Why is the Ragozin 4... Bb4 not even considered against 4. Bg5? The Ragozin variation of the Queen's Gambit starts with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4:

[StartPly "8"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4

It seems that the Bb4 move is only sound in that position, and not if white played 4.Bg5 instead of 4.Nf3.

[StartPly "8"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (4.Nf3 Bb4) Bb4

This line is, in my experience, not even mentioned in common opening books, as if it were "obviously" wrong... I'm not sure why. If this  is bad for black, which would be white's best answer?

I'm not an expert but my guess is black doesn't want white to develop his g1 knight to e2 in a variation he commits his bishop to b4.

For example after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.e3, wouldn't you be more comfortable with your f3 knight on e2? You can get that in the other variation!

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4!? 5.e3 keeps the g1 knight flexible. Now if
5...h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Nge2 and white slightly improved his position. That is if you agree the knight is better on e2. There are more than hundred master games played in my database with 4.Bg5 Bb4 so I don't believe it's dubious, just slightly inferior.


How respectable is the CM title? I know a man who has the CM title and his wife is WGM. They wrote a book together and on the cover her name is given with the WGM title but his name is left without his CM title. I asked him about this and he insists that he is rather embarrassed by the low title.
I am wondering if it is advisable to put his title on the book cover. Will it confer respect or rather discourage readers? The readers are supposed to be beginners or amateurs or even chess enthusiast that do not really play chess.
Any answers should focus on how the title is perceived by potential buyers of the book, and not on the technical details of obtaining the CM title.

There are, of course, some players who have been given the title in perfectly "respectable" circumstances like reaching a certain rating or reaching 50% in an Olympiad. However, try this. Go to the FIDE rating website and do an advanced search for titled players sorted by rating ascending.

The first 7 players in the list are WCM with ratings between 1032 and 1143. The next is a WFM with a rating of 1154! Which kind of throws doubt on the WFM title too. Then the first CM with a rating of 1161. Ignoring the WCMs for the moment and just looking for CMs we see that the next ones come in at 1204, 1247, 1282, 1298.

What we also see with these very low rated CMs and WCMs is that they are very young, some as young as 7 years old. And therein lies a clue. Another way to get the WCM and CM titles is by finishing in places 1 through 3 in world and continental championships in age groups going down as far as under 7.

These titles are titles for life so if they give up altogether or just play a few games a year and stop improving they will always have their titles.

You judge if giving out titles to players with sub 1200 ratings devalues those titles or not.


How do I get Stockfish to show notes like it does on Lichess? I want to write a program to stop a chess game if Stockfish decides that checkmate is unavoidable for a player as a learning exercise. I downloaded Stockfish for Mac and it gives what it thinks is the best move but I can't figure out how to get it to show those more specific notes

Stockfish is an UCI chess engine, so you shouldn't mess up with the engine. You will need to write a new chess GUI.

Useful links:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-engines-amp-gui-uci
How do I use the analysis output of a UCI engine?
What is the optimal way to use Stockfish programmatically?
How to get position evaluation with UCI?


Is this endgame drawn after the rook sacrifice? 2R5/8/8/8/4Pp1P/3k1K2/2p2P2/1r6 w - - 0 46

In this position, the engine recommends 1. Rxc2 and evaluates the position as drawn. Is there a general rule in such positions or precise calculation is required to reach such a  conclusion?

Let's note the following: 1.Rxc2 and 1.Kxf4 and 1.Rd8+ are equally good, since they all draw. If we ignore 1.Rd8+ for now, 1.Rxc2 is clearly at least as good as 1.Kxf4 in the position, since it drives black's king back one square, meaning that black will at some point have to 'waste' a move with the king to get to white's remaining pawns (the option of 1.Rd8+ introduces a different way for black to play for a win that ultimately doesn't work, but needs to be taken into consideration. This line should be considered if we come to the conclusion that 1.Rxc2 loses by force).
So we begin by calculating a few steps ahead in the 1.Rxc2 line (since it's a direct capture, and if it works then we're happy): 1...Kxc2 2.Kxf4 Kd3 (this is why 1.Kxf4 and 1.Rxc2 are equally good; it doesn't matter if black's rook is on c1 or on b1).
This will be the main tabya of the endgame, and at this point white needs to make a decision: which pawn should be used as the main passer?
Let's consider our options, beginning with the h-pawn:
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[FEN "8/8/8/8/4PK1P/3k4/5P2/1r6 w - - 0 3"]

3.h5?? Rh1 4.Kg5 Kxe4 5.f4 (5.Kg6 Ke5 {White's king is chained to the h-pawn.} 6.h6 Ke6 {Opposition. Now Black threatens to play ...Rg1+, forcing White's king onto the h-file, and granting access to the f-file for Black's king.} 7.h7 Rg1+ 8.Kh6 Kf7 9.h8=N+ Kf6 10.Kh7 Rg7+! {All that is left to ensure victory for Black is to round up the final pawn.} 11.Kh6 Rg2! 12.Kh7 Rxf2-+ {With the knight in the corner, White is helpless.}) Kd5! {The way black wins in this position is to maneouver their king to the f-file, where it will be able to contain both of white's passers. Since the black rook keeps White's pawns from advancing too quickly, Black will be able to interfere with the king in time.} (5...Rg1+ 6.Kf6 Kxf4?? 7.h6= {and White's pawn promotes.}) 6.Kg6 Ke6 {Black is now threatening to play ...Rg1+, after which Black's king reaches the f-file} 7.f5+ Ke7 8.f6+ Kf8-+ {Black will now be able to either pick off White's two pawns, or White's king will be caught in a mating net.}

