses}) Nc4+ 26. Kf4 (26. Kf6 Ne4#) Qe3#

My questions are:

How could black have played better?
I played 16...Be3 as a 'cheapo', which my opponent didn't fall for. What would have been better than 16...Be3?

On move 6, I'm not really sure why White didn't just play Nf3. After that, Black should play exd4 Qxd4 followed by (after Qxd4 Nxd4) just Bc5.

After Nce2, well surely exd4 makes sense, but I think Nf6 should have been considered, attacking the e4 pawn. Notice that anytime dxe5? is played then you have Bc5, with that mate threat that you already diagrammed (Bf2+ Kd2 Qe3#), so therefore you didn't have to give up the tension so early with dxe4. Nf6 develops and attacks e4 which is a critical point (a critical point is an unprotected piece/pawn or a piece/pawn with the same number of defenders and attackers on it. A critical point can also be a king or just like in the caters somewhere where you have weak squares and stuff. Attacking critical points is a key concept in torturing opponents or putting pressure in strategic chess).

By the way, I think Be3 is a medium good move... You are establishing a piece on the enemy's third rank or your sixth rank, which can be so strong in some middlegame positions that it is worth sacrificing an exchange for that piece and a pawn or something. The only other move I can think of is Re8, because there is a critical construction on the e-file with 2 knights on the e-file.

A critical construction is a rank, file, or diagonal where there are 2 or more pieces in opposition or just like a lot of pieces (regardless of color) on the same rank/file/diagonal. Critical constructions are very good for finding important tactics or defensive tactical resources that can involve double attacks, skewers, interference, etc. Therefore I think Re8 instead of Be3 makes a lot of sense. You are creating a lot of tension on the two knights and activating the rook.

Here is a sample line. 16...Re8 17. Nxc5 Nxc5 18. Nd4 Qa6+ 19. Kg1 (all other moves like Kf2 and c4 are just a worse version) Qd3 20. Bd2 (Qxd3? Nxd3 and now you are attacking 2 critical points which is the b2 pawn and c1 bishop, and you can take advantage of the critical construction on the second rank with Re2. On top of that, your knights easily get to the sixth rank or other strong squares) Ne4 21. Be1 Qe3+ 22. Kh1?! (Kh2 is just more accurate) Bxf2 23. Qxf2 and this should win, and all of White's lines were backed up by an engine.

P.s. On move 18 you missed ...c5, removing the defender of e6.

P.s. I think understanding critical points is something you mind as well learn anyway, and a technically possible answer to how you could have played this better. I think the opening was fine but you should have played Nf6 instead of exd4, because Nf6 develops while attacking a critical point which is e4, and you have a strong critical construction on the c5-g1 diagonal and tactical pattern if dxe5 which allows Bc5 and stuff.


Open Sicilian Variation, newbie question Im pretty new and i was analyzing the opening stages of one of my recent games. I was playing white and we started off
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e6

    [StartPly "6"]

    [FEN ""]
    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e6 4. Nc3 (4.d5 Nd4 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 Qb6 7.Be3 Qxd4 8.Bxd4 exd5 9.exd5 Ne7 10.Nc3 Nf5 11.O-O-O Nxd4 12.Rxd4 Bc5 13.Re4+ Kd8)

Now my next move was Nc3 (but doesn't really matter) and the lichess computer analysis marked this as a mistake and proposed playing d5 instead (leading to the computer generated variation 4.d5 Nd4 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 Qb6 7.Be3 Qxd4 8.Bxd4 exd5 9.exd5 Ne7 10.Nc3 Nf5 11.O-O-O Nxd4 12.Rxd4 Bc5 13.Re4+ Kd8) which presumably has me 1.4 pawns up. I looked up this variation on chesstempo and found that it was never played in 2200+ vs 2200+ play, but used 57 times in all games of the database. In those game it lead to white winning in 82.5% of the games.
Which variations make this move "bad" in top level play (except for the fact that 3. d4 e6 wouldnt happen in the first place aka preselection against this variation)?
What are good alternative 4.?
If the d5 variation is not that strong, why does the computer engine still recommend it. Is it just an error in the way it assesses the position, is there a lack of depth / computing time?

I might be misinterpreting your question but it seems that you're asking something like this:

  My computer says that such-and-such a variation of the Sicilian defence is really strong for white but it never comes up in games between strong players. Has my computer made a mistake?

No, your computer hasn't made a mistake. The reason that this variation never comes up in games between strong players is that it's too good for White. Black has plenty of better options than allowing White to get into this position. Black's a whole pawn down, he has an isolated pawn and he still has a lot of work to do to get his pieces into the game; in contrast, after something like Bb5 and Rhe1, White has everything developed, has full control of the open e-file and is aiming a lot of material at the vulnerable e8 square.