So the h-pawn is a no-go. What about the e-pawn?
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[FEN "8/8/8/8/4PK1P/3k4/5P2/1r6 w - - 0 3"]

3.e5?? Kd4! {The problem with the e5 push is that it allows Black's king easy access to the d5 square, which makes it impossible for White to gain enough time for the pawns to advance successfully.} 4.Kf5 (4.e6 Kd5 5.e7 Re1 {just drops the pawn.}) Kd5 5.f4 Rh1! {luring White's king away from the e6 square, creating access for Black's king.} 6.Kg5 Ke6-+ {Again, White will not be able to stop Black's king from getting to the f-file, after which Black will either mate White's king or pick up the passed pawns one by one.}

Ok, only one attempt left to consider then!
[White "NN"]
[Black "NN"]
[FEN "8/8/8/8/4PK1P/3k4/5P2/1r6 w - - 0 3"]

3.Kf5! {This is the only way to draw, and it is by far the best move in the   position. White waits with pushing a pawn forward until after Black has made a  commitment which leaves White with a tempo to spare in comparison with many of the previous lines, i.e. the answer to the question of which pawn to push depends on which pawn Black decides to go after first!} 3...Re1 {It's not clear which line should be considered the main line for Black in the position.} (3...Rh1 4.Ke5! {This time the f-pawn is used} 4...Rxh4 5.f4 Ke3 6.f5 Rxe4+ 7.Kd6= {There is no way for black to round up the f-pawn.}) (3...Kd4 {The last line we will consider here. Other tries make little sense.} 4.h5= {is essentially a repeat of the main line. The other way to draw is to push the f-pawn forward, but this move is the simplest.})  4.h5! {By waiting with the push, White managed to get Black to waste a tempo on stopping the "wrong" pawn, so to speak. Now there is no way for Black to stop the h-pawn in time.} 4...Rh1 5.Kg6 Kxe4 6.h6 Ke5 7.h7=

Ok, so it turns out that White will be able to draw after 1.Rxc2. Although some precise calculation was needed to make sure that White manages to create sufficient counterplay with the pawns, we have to consider far from every possible line.
This is a common theme for practially any endgame: precise calculation is crucial, but the use of certain abstract "guideposts" in the position (such as "Black's king getting to the f-file = White is doomed" in this case) means that we only have to make a relatively small number of precise calculations to reach the correct conclusion. In general, the more endgame theory you know, the more of these abstract "guideposts" will be visible to you, making endgame calculations far more efficient than brute-foring them.


What software is good for deliberate practice in specific areas? Is there software that tracks unassisted game play and categorizes player's strengthens and weaknesses in a way that allows the player to focus on the most valuable deliberate area practice relative to the player's strengthens and weaknesses?

I'm confident in saying that there is no such software; though engines are of course incredibly strong players, and their numerical evaluations can certainly pinpoint poor individual moves that you might make, the kind of helpful feedback you describe is unfortunately out of reach for a computer program at this point in time. On the plus side, though, there is a fantastic (and cheap!) alternative to such nonexistent software: human players who are stronger than oneself.

One of the best ways to get better at chess (and this is in common with most competitive endeavors) is just to play against the strongest opponents you can find, whether casually or in tournament play, especially if you can pick their brains in a postmortem afterward. You will come to learn where they saw you going wrong, and in what areas of the game you tend to make mistakes, and in time you will see more and more of these things on your own. And even if you don't talk through the game afterward, just the playing itself will be a boon to your development as a player, as there's no substitute for practice against the best, and steel sharpens steel.


What are some free chess software for showing the best moves in the final output analysis? I appreciate any free chess software that can be used for analyzing chess games. However, some of them are difficult to use, showing a large number of lines with many moves which are not displayed in the chessboard. As a result, someone has to be comfortable with reading chess notation to understand them. Another issue is that many chess programs show only the best line for each move in the final analysis output. It might be useful to also know the second or third best move for example.
I was wondering: how many free chess programs are there:

showing the best moves/lines (from best to worst) and allowing
the user to navigate through them visually on the board?

rating each move (something like excellent/good/mistake/blunder)?

export an analysis concentrating all the above information?

Lucas chess is the only free chess software that I know satisfying all the above.
Scid is also close to that, but I think that it displays only the best line for each move in the final output (if this isn't the case, please describe how someone can see more than one line for each move in the final analysis using scid).
Is there any other free chess program doing all that?

You can download Stockfish for free. It has a great UI. You can also use the engine with scripting languages such as python which we do for our app Chess Puzzle Blitz.
Stockfish: https://stockfishchess.org/
Both Lichess and Chess.com have analysis tools (you can load a PGN or FEN, or manually set a board).
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/analysis
Lichess.org: https://lichess.org/analysis


Ways to quickly beat beginners Are there any common tactics or combinations used to beat complete beginners quickly (or gain large material advantages)?

By "beginner" I mean someone who is good enough not to get caught out by Scholar's mate, and knows basic opening principles, mate with king and rook etc., but not any actual openings.

As T.S. Eliot said, "There is no method but to be very intelligent." If the opponent is smart enough to avoid the known short mates and understands basic opening strategy, you'll just have to outplay them.

That said, in my experience, new players often miss forks, discovered attacks, and moves that theoretically place a piece under attack, but where the capture would result in a check or expose an attack on a more valuable piece. New players are often so focused on protecting the king and/or queen that they blunder away pawns and minor pieces by leaving them vulnerable to such moves.