Black's mistake is 3... e6, which looks like it controls d5 but doesn't because white can just play 4.d5 and either win a pawn or kick Black's knight around.

Ultimately, the point of 1... c5 is to prevent White from playing d4 because, if he does, Black will exchange his c-pawn for White's more valuable d-pawn. Typically, White says "I don't care!" and plays d4 anyway, since exchanging pawns on d4 gives White a strongly placed piece in the centre. Because Black doesn't have a c-pawn any more, he probably doesn't want to play ... e5 to push the piece from d4, because that would leave his own d-pawn backward and vulnerable.

By the way, after 3... e6, there's nothing particularly bad about 4.Nc3, per se. Indeed, after 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4, we've reached a perfectly normal variation of the Sicilian via a different move order: the normal route to that position is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3.  Both sides have a decent position; the only problem with 4.Nc3 is that it fails to punish Black's mistake.


Which open source chess engine has the most positional understanding? Most open source chess engines with hand-tuned evaluations are known for their innovations on search (Fruit, Stockfish).
I was inspired by HIARCS' generally more human-like play and the fact that neural network based engines like Leela suggest that we have more work to do when it comes to evaluation functions.
The reason is that I'd like to apply the same evaluation functions in a chess engine that I'm working on.
Which open source engines are out there are known for its deep positional understanding? Unfortunately, engines known for their positional understanding such as Shredder, HIARCS, and Komodo are closed source.

A really strong and great positional open source engine I have used is Rodent.  The last version was Rodent IV and is available at http://www.pkoziol.cal24.pl/rodent/rodent.htm
Of course Chess Programming wiki continues to be a good place to research and discover engines and the following link shows only open source engines.
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Category:Open_Source


King's indian attack vs defense relationship Sorry for my chess ignorance. I'm organizing my understanding of openings and I thought it would be nice to know if there was a reason why the King's Indian Defense is called almost the same as King's Indian Attack.

I know, KIA is a system that works for many things black may do... and KID isn't according to wiki, it's a opening.

But it seems like the KID is the symmetrical counterpart for black of the KIA, indeed, g6 mimics g3, Nf6 mimics Nf3, the same with Bg7 and Bg2 and possibly e5 and d6 mimicking e4 and d3.

On a related note: Can black do a system analogous to KIA? Is it KID?

They are indeed similar in some ways; as you have noted, the kingside structure that gives the variations their names are identical to each other, and there are some similar themes, such as a kingside attack.

A comparison between them provides a great example of the general difference between White openings and Black openings. Black in the King's Indian Defense has to be very precise and constantly runs the risk of falling one move behind White with potentially disastrous consequences. On the other hand, because White started with the advantage of the first move, when he plays an initially restrained setup like the King's Indian Attack, all he is doing is ceding some of that first-move advantage, and the game does not balance on a knife-edge as much (until maybe later!).

For this reason the two openings proceed along quite different paths, and expertise in one does not necessarily translate to the other.

(To answer the nomenclature question: Indian in chess opening terminology tends to indicate a fianchettoed bishop (one on g2, g7, b2, or b7); the King's part means that the fianchettoed bishop is the one on the kingside; and Black openings tend to be Defenses while White openings can be Attacks.)


What proofs for refuted gambits are there? I've stumbled upon this article a while ago, and I've also seen refutations for the Muzio Gambit (Joseph Kling & Bernard Horwitz - Chess Studies on Endings of Games). I'm wondering what other gambits are proven to be unsound.

Edit: I'm looking for refuted gambits in the strict sense of the word, followed by proof. Even though a gambit might be playable against someone who doesn't know its refutation, the gambit is still considered refuted if it is proven that the side who initiated the gambit loses in all variations worth looking at against best play. So yes, I'm looking for scientific proof.

Also, if a database of almost all games played in a particular gambit shows that the side that initiated the gambit wins almost all the time, this doesn't mean that there isn't a way for that gambit to be refuted, it just means that if there is a way, most people haven't played it.

Above everything, I'm looking for material to learn from. An article that says that Vasik Rajlich or someone else has used a computer cluster and came to a conclusion regarding a certain position, how will I benefit from it if there is no proof? (And please note that that King's-Gambit-busted-by-Rajlich article was in fact a Chessbase April Fools' joke!)

As long as chess can't be calculated from beginning to end, it is very hard to scientifically prove an opening to be refuted (aside from lines that leave you with such hopeless situations like a bare king against king and rook, of course).

If you are satisfied with a less scientific proof, I'd say gambits are even less so refuted. In my opinion, nearly all gambits are playable, as long as you won't play it against a superhuman database/program or a world champion. In a practical sense, probably no gambit worth of having a name is refuted in the sense of not being playable. Even if a gambit is widely considered unsound and often results in a worse position, it might contain enough steam to give your chess skill ample opportunities to overpower your opponent.I even remember a game where I suffered terrible against the BDG because I didn't find any refutation over the board. I only won because my opponent terribly misplayed the late midgame, but from the opening point of view he should have won the game.

So my answer is: No gambit I know of is refuted to the degree of being unplayable.


Is it possible to combine CPU and GPU engines to use the other's principal variation? This is a speculative question since I don't know if such an engine is even plausible.

The idea: we'll start Stockfish and Leela at the same time using both my CPU and GPU. Within a fraction of a second, both engines will output principal variations. Then we use the other engine's principal variations to influence our search. For example, suppose Stockfish wants to play 1. e4 and Leela wants to play 1. d4. Using this, we move 1. e4 up Leela's move ordering, and do the same for 1. d4 and Stockfish.

In other words, both engines use the other engines' principal variation to influence their search, such that both engines is preferentially searching the other engine's principal variation. Then, combine the results from both engines, e.g. if the engines agree then play the move, and apply other heuristics if they don't. The idea seems straightforward to extend if the principal variations are the same up to 5 moves ahead, etc, and it also sounds obvious that it should produce a stronger engine.

This kind of engine would still be reliant on Leela and Stockfish individually, but be able to take advantage of both CPU and GPU resources. As far as I know there's no engine that does this (GPU engines already use some CPU power, but it's small; CPU engines don't use the GPU at all). So: does this idea work? If so, has anyone tried it? If not, why not?

This seems to be somehow LeelaFish's approach:

https://github.com/killerducky/lc0/wiki/LeelaFish

More about it here (and probably on more posts in the same forum):

http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=70803&start=10


How do correspondence players keep track of ideas during games? I've taken up correspondence chess again, and planning has always been one of my biggest weaknesses. It's still something with which I struggle. Besides analyzing specific variations, how do correspondence players keep track of the plans they want to execute, or prevent their opponent from carrying out, during a game?

For example, in a recent game, I knew I needed to not let my opponent put his rook on the 7th rank, as he would likely win another pawn, which I let happen a few moves later.

I write a short description in my notebook for each move I make, unless it is a trivial move (e.g. a forced recapture, an opening move I know already or an endgame that I know already).

I try to imitate the style used in Logical Chess by Irving Chernev.


Is there a standard system of classification of games? Given there are practically infinite number of chess games possible, does there exist a standard system of classifying or naming games simlar to how there are rules for naming a chemical compound uniquely?  There are 10 pieces that can move initially, so I imagined there would be 10 families of games and each game's pgn would be the identity of the game and so on. But the ECO classification system   is quite different than what I imagined. What I am really interested in is this-will a certain family of games would be more interesting than the other? Will certain family of games have less draws or wins with perfect play? Is there more zugzwang positions in a certain family?

Such a system doesn't exist exactly, but a few similar concepts do. There are many reasons, but the main reason is that it's not possible to classify chess games like this in any useful way.
Yes, you could classify them based on the first move -- but who cares? Only 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.e4 and 1.Nf3 are really important, and they often transpose into each other (1.d4 is followed by 2.Nf3 quite often, and 1.Nf3 is followed by 1.d4).
For a system like this to be useful, it needs to have some properties:

It should be based on the games of really strong players, after all they are the ones who care about this sort of thing
Some people have really amazing memories, but even they are quickly overwhelmed by chess. It has to be of a practical size
It has to help you find good moves at the board, as that is really the only thing that matters for chess players

And a whole chess game is quite long. Some parts of it can be categorized, others defy such attempts completely. So in chess it is positions that can sometimes be classified, not entire games.
I can think of three phases that can be treated like this:

The early opening. Theory can be worked out exactly, because the starting position is known. Related lines will have things in common but also important differences, and they mostly just need to be memorized. Opening names like in ECO are mostly so you can find in which book you need to look up your theory.

Most middlegames (not all) can be usefully classified based on the central pawn structure. That's the main thing most players will think of. In e.g. a position where one side has "the isolated queen's pawn" (a pawn on d4 and no pawns on the c- and e- files, after the opening, and the other side say a pawn on e6 and no pawns on the c- and d- files) has a list of standard plans that people know by heart. The actual positions differ, the tactical details will matter, but recognizing lots of types of position like this and knowing the standard plans helps. It is what books like Mauricio Rios' Chess Structures are about.