My advice: play better than the beginner and you will rapidly overwhelm them and find blunders to exploit. :)


Is 1.d4 2.Nc3 3.Bf4 bad? My usual way of opening as white is as follows, usually regardless of what my opponent plays (although there are exceptions and I do play some other openings):

d4. 2. Nc3  3. Bf4

However, I have been reviewing my games, and almost every game I play I find that the engine considers my 3. Bf4 move to be either an inaccuracy or just a 'good' move. I am quite confused as to why this would not be one of the best moves - much less an inaccuracy. Consider openings I've used in 2 of the games I played: (I am white in both)

1st game:
1. d4 f6 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bf4 e6

2nd game:
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 c6 3. Bf4 Nf6

Now, in the first game I can understand that maybe it would have been better to play pawn d5 as the computer recommends, attacking his knight. However, wouldn't this be relatively easily countered by Nb4? Of course, I could go e4, but wouldn't this just make it harder for me to defend all these pawns in the future? I prefer playing safely and if it means giving up some control over the center to ensure a middle game I am in more control of, I will take it. Could anyone explain to me why this is considered an inaccuracy by engines and perhaps offer a continuation?

In the second game, I am also somewhat confused as to why the computer considers this an 'ok' move and put me from a +0.55 score to a +0.33. I'm pretty sure this is a relatively big drop in the opening... I play the move in order to create threats on the bishop's diagonal, which I have found to help quite a lot in the past. I also play the move in order to get as much control over e5 as I can, which I usually find is a key square when playing my opening (I believe it is the Chigorin opening until my bishop move). Could anyone explain to me why the computer doesn't consider this a good tactic and what other, better move I could play that would lead to an endgame that is more in my favor?

I'm interested in improving my opening - thanks to whoever reads this.

First of all: Don't take engines so seriously! 0.22 is not a big drop, especially if your move suits you.

On the other hand, in order to get better, you should play more aggressive and complex lines (also that is what chess engines do), because it will expose you to some important ideas. Your opening system satisfies neither of these criteria.

Just stop avoiding main lines. Yes, they are full of theory, but you can learn from them a lot.

You are a 1. d4 player, so I would definitely recommend you not to play Nc3 before c4. I know that 2. Nc3 is a playable system, but it won't do much for your improvement.

Now to the games:

In the first game you need to understand that black is playing badly (obviously the first move is horrible - doing nothing for development and weakening his own king).

Therefore if you want to punish him, you need to play more forcefully, either the engine move 3. d5 or simply fighting for the center with 3. e4.

You don't have to worry about these pawns too much, because you're actually ahead in development and it will take black a lot of time to start attacking them. In the meantime black's king might be already mated...

Secondly, these pawns are in the center and only help you to grab more and more space. They should be moved in the opening and occupy the central squares.

In the second game, black played quite normally. So when you play these unambitious moves, you risk giving up all your opening edge as white (and you might even end up being worse).

But again that drop in engine assessment isn't that important.


The quickest mate in n Obviously inspired by the analogous selfmate  question. (Helpmate would also be possible in principle, but looks a bit silly.)
Thus, 1.f3 e5 2.g4 allows Black a #1, and 1.f3 e5  2.h3 a #2. 1.f4 e5 2.Nf3 Be7 3.h3 is a #3. This should be the quickest games.
Find a shortest helpplay to a position where one side has a forced #4 (and of course it must be unique and not be shortenable), for starters.

A mere 3 moves are needed to reach a position in which White has a forced #4.
[FEN ""]

1. e3 b6 2. Bc4 Bb7 3. Qf3 d6 {Now the helping play is over.}  4. Qxf7+ Kd7 5. Qf5+ e6 6. Bxe6+ Kc6 (6... Ke7 7. Qf7#) 7. Qd5#

However, longer mates are also possible to produce in just three moves.
Here is a #5.
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5 3. Qe2 h6 {Now the helping play is over.} 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qxg6+ Ke7 6. Qf7+ Kd6 7. Qd5+ Ke7 8. Qxe5#

Even a #6 can be done.
[FEN ""]

1. e3 d6 2. Bc4 b6 3. Qf3 b5 {Now the helping play is over.} 4. Qxf7+ Kd7 5. Qf5+ e6 6. Qxe6+ Kc6 7. Qd5+ Kd7 8. Qf5+ Kc6 9. Qxb5#

Addendum 5/22/2021-A is #7 indeed possible, albeit in 4 moves.
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 d5 3. Qh5 Ke7 4. f4 Kf6 {Now the helping play is over.} 5. Qg5+ Ke6 6. Qxe5+ Kd7 7. Qxd5+ Ke7 8. Qxf7+ Kd6 9. Qd5+ Ke7 10. Qe5+ Be6 (10... Kd7 11. Qe6#) 11. Qxe6#

For an #8, 5 moves is my best result so far.
[FEN ""]

1. e3 e5 2. Qh5 Ke7 3. Bc4 Kf6 4. c3 g6 5. d3 a6 {Now the helping play is over.} 6. Qf3+ Kg7 7. Qxf7+ Kh6 8. e4+ Qg5 9. Bxg5+ (9... Kxg5 10. h4+ Kh6 11. Qxf8+ Kh5 12. g4+ Kxg4 13. Qf3#) Kh5 10. g4+ Kxg4 11. h4 Nf6 12. Qxf6 Kh5 13. Qf3#


Does one need to know all popular openings if they wants to be a top-level player? Let's say there is a player who knows nothing about Sicilian Defense. If they always start the game with 1. d4 or 1. c4 as white and play the Caro-Kann as black against 1. e4, it seems to me that they can theoretically be a player at the top level without knowing anything about Sicilian. Of course, they will have a problem coaching others, but I do not see why zero knowledge of the Sicilian can prevent them from being a top-level player.

Wilhelm Steinitz: I have never in my life played the French Defence, which is the dullest of all openings.