Very simplified Endgames can again be classified and studied. Many positions with bishop + pawn vs bishop have similar ways for trying to promote the pawn or stopping it, and knowing about them helps (and it helps to decide whether you can safely trade down to this endgame in a particular case), and so on for lots of other material distributions. Many, many books are written about endgames in such a fashion.

But there are also phases of the game in between the early middlegame and the late endgame, and they lend themselves much less to classification. The differences are more important than the things games have in common, here.
And there is no "standard" classification for any of this. It's an art, more knowledge of this sort of thing (and the skill to apply the knowledge) is what separates strong players and even stronger ones.


How to write out analysis of a game? I have read that one exercise to improve one's analysis/thinking skills is to set up a position, then write out and evaluate all the variations that could take place. Or write out analysis of one's own games (see for example this post).

How do you actually write this out? Or better - how do good players usually write out their analysis?

I once tried it, but my paper soon became a jumbled mess. Particularly as you start to get branching lines and so forth it becomes hard to write and keep track of it all. Especially if you start writing out a line, but want to go back to a previous line. Is there some "special" method to write out analysis?

Computer Database programs (like the popular + free SCID) do the job pretty well provided you do not turn the engine on, nor have any other indicators (opening tree, endgame table bases etc.) enabled to distract you from focusing on writing down all the lines.

I sometimes first do this in notepad as entering moves into a database allows you to see the pieces move, so it is cheating because you're not training your brain to visualize.  Once I'm confident of a line and its evaluation, I transfer it over to the database program.

Most DB software comes with nice bells and whistles for comments, variations, arrows/square highlighting as shown in the following example using SCID:

You can save each position into a file and collect oodles of these in a database for future review. Nice, clean and as organized as you can make it!

What's nice is that once you are done, a strong player (preferred) can help critique this and you can add some more notes on where your analysis was inaccurate or just plain wrong.

As an added tip, make sure you start off with tactical positions (examples would be regular puzzles with a lot of forcing lines to calculate out) and then move towards rich analytical positions where there is no clear winning advantage in sight. NM Heisman's suggestion of the Stoyko exercises is definitely worth reading to get an idea of how to do this.

Update:

For non-software based ways of organizing analysis,  you can try mind-mapping but if that's too messy, why not derive inspiration from the popular MCO/NCO tabular-style of representing opening theory, for example:


Unfamiliar with this move notation I'm not even sure what to call this one. I'm reading Caro-Kann Defense: Advance Variation and Gambit System by Anatoly Karpov.

In the first chapter karpov mentions a move order:

e4 c6
d4 d5
f3

So far so good - the gambit system. Then he mentions black has a few continuations. The one that I'm not sure how to put on my board is:

...de
fe e5

I've never seen the notations de and fe used before. I thought they were for captures but it's very clear karpov is using normal capture notation (with 'x') throughout the book.

How do I understand this notation?

de and fe are normal pawn captures. There is no contradiction in writing de and NxB and Nxe5. The "x" is optional.

It would be unusual and inconsistent to write 4. BxNc6 and 4. ... Nc6 in the following -
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. BxNc6 Nc6

but if we put it in fen then it works -

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. BxNc6 Nc6

Note what the latest FIDE Laws of Chess say about this -

  C.9 When a piece makes a capture, an x may be inserted between:

  C.9.1 the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question and

  C.9.2 the square of arrival. Examples: Bxe5, Nxf3, Rxd1, see also
  C.10.

  C.9.3 When a pawn makes a capture, the file of departure must be
  indicated, then an x may be inserted, then the square of arrival.
  Examples: dxe5, gxf3, axb5. In the case of an ‘en passant’ capture,
  ‘e.p.’ may be appended to the notation. Example: exd6 e.p.

(Italics added for emphasis)


Could black have saved the rook-endgame? [Event "FIDE Women's World Chess Championship"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2015.03.27"]
[Round "4.2"]
[White "Dronavalli Harika"]
[Black "Meri Arabidze"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D03"]
[WhiteElo "2492"]
[BlackElo "2374"]
[PlyCount "189"]
[EventDate "2015.03.17"]
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "46"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 c5 4. e3 d5 5. Nbd2 Be7 6. c3 Nbd7 7. Bd3 b6 8. O-O
Bb7 9. Ne5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Nd7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. f4 O-O 13. Qh5 f5 14. exf6 Nxf6
15. Qg5 Rae8 16. Nf3 Nd7 17. Bb5 Qxg5 18. Nxg5 Bc8 19. Rad1 Re7 20. Bxd7 Bxd7
21. Nf3 Be8 22. Ne5 Bg6 23. Nxg6 hxg6 24. g3 Rd8 25. Rd2 e5 26. Rfd1 exf4 27.
exf4 Red7 28. Kf2 Kf7 29. Kf3 Kf6 30. h4 Rd6 31. Rd3 R8d7 32. Kg4 Rd8 33. Re1
d4 34. cxd4 cxd4 35. Kf3 Kf7 36. Re5 Rc8 37. Re4 Rcd8 38. b3 R8d7 39. a4 Rd5
40. b4 a6 41. g4 Rd8 42. Re5 R5d6 43. Ke4 R8d7 44. f5 gxf5+ 45. Rxf5+ Kg8 46.
h5 Kh7 47. Rg5 Kh6 48. Kf4 Kh7 49. Re5 g6 50. Ke4 Kg7 51. Rg5 Re7+ 52. Kf4 a5
53. bxa5 bxa5 54. Rxg6+ Rxg6 55. hxg6 Rd7 56. Ke5 Kxg6 57. Rxd4 Rb7 58. Kd5 Kg5
59. Kc5 Kh4 60. Rc4 Rb8 61. Kd5 Rb7 62. Rc5 Rb4 63. Rc4 Rb8 64. Ke5 Kg5 65. Rc5
Rb4 66. Rxa5 Rxg4 67. Ra6 Kh5 68. a5 Rg5+ 69. Kd4 Rg4+ 70. Kc5 Rg5+ 71. Kb6
Rg6+ 72. Kb7 Rg7+ 73. Kc8 Rg5 74. Kd7 Rg7+ 75. Ke8 Rg5 76. Kf7 Rc5 77. Kg7 Rc7+
78. Kf6 Rc5 79. Ra8 Kh4 80. a6 Rc6+ 81. Kf5 Rc5+ 82. Kf4 Rc4+ 83. Ke3 Rc7 84.
Rb8 Kg5 85. Rb7 Rc4 86. Kd3 Ra4 87. Rb6 Kf5 88. Kc3 Ke5 89. Kb3 Ra1 90. Kc4 Ra2
91. Rh6 Ra1 92. Kc5 Ra2 93. Kb6 Rb2+ 94. Kc7 Ra2 95. Kb7 1-0

62...Kg4 was not enough to draw and white could win with 63.Ra5. After 66.Ra5,
the position was theoretically drawn. Black slipped with 73 ...Rg5 ? and White
slipped with 74.Kd7 ? (Correct moves were 73...Rg8 and 74.Ra8) . Finally,
black slipped with 77...Rc7 and white did not allow a drawn position anymore.

Beginning with the double-rook ending, could black hold the position, or where did Black make the decisive error?

Black's 34 ...cxd4 is probably a bad choice. Taking with the rook seems good if also they could have exchanged a pair of rooks, because the pawn is blocked by the white rook. Also Black's doubled pawns on the g-file from move 24 to 43 gives an advantage to white. So i think black couldn't have saved the game unless White blundered.


software for a survey of chess openings Is there any a free software or free pgn files that presents a survey of all openings and their variations (the deeper the best) similar to those found in chess opening references like MCO or ECO ? I just want to explore and analyze the resulting moves and positions by myself. I am not asking for games but rather just openings and their variations in a software version instead of normal books.

I think you are looking for my Encyclopaedia of Chess Opening iOS app.

This app provides you the ECO openings, annoated games for each opening and lots of variation. There is an engine embedded for you to explore lines and positions.

However, this is not a free app but it costs less than a McDonald BigMac. Please consider if you are interested.


What is meant by the term "challenging" a move? I was reading Tal-Botvinnik 1960 and came across a term I had not heard of before. Tal says in the book, in exact words, "Why doesn't black challenge the move a4". For context, this was about Game 2 in which Tal explores a variation where White goes a4 to stop b5. Does the term "challenge" mean to just go b5 anyway?