It would be difficult.
So you go into your first top-level tournament and get Black in the first round. No problem, you'll just play your Caro-Kann. Play goes 1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. d4. You've just transposed into a line of the Alapin Variation of the Sicilian.
In the second round you're White and play 1.c4. Your opponent plays 1...e5 to go into a reversed Sicilian, and suddenly you're really wishing you knew something about that opening.


Why play 7... Nxd5 instead of 7... exd5 in the QGD? I'm currently following the rapid game Caruana-Nakamura in the London Chess Classic, and I have a basic question about the opening moves.

Why play 7... Nxd5 instead of 7... exd5? Is the idea to trade pieces since black has less space and that would free up his position? Do black's two knights kind of step on each other's toes, making a trade of one knight desirable?

Here's the game: https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-london-chess-classic/04-Caruana_Fabiano-Nakamura_Hikaru.

Both moves are played with exd5 being the more popular choice.  After 8.Nxd5 exd5 is twice as popular as Qxd5 as played by Nakamura.  It is likely Nakamura is trying some ideas in these sidelines in the hopes to catch his opponent unawares.


When is it the right time to resign? Most advanced players know when it is time to resign, but many beginners don't.  What factors do you consider when it is time to resign?

The right time to resign will vary from player to player, even if facing identical losing positions. But basically, the right time to resign is when, despite serious contemplation and effort of thought, you are convinced that there is simply no way to avoid a loss, and in addition you have lost all desire to play the position out. That said, there is nothing more frustrating than resigning prematurely, and a saying I've heard before goes something like "It's better to resign one move too late than one move too early," or "It's never too late to resign."

Some players can feel disrespected if an opponent plays on in what the first player considers a clearly lost position. But of course what one person can see clearly, others sometimes can't (or, not unlike the link above, the player who thinks it is already won might be mistaken). A player has every right to play until the bitter end every game without resigning -- these times can even be great learning experiences, seeing how one's opponent goes about winning a won position -- and I believe it is never disrespectful to do so, provided that the player on the losing end isn't, say, just running out the clock, motivated only by a desire to be annoying and waste the opponent's time.


What are the fastest vertical checkmates for both castlings? Vertical: wherein the rook attacks down a file.

I wish to know the fastest possible castling checkmates, for both queenside and kingside, that are a vertical one.

See my question about horizontal castling here.

Mate in 6.0 for kingside.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
1. e4 e6 2. Bc4 Bd6 3. Ke2 Qg5 4. Kf3 Nh6 5. Bxe6 fxe6 6. Qe2 O-O#

And 5.5 for queenside, even faster.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
1. d4 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nxd4 3. Qxd4 e5 4. Qc4 Ke7 5. Bg5+ Kd6 6. O-O-O#

This should be fastest.


Are there any hypermodern openings for white I just want to ask if there is any kind of hypermodern opening for white.
For black, i usually play benko gambit and alekhine defense, so preferably, I am opting for a tactical opening

A hypermodern opening in chess is one whose strategy controls the centre from the outside. For instance fianchettoed bishops [b3 or g3 followed by Bb2 or Bg2] can do this. Central pawn moves are delayed till later on.

Specifically a hypermodern opening for white could be 1. b3 and then 2. Bb2 called Larsen's Opening or the Nimzowitsch attack. The idea is to use the Bb2 bishop along its diagonal, especially if black castles kingside. For instance the opening could go:

  [FEN ""]
  1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. f4 Qh4+ 6. g3 Qe7 *

This is quite a well known opening position in Larsen's attack. White's move 5. f4 is important - white is attacking black's centre. A common continuation is for white to eventually castle o-o-o queenside and black to castle kingside with equal chances of mutual attack. Larsen was a GM who used this opening with great success with one exception! His loss to Spassky: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128831

Another hypermodern opening is to play 1. Nc3 and 2. Nf3 as white and provoke black into chasing your knights with black's pawns. This is rather humorously called the Napoleon attack after Napoleon's horses!! Though I am pretty sure that he never played it!

Another hypermodern opening is the King's Indian Attack - a King's Indian formation as white:

   [FEN ""]
   1. Nf3  Nf6  2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c5 4. d3 Nc6 5. O-O e5 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. e4 O-O 8. Qe2 *

Fischer used this with success. There are many hypermodern white openings that let black put pawns in the centre to make a target for white to attack. This is a small taste of them here.


What is this battleship-style chess variant called? So I've recently built and published a chess app, targeted at club chess player (like myself). The goal of the app is to educate and make chess more accessible.

I'm working on an update. One of the new features will involve being able to play chess variants, I'm adding variants which I believe help enhance a certain chess skill (tactics, endgames etc.). These are all variants which I play at chess club (for fun and practice).

A chess variant that I think helps players practice endgames is a variant we play, which we call chess-battleships.

The way it works is each player can only see their half of the board. Both players place a predetermined number of pieces anywhere they want, usually 3/4 pawns and one minor piece, plus their king.

Then the full board is revealed to both players and they play out the equal material endgame. This helps players understand endgames and positional play.

My question is does this chess game have an official name? If not I'd be happy to take suggestions as I'm unable to use the trademarked term "battleships" in my app.

Thanks for your time,
Liam

This is similar to Crazy Screen Chess:

Screen Chess - Before the game, both players set up their pieces on the last 4 ranks, with the following restrictions: the bishops must be placed on opposite colors, and only 1 pawn can be placed on a file. Once the game starts, the rules are the same as regular chess, with no castling and no en passant.
...
Crazy Screen Chess - Same as Screen Chess, except with no restrictions on piece placement.

Source: ItsYourTurn.com


What is the power of team captain in team tournaments? To what extent is the power of team captain in team tournaments (like Olympiad)?