Yes,challenge means to "just go b5 anyway" when considered tactically, but this misses the ideas.
Chess is a game of who has the better idea.  When deciding on a move will you further your own idea or challenge your opponents idea?
The game is a benoni structure where Black may try to expand rapidly on the queenside with great effect, ..a6, ..b5 etc.  gaining space while driving back White's pieces.
White's a4 counters this idea, trying to suppress queenside expansion with the idea of a further a5
Challenging a4 means "You cannot stop me, I will expand on the queenside anyway!"  this doesn't necessarily mean that ..b5 is the next move.
I didn't find Tal's sidelines very illuminating.  Try this amazing game which features a battle of whether Black can expand on the queenside, with a thrilling conclusion.
[Event "European Club Cup"]
[Site "Ohrid MKD"]
[Date "2009.10.08"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Maxim Rodshtein"]
[Black "Vugar Gashimov"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2740"]
[ECO "A62"]
[EventDate "2009.10.04"]
[WhiteElo "2623"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.cxd5 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 O-O
9.O-O Re8 10.Bf4 a6 11.a4 b6 12.Re1 Nh5 13.Bg5 Qc7 14.e4 Nd7 15.Rc1 h6
16.Bd2 Qb8 17.Bf1 Ra7 18.b3 Nf8 19.h3 Rae7 20.Qc2 g5 21.Kg2 Ng6 22.Bd3 Nf6      23.Rh1 Qb7 24.Rce1 Bd7 25.Bc1 b5 26.axb5 axb5 27.Bb2 c4 28.bxc4 bxc4 29.Bxc4 Bxh3+ 30.Kg1 Rc8 31.Ba2 Nxe4 32.Rxh3 Nxc3 33.Rxe7 Nxe7 34.Bxc3 Rxc3 35.Qe4 g4 36.Qxg4 Qa6 0-1


What are the ideas behind the 4.Qxd4 variation of Philidor's Defense? I recently learned that this is a valid way for White to play for advantage against the Philidor:
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6

According to the Lichess database, White has won 59% of games from this position, while Black has only won 34%. The Masters database also heavily favors White, with 31% White wins / 17% Black wins.
What are the ideas behind White's 4.Qxd4 move, and why does it have such a high winrate? What is White's motivation for violating principles like bringing out his queen very early / giving up the bishop pair?

The principle is to not bring out the queen too early when it can be easily attacked.  In this situation there's no easy way for black to attack the queen on d4, so it's not too early.  So instead of being a weakness, the queen in a central square is a huge strength.
A very similar phenomenon happens in the following line of the Scotch game where white develops the queen early and gets a +.6 edge and 43%/21% winrate on lichess.
 [FEN ""]
 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.d4 exd4, 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4


Beginners question: Strategic ideas When I am watching chess lessons, the mentor mostly uses the phrase: 'lets look at the board and find some ideas'.
As a beginner, I can't get passed the: 'look at what pieces you can grab.'

Question: What keywords or ideas should a beginner teach his/her chessmind to evaluate a chessboard better?

There are two main categories for motifs in chess. Those are strategic and tactical motifs. Beginners should should focus on tactical motifs because strategic advantages are much smaller and negligible compared to material advantage, which tactics are usually the cause of.
chesstempo has a good list of these.

http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html


What are the different rules for claiming a draw? According to the current FIDE rules of chess:

The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):

a.
is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or

b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Watching the current World Cup an interesting episode appeared when Wang Hao claimed a draw against Alexev Dreev.  Wang stopped the clock and contacted the arbiter, claiming the draw.  The arbiter saw that Wang had not written down his move before claiming the draw.  Therefore Dreev got 3 mintues extra time and the clocks were restarted.  With only seconds left on his clock Wang wrote down the move he planned to make and stopped the clock again.
Crazy as it might sound, if it now turned out that the position had not been reached for the third time the arbiter would have had to give the game to Dreev (as you apparently can only claim something incorrectly once).  Luckily for Wang the position did appear for the third time and the game was drawn.
(more details and pictures about the incident here)
According to live commentator Susan Polgar the rules for claiming the draw have changed several times and are different from federation to federation.  I certainly understand Wang as in any other situation writing down the move before you make it is not legal according to the same rules.  My brother claimed a draw in England some years ago and then the arbiter told him that he should not have written down his move before he claimed the draw (his GM opponent then deviated and avoided the draw).
Finally my question(s):
When did the rules change?  What does the USCF/BCF rules say?  Why don't the federations follow FIDE on this?  Do you know of any other rules?

FIDE's "Laws of Chess" is a good place to start, as these are generally accepted as the governing rules of the sport: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

Article five has the general rules for a draw and article nine has more detail on them. Article 9.2 is relevant to your question. It seems clear that the arbiter was correct in Wang's case, as he had not written down his move. Everything that transpired in this case, down to the three minutes of extra time, appear in accordance with FIDE's rules.

Of course, things differ in blitz and speed chess - and this is where I think different federations might really come up with their own takes and interpretations of procedural rules, since these iterations of the game have often been developed in a less formal context.

It's also quite possible that the arbiter in your brother's case simply didn't know the rules.