Can the team captain decide which board he wants to offer draw even though the position is winning without the consent of team players?

Can the captain decide which player is not playing if there is a substitute player?

There are two levels of team captain powers, official powers / rights and powers that his/her national federation confers. Examples of these would be that a team player may ask his team captain if he may accept a draw offer. The captain's advice is non-binding. This is an official power. Normally players are not allowed to discuss their games with anybody and asking advice about a draw offer would count as such.

Note that the captain is not allowed to remind the player to press the clock and strictly speaking he shouldn't even tell the player his opponent has moved if the player has gone to the toilet or for a coffee.

Agreeing a draw on somebody else's board is a power that the national federation confers (or not) on the captain and the player involved acquiesces to this by accepting a place in the team. There have been cases where in the last round a team just needs a draw (2-2) to win or secure a particular position and even though they are playing a weaker team they come out, play a few moves and then everyone agrees a draw.

Deciding who plays and who rests is usually a question for the manager and captain although obviously players can also have input. "Captain, I'm absolutely knackered. I need a day off. Give me a rest, please" or "I just want to play every game. Rest somebody else." Ultimately these are management decisions and the captain and the manager will make the final decision.

FWIW a few years ago my team captain (at a level at least a dozen levels below Olympiad, I hasten to add) used to tell me I had to refuse draw offers if we were losing, regardless of the position on my board. Needless to say I didn't pay much attention!

Here are the official FIDE rules governing the role of the captain:

Team Captain’s Role in Team Tournaments

(a) The role of a team captain is basically an administrative one during play. Depending on the regulations of the specific competition, the captain shall be required to deliver at a specific time a written list naming the players in his team participating in each round, to communicate to his players their pairing, to sign the protocol indicating the results in the match at the end of the play, etc.

(b) Whenever the team captain speaks to one of his players, he should do so only through or in the presence of an arbiter, using a language the arbiter can understand.

(c) A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself only to brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player, “offer a draw”, “accept the draw”, or “resign the game”. For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer “yes”, “no”, or delegate the decision to the player himself. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board and/or the clock times, nor consult any other person and/or computer as to the state of the game. The captain shall refrain from any intervention during play.

(d) Players are subject to the same prohibitions. Even though in a team competition there is a certain team loyalty, which goes beyond a player’s individual game, a game of chess is basically a contest between two players. Therefore a player must have the final say over the conduct of his own game. Although the advice of the captain should weigh heavily with the player, the player is not absolutely compelled to accept that advice. Likewise, the captain cannot act on behalf of a player and his game without the knowledge and consent of the player.

(e) A team captain should encourage his team always to follow both the letter and the spirit of Article 12 of the FIDE Laws of Chess concerning the conduct of the players. Team championships, in particular, should be conducted in the spirit of the highest sportsmanship.


Playing rating is higher than tactics rating I noticed for a while that in many chess websites that my tactics rating is between 1700-2000, but my playing rating in rapid is between 2000-2250, in blitz between 1900-2100, and in classical between 2200-2400. I know that there are differences between each website concerning rating. But in all websites my playing rating is higher than my tactics rating by at least 200-300 points in rapid and classical. I have a strong opening preparation that I believe might compensate. During the game, I believe that my opening preparation gives me the advantage because I know the plans, and I know where the weaknesses are in the opponents camp. I also know if I should attack the king, or press a weakness, or play on misplaced piece based on the opening. That's why I think my playing rating is higher. Moreover, I believe that finding tactics in an exercise might be difficult for me because I'm not familiar with some openings/pawn structures. But in pawn structures and openings that I play, I can find the tactic more easily. Now my questions are:

Do you have the same disparity in ratings? And if yes, is there an explanation? (I know that some people have their tactics rating higher than their playing rating, but I'm not talking about this class of players)

Should I practice more tactics? I'm using many websites/apps such as chesstempo, chess24, tactics frenzy, chesscom, and lichess.

I believe that one should practice tactics in the openings that he/she plays because these are the tactics that come often in games. What do you think?

Most sites are way overgenerous with their ratings.
And they are all inconsistent between them too.
One factor that matters is the strength of the group who are competing.  Your tactics cohort may differ a lot from your online opponents.


How much does adding an opening book to a relatively weak chess program affect its strength? Jonathan Schaeffer in One Jump Ahead (via the Chess Programming Wiki):

To solve the opening problems of his chess machine, Belle, Ken
Thompson typed in opening lines from the Encyclopedia of Chess
Openings (in five thick volumes). Religiously, he dedicated one hour a
day for almost three years (!) to the tedious pursuit of entering
lines of play from the books and having his Belle computer verify
them. The result was an opening library of roughly three-hundred
thousand moves. The results were immediate and obvious: Belle became a
much stronger chess program, and Ken probably aged prematurely.

I read somewhere else that Belle eventually reached the equivalent of 2250 Elo (I assume that was in terms of USCF ratings), but I couldn't find any information about its rating gain due to the opening book.
So here's a more general question. Suppose we take a relatively weak chess engine that doesn't use an opening book and that has a known rating from a pool that includes humans (e.g. Lichess or chess.com). How much stronger would it be if we added an extensive opening book to it?
Let's assume the engine's original rating is anything between the equivalent of 1000 to 2000 FIDE. This is an arbitrary range. The idea is that if the engine is too weak, then the opening book would be just covering for the lack of any search/evaluation, and if it's too strong then the opening book would get less necessary. Of course I expect the answer to be different depending on the strength of the original engine.

Stockfish gains about 50 elo from the Cerebellum opening book ("Brainfish" is just Stockfish equipped with Cerebellum).
I don't know if the effect of opening books varies depending on engine strength, however.


What are the differences between the major online chess sites that allow to play? I'm thinking of dedicating some of my free time to learn and play chess in a systematic and serious way and try to participate in a non-Internet tournament in a few months. I will take this activity as a hobby, but still want to keep it serious, cos I know that my progress will determine how much fun the thing will be.

I know that there are many websites that allow you play chess online, but I'm interested in what experienced users have to say about them taking in care my goals. I'm looking for a place that allows me learn, play and test myself giving me a kind of rating from which I could infer with more or less accurateness my FIDE ELO and then decide when I'm ready to spend time participating in a non-Internet tournament.

Nowadays there is really a abundance of good chess servers. And they are all relatively similar. I think you need a site where you can:

Play blitz chess
Play correspondence chess
Do tactics training
Learn via articles and/or videos

If you want everything on one site, www.chess.com is probably your best bet. As far as I know ICC, chess24, playchess and FICS don't have correspondence games. For beginners it is often hard to play blitz, and even later you might learn more from longer games.

The downside of chess.com is that the players are relatively weak. But if you are just starting out, this is not going to bug you for a few years.


Please review my game in the King's Gambit Accepted In the following game I played as White where I was mated. Can you comment on my game and how to improve?

I'm particularly interested in understanding the my opponent's mating attack.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2016.05.26"]
[White "anandsadasivam"]
[Black "PMajstor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "878"]
[BlackElo "886"]
[TimeControl "10|0"]
[Termination "PMajstor won by checkmate"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qg4 Bd6 4.d4 f6 5.c4 Nh6 6.Qf3 b6 7.a4 a5 8.h4 O-O 9.Bxf4 Bxf4 10.Qxf4 d6
 11.g4 Nxg4 12.Ne2 h6 13.Bh3 f5 14.Rf1 Qxh4+ 15.Ng3 Qxh3 16.Nxf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Ne3 18.b3 Nc2+ 19.Kd1 Nxa1 20.Kc1 Rxf5
 21.Qxf5 Nxb3+ 22.Kd1 Qxf5 23.Rxf5 Nxd4 24.Rf4 Nbc6 25.Nc3 Rf8 26.Re4 Nf3 27.Nd5 Ng5 28.Rg4 Rf1+ 29.Ke2 Rf8 30.Nxc7 Ne5
 31.Rd4 Rd8 32.Nd5 Nc6 33.Rf4 Re8+ 34.Kd3 Ne5+ 35.Kc3 Ng6 36.Rf1 Ne4+ 37.Kd4 Nd2 38.Rd1 Nf3+ 39.Kc3 Nge5 40.Nxb6 Rb8
 41.Rxd6 Ng5 42.Nd7 Ne4+ 43.Kd4 Nxd6 44.Nxb8 Nexc4 45.Nc6 g5 46.Kd3 g4 47.Ke2 g3 48.Kf1 h5 49.Kg2 h4 50.Kh3 Nf5
 51.Nd8 Nb2 52.Nc6 Nc4 53.Nd8 Kf8 54.Ne6+ Ke7 55.Ng7 Nxg7 56.Kxh4 g2 57.Kh3 g1=Q 58.Kh4 Ne6 59.Kh5 Kf6 60.Kh6 Qh1#
 0-1

I think your first step toward improvement has to be: don't just lose material. 11.g4 is the first example I see. There seems no rhyme nor reason for just letting the opponent have that pawn. Next is 14.Rf1. There seem to be reasonable ways to not lose the h4 pawn. And finally 15.Ng3 dropping a whole piece on h3, when 15.Bg2 would have saved it. Why keep material? 1) More material for you means you have more material to launch attacks, and 2) More material also gives you more defenses for your king if your opponent goes on a premature king attack.


How does timeseal work? I know the the fics (free internet chess server: www.freechess.org/) does use a program called timeseal to measure the time that a user needed to take a move. This timeseal is some time measurement on the client. Measuring on the client is much better and fairer than measuring the time on the server since you don't lose time just by having a bad connection.

But since fics has a lot of interfaces to play on - what prevents rogue interfaces to say that they always only used 0.1 seconds for any move? Does anyone know how this is handled?

Just a sidenote: i don't want to build a rogue interface, but i'm trying to build something similar that is measuing client side time but should not be easy to cheat on.

I'm a chess player and programmer. There was actually a paper on this 10 years ago about the timestamp and other security on ICC. You should read it with the understanding that things may be different now:

How to Cheat at Chess:
A Security Analysis of the Internet Chess Club

But in general, you are correct. It is possible to manipulate the times reported in timeseal (timestamp). I've actually done it, even with ICC's official interface, just to see if it can be done. Speed hacks exist for many games and I used an existing speed hack program to slow down my clock instead of speeding it up (which you normally would do to run faster in a game). The result was a game I played vs KBNK (a bot which lets you practice B+N mate), in which I mated the computer after about 30 moves in less than 3 seconds played time. Averaging 0.1 seconds per move or so on a non-trivial mate is definitely unnatural.

I reported the effect to the administrators of the site, but I was told they were able to detect it. In fact, they had a log of my fraudulent time stamps detected (somewhere... I assume they can see blatant false reports, as well as compare it to TCP/IP timestamps and see if the numbers are reasonable). I was told that they were able to detect such cheating and to please not use it but thanks for my concern.

So, yes it is possible to manipulate anything client side, but it is also possible that they can detect fraudulent time stamps server side. Better chess servers typically already have a team of people that investigate reports of cheating, either by computer or clock manipulation.


FIDE threefold repetition and possible moves FIDE rules section 9.2 says:

Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has
the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares
and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Thus positions are not the same if:

at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

My question is about the correct interpretation of "possible moves" in regards to castling and en-passant rights.  Has FIDE ever officially clarified this rule, or is there a petition out there somewhere for them to clarify this rule, to decide between these alternatives?