What arrangement of 8 each of these 4 different compound leapers has the "strongest coverage properties" on a 16x16 board? The 4 compound leapers I'd like to look at are:

(1,2), (0,3), (2,2); knight+threeleaper+alfil
(1,2), (0,2), (1,1); knight+kirin
(1,2), (1,3); knight+camel
(1,2), (2,3); knight+zebra

What arrangement of 8 of each of these 4 compound leapers (a total of 32 pieces) has the "strongest coverage properties" on a 16x16 board, defined as such?:

Any square that a piece can attack is counted as being covered once per piece
A square occupied by a piece is not covered by the piece occupying that square
Sort first by # of squares covered once; then by 2x, 3x, up to highest cover count

For example, an arrangement of pieces that covered 256 squares at least once each and covered 96 of those squares at least twice each would by this definition be considered "stronger" than an arrangement that covered 252 squares once and 112 squares twice; the higher at least twice-covered square count doesn't matter if it covers less squares at least once each, and so on.

If any riders were in the mix (rooks and bishops are examples of rider pieces; rooks the (0,1) rider and bishops the (1,1) rider), I would add that "a square that a rider's path to is blocked is not covered by that rider"; my intention is for this definition to be generalized to any combination of pieces on a board of any dimensions.

(I should double-check; is this "strongest coverage arrangement" I'm defining already a thing which there is another name for?)

This is the best arrangement that I've been able to find by hand. It covers 248 squares at least once; missing the 8 squares which are the 2 knight moves outwards from each of the center 4 squares. If I've counted right, I believe it covers 148 of those 248 squares at least twice each. I don't expect triple-covered squares to be a tiebreaker for this question and it's difficult to do by eye, so I admit to not personally counting which and how many squares are covered at least 3 times each in this arrangement.


Did Maria Teresa Mora Iturralde beat Capablanca 2.5-0.5? (Possibly better suited on the Skeptics SE, but the claim is completely related to chess)

In 1922, she exceeded all expectations. Maria Theresa became the only woman to ever to have competed with men in the Cuban championship and won. After that, the only World competitions she entered were women only — first in Buenos Aires 1939 (coming in 7th), and in Moscow 1950 (winning 4 and drawing 4). She entered the Cuban Women’s Chess Championship which she dominated as winner from 1938 to 1960, when she retired. In 1950, Maria Theresa was named the first Latin American woman to be given the Women’s International Master title. When Capablanca and Maria Theresa finally competed against each other, it was a three game series. She won twice and had a draw for the third game. Nobody could have imagined the pupil would beat the teacher. In typical early 1900's fashion, she was remembered to have said “¡Ay qué pena, le he ganado!” (“oh how embarrassing, I’ve won”).

Source
Considering that Maria Teresa finished well behind Vera Menchik in Buenos Aires 1939, and that Vera Menchik's record against Capablanca is 0-9, I find it hard to believe that Maria Teresa actually did beat Capablanca 2.5-0.5. There certainly is no record of these games in the Chessgames database.
Still, it's possible that the Chessgames database is incomplete, so I would like to confirm if the claim is indeed true (or untrue).
Edit: if the claim is true, I would very much like to see the moves in the games.
Edit #2: it seems the author of the source cannot verify the claim either, and has added a disclaimer to the bottom of the article.

I have looked at sources in Spanish (mainly Cuban) and most of them purport the same story (similar to that presented in the question) copied and pasted. However, a couple of sources present a somewhat different story.
An article in the journal Tribuna de La Habana says (my translation):

With humility and pride she always kept in her memory the two victories and one draw she obtained against her virtuous teacher, José Raúl Capablanca. They say that, when asked about it, with shiny eyes she accepted to acknowledge those meritorious results, although she then explained to the inquirers that they had been possible during simultaneous games.

Another article, in the cultural magazine La Jiribilla, mentions the story of the comment "Such a pity, I won!" But according to it, this didn't occur after wining Capablanca, but during a team tournament in 1960. I translated the relevant part of the article. The story was told by GM Silvino García:

"I remember the First National Championship between State Organisms —Silvino said,— a team tournament that was played in 1960, when I was making my first steps.
"María Teresa defended the first board of the Ministry of Education, where she worked, and had in front of her one of the strongest chess players in the country at the moment.
"She played a brilliant game, till she obtained the victory.
"Her opponent blushed, a bit because of tension, a bit for having lost against a woman. In accordance to the tradition, he congratulated her and then María Teresa, with that simplicity of hers, said to him in a low voice: Oh, such a pity, how I won you!"