It matters only what moves can actually be made from the positions in question.  (Literally, the "possible moves" for the positions.)
Both the moves that can be made, and the retention of rights to castle and capture en passant, must be considered and must match exactly between the positions in question.

I have two examples to illustrate the question:

First, castling rights.  In this example, assuming both the king and rook have never been moved at the starting position, there is no possible future where White can castle.  So is the final position in this example a threefold repetition or not?
[Title "White to Move"]
[FEN "4k1n1/8/8/8/8/8/4p3/2B1K2R w K - 0 1"]

1. Rh2 Nh6 2. Rh1 Ng8 3. Rh2 Nh6 4. Rh1 Ng8

Is this a threefold repetition ?
Formally, White has lost his castling right. However, even in the starting position, there was no possible legal continuation of the game where White could castle (he cannot get rid of bPe2 without moving king or rook), so even if the formal right to castle has been lost, the possibility of a later castle has not been altered by the moves played.

Second, capture en passant rights.  In this example, the white pawn can theoretically be captured en passant, but the only black pawn that could do it is pinned.  So is the final position in this example a threefold repetition or not?
[Title "White to Move"]
[FEN "2k3n1/8/8/8/2p5/8/3P4/2R1K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. d4 Nh6 2. Kd1 Ng8 3. Ke1 Nh6 4. Kd1 Ng8 5. Ke1

In both examples, it depends how the phrase "possible moves" in the rule is defined.  Has FIDE ever clarified this rule as it concerns cases like these?

Hi I have clarified this over the years with the senior FIDE International Arbiter at the time, Stewart Reuben, who is busy now writing the definitive book on the History of the Laws of Chess.
You focus on the essential point: treatment of possible moves. The TL;DR is that en passant is based on possible moves, castling is based on rights.
At first glance one might think: "Whoa! How inconsistent! Why would they do it different ways?" But actually it makes sense and to my mind is the best way of doing it. Let me see if I can convince you.
In some sense, it might seem "fairest" to look at "possible moves" for both.
However for castling, it might be complex to determine whether a player is going to be able to execute a castling some time in the future. The examples that you give are cool, but relatively simple. The rules would also have to opine whether, in considering the feasibility of actually castling, one can assume that one player is actively trying to prevent this taking place, and how that interacts with the choosing of moves to repeat the position. It's sooo much simpler just to look at the game score and simply observe which kings and rooks have ever moved. The actual executability of castling is irrelevant. The right is lost, as the rule says, after the king or rook moves. A genuine hole in the rule is that the right should also be lost if an unmoved rook is captured on its start square.
On the other hand, en passant is only feasible for one turn. There is no look-ahead required in checking possible moves. If the e.p. can't happen right now because of check or pin, it seems very reasonable that this is indeed a factor in the determination of position. If I try to put a position on the board where the e.p. can't happen due to check or pin, and try to think of it as different from a situation 2.0 moves later, when the e.p. is also too stale to happen, it feels very odd.
After many years of confusion, this is the point of view which FIDE reached under Stewart. The rules could still be clearer, but I think the key step is to understand exactly why "possible moves" should indeed be relevant for one case, but not the other.


What's the best approach to adopting 1.d4? As a long time 1.e4 player and short time 1.c4 player, I'd like to add 1.d4 but there are so many defenses.    I am considering the London system against things, while adding mainlines vs. all the various openings one by one.  Or is the Catalan a better start?

If you want to start playing 1.d4 you should as first thing have a look at some theory about the Queen's gambit declined, as it is the most natural (and historical) way to play 1.d4: even if you will not end up adopting it in your repertoire, it will give you a taste of the major ideas behind the queen's pawn opening (minority attack usually against c5-c6, occupation of c-d files) and a sense of where the pieces belong.

After you do so you should start preparing for precise defences to play against (as in every opening although White has the first move, the order strongly depends on what Black plays next): in this respect you might have a look at any online database to find what is played most - but to spare the time, among all the most often played are:

Slav defence
semi-Slav
Indian defences (at least King's Indian and Grünfeld)

  Or is the Catalan a better start?

I myself do play the Catalan (when given the chance to do so) and therefore by all means I suggest you to look into it: it is however a heavy theoretical opening (from both sides) but it does provide White with a slight edge throughout the whole game (at best play).

  I am considering the London system against things

The London system is somehow more "natural" to play and it is lately gaining a lot of respect at high level (Carlsen and Aronian above all play it very often): you may find quite a few GM games to take examples from.

In general, as any other opening in chess, you cannot have your way around without putting some study into a few specific lines; however, there is a lot of free content online that you may surf, especially the Saint Louis Chess Club channel contains a lot of opening videos suitable for any level (according to me very thorough).


What is a good defensive repertoire against a d4 opening? I've been looking for a good response to a d4 opening.  All the repertoires I've studied are against e4?  Any suggestions, thanks

The Queen's Gambit Declined. Get "Playing 1.d4 d5 - A Classical Repertoire by Nikolaos Ntirlis"


Why do many people think that top grand masters can always reach a draw? I often heard the claim that top grand masters can assure a draw, if they
 do not risk anything. I disagree with this claim.

What are the reasons that so many people think that very strong players cannot
 lose a game, if they do not play risky moves ?

The basic dynamic in modern top-level chess is that White wants to find a way to get some edge, often quite small, out of the opening. Black wants to find a way to equalize or otherwise draw. This means that a lot of what has been rejected by White are lines that lead to equality. So, I would agree that a top-10 player wanting a draw with White will basically never lose because he will simply select one of those ways that has drawn in the past. With Black, though, I disagree because making a draw is the essence of the challenge and often eludes even Carlsen.


What is the proper way to ask for a draw? I know that the rule states "The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game." but what I'm interested in knowing the exact way to offer a draw because I've never played at a club (always played online, where you simply click the 'Offer draw' button). So do you actually say "Draw?" or "Do you extend your hand after you play your move?" Just wanted to know the norm.

In tournament play, you make your move on the board, state your offer clearly (I say "I offer a draw" and make eye contact to make sure I am understood), then press your clock.


Why can't I analyze with Stockfish 2.0.1 in Winboard 4.5 beta? I have to ask an engine-related question: after I installed the Stockfish 2.0.1 engine on my Winboard 4.5 beta, I can't analyze with it. What I mean is, it's giving nothing in the engine output; it can only analyze with the default engines that come along with it (Houdini 1.5a, Delfi and Phalanx). What may be the reason?

Stockfish is a UCI engine so it doesn't understand xboard as they are different protocols. As user @WesFreeman mentioned in the comments, polyglot is an adapter that can get UCI working under Xboard/Winboard. Perhaps visiting the Winboard Startup Dialog or reading the help file may assist you in resolving this issue.

Winboard can also execute polyglot internally if you use -fUCI in the command line, i.e.

xboard -fUCI -fcp stockfish -sUCI -scp stockfish

To download the required programs, you can type:

sudo aptitude install xboard polyglot stockfish


Is targeting the f7/f2 square in bughouse a good rule of thumb? In Bughouse, players often target the f2/f7 square; it is common to see a minor sack on f7, followed by a knight on g5 delivering check and breaching through the opponent's defenses.

I recently played a Lichess Bughouse game where, even though the opponent castled, the f7 square still offered opportunity.

Personally I think I'm still novice with bughouse, so I'm wondering if just attacking the f2/f7 square is a good rule of thumb. Or, is there is some better general advice for beginner or intermediate players to follow?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcKXwA_lo3Zpz3_Mc-WVLtw is the YouTube channel of Helmsknight.  She is a strong player who plays with Nakamura, Seirawan, and many other high rated players.  Interesting is that all these players tend to castle before starting an attack.

Just like normal chess, starting an attack on this (these) square(s) is often a good idea.  However, I used to take advantage of this common attack and have both boards play passively.  Soon my opponents would be down a couple of pieces (on each board sometimes) and no resources to continue the attack.

For a better understanding of proper use of resources, Crazyhouse is the variant.


Is there a heuristic for how much time handicap to give players of different skill levels? I was curious if there was general guidelines for time handicap ala how there is for piece handicaps (e.g. I've read 1 pawn ≈ 300 elo points for GMs). Is there a way to compute a rough estimate of how much time less the better player should have in a game? For example when I play blitz with a friend who is better, we have even odds  when poor player myself (1200 lichess) gets 5 minutes and stronger player him (1900 lichess) gets 1 minute. Of course this depends on the player and is probably nonlinear but I was curious of a way to get a rough estimate of where to start the handicap before I begin the binary search for the best handicap value.

we have even odds when poor player myself (1200 lichess) gets 5 minutes and stronger player him (1900 lichess) gets 1 minute

That's probably not too far out. As I wrote in this answer about some of the winding down at the prize-giving party after the 2019 Isle of Man:

IM Lawrence Trent (~2400) was playing blitz / bullet with Caruana with 3 minutes to Caruana's 1 minute and losing in a proportion of about 2 to 1. He then took on Nakamura with 5 minutes to Nakamura's 45 seconds with similar results.

Interesting differential there. At those time controls Caruana and Nakamura were playing bullet to Trent's blitz. Caruana is stronger at standard time controls than Nakamura but at bullet Nakamura is just a beast and you have to take that into account and not use standard ratings.
It's worth adding that you can't play with an increment either in these circumstances. A much stronger player can almost play just on increment alone.


Why is the "Queens Gambit" referred to as a gambit? If White will just get a pawn back at no cost, why is the Queens Gambit a Gambit?  Is it for historical reasons or something else?

The fact that a gambit involves a sacrifice in no way means that the sacrifice is permanent. Very few mainline gambit openings for White leave the gambit player with no means of retaking his material.

While Wikipedia does not necessarily make the distinction between a gambit and a sacrifice, I would contend that there is a difference:

A sacrifice is intended as a permanent loss in material in exchange for a superior position.
A gambit is a temporary loss to hasten development or secure a position.

Based on this understanding, there is no reason NOT to consider the Queen's Gambit as a true gambit, unless you wish to state arbitrarily that there must be more than X number of plies between the loss and the subsequent regaining.


Returning scores for all possible moves from a chess engine I am looking for a way to return scores for all possible moves from a chess engine (preferably, Stockfish).

The UCI protocol does not seem to require it, but is seems like a useful feature to include.

Are there any chess engines/extensions of UCI that implement that?

Of course there's a way: I'm going to show you one way of doing it on your own, using only free software. We'll write a small script in Python (I'm using v2.7) and only use the wonderful python-chess library (licensed under GPL3, note that I'm using the version 0.14.0).

In short, the script will first load up the engine, we will stick to free and open source software so we'll use the amazing Stockfish engine [*], then create a board instance of the position you want analyzed (using the FEN notation), generate all legal moves, and finally ask the engine to evaluate each move for a predefined amount of time (in this example it is set to 1 second ponder time). Here's a working sample:

import chess
import chess.uci

#Let's try our code with the starting position of chess:
fen = 'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1'
board = chess.Board(fen)
handler = chess.uci.InfoHandler()

#Now make sure you give the correct location for your stockfish engine file
#...in the line that follows: e.g., /