EDIT
One of the games was won by María Teresa during an exhibition given by Capablanca against 28 players at the Institute of secondary Education of La Habana on May 3rd 1941.
[FEN ""]
[Event "Simultánea Havana, Cuba"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1941.05.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Mora, María Teresa"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C25"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[BlackElo ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 d6 5. d4 g5 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. O-O Bg7 8. d5
Ne5 9. Bxd7+ Nxd7 10. Nd4 Ne7 11. g3 Ng6 12. Nf5 Be5 13. Qh5 Nc5 14. Bd2 Qf6 15.
Rae1 O-O-O 16. Nh6 Kb8 17. h4 gxh4 18. gxf4 Bd4+ 19. Kh2 Rde8 20. f5 Qe5+ 21.
Kh1 Qg3 22. Rf3 Nf4 23. Qg4 Qxg4 24. Nxg4 Nh5 25. Kg2 Ng3 26. Rf4 Rhg8 27. Kh3
Bxc3 28. Bxc3 Rxe4 29. Rexe4 Ngxe4 30. Kxh4 Nxc3 31. bxc3 Kc8 32. Kh5 Kd8 33. c4
Nd7 34. Nh6 Rg7 35. Rf3 Ke7 36. a4 Nf6+ 37. Kh4 Rg2 38. a5 Rh2+ 39. Kg5 Rh5+ 40.
Kf4 Rxh6 41. Re3+ Kf8 42. Kg5 Kg7 43. Re7 Rh5+ 44. Kf4 Rh4+ 0-1


Beginners question: Controlling the center As a beginner I've been studying openings for center control.
I am having a hard time finding the next lessons and steps when I actually have the upper hand in the center. Now I realise I don't actually know what to do when you have the center.
How do I learn the next steps and what should I learn to improve in this area?

Once you control the center attack the enemy king and give checkmate!

However it's much easier said than done.

Normally there are two ways you can win control of the center and how you go about trying to win in each case is different.

1) You both fought for the center by moving pawns there but you managed to swap off or divert his pawn or pawns and now you control the center. Classically this could be via a gambit like King's Gambit (you played f4 on your second move to divert his e5 pawn to f4), Scotch Gambit or Goring Gambit (d4 on the second move followed by c3) or Morra Gambit in the Sicilian.

Because the center is open for your pieces you can move your pieces quickly towards the enemy king and go for checkmate. A good place to start studying here would be the romantic players of the 19th century like Anderson and Morphy.

2) Your opponent didn't really try and fight for the center with pawns instead he only moved some pawns to the 3rd rank, developed his pieces behind this pawn shell and aimed one or two of his pieces at the center by, for instance, fianchettoing his bishops. These would be openings like the Reti for white and the Pirc, Hedgehog and Hippopotamus for black.

The problem here is that because your opponent didn't weaken his position by fighting for the center with pawns he probably has a very strong defensive position which you need to try and break down. You will need to build up slowly with your pieces before trying to open his position with pushing one or more pawns into his position to break it open. Your opponent is hoping that you will create weaknesses in your own position when you do this and he can launch a counterstrike against your over-extended position. He could be right!

A good place to start here would be the games of the hypermoderns from the early part of the 20th century, players like Reti and Tartakower.


What are the main strategic concepts in the Grunfeld? I recently picked up on the Grunfeld and I am quite pleased with this opening. To improve my skill at playing this opening;

What are the most important strategic/thematic concepts that I should learn?
What other, less important, concepts should I learn after i'm skilled at the most important?
What kind of endgames can I expect? ( which pieces )

The Grunfeld mainline starts with:

[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5

Very often Black will end up with a poor pawn structure in return for piece activity for example after the pawn moves d5 e6 dxe6 and fxe6 (not necessarily right after another).

As for other concepts, you need to accept that you need to study a lot of concrete lines. White has many options against your defence of choice such as:

The crazy sharp anti-Grünfeld 3.f3.
The positional 5.Bd2 line.
The crazy tactical lines with an early h4.
The system with Nf3 + an early Qb3.
etc. etc.

Tactics abound in this opening and trying to work it all out over the board against a prepared opponent is suicide.

As for endgames, you can get absolutely any kind of material distribution due to the tactical nature of the opening. In general Black will get a queen side pawn majority, but whether it'll be relevant is an entirely different matter. First of all there's the matter of surviving the middlegame, and then there's the question of how many concessions Black had to make in order to neutralise the white centre in order to get there. For a great example of this going completely wrong for Black, see this game.


Chess.com rating vs FIDE rating I've been playing on chess.com standard time (not blitz) for a while with a rating of around 1670, but my FIDE rating is still around 1600, still growing. Is there an actual conversion available for these ratings?

I play blitz there every day for many hours. My rating periodically oscillates between 1850 and 2050, which is a span of 200 points. This has little to do with my varying strength because it depends mostly on which opponents I happen to run into. This phenomenon puts a certain constraint on your idea of a conversion table.

I added two more comments to this answer. See below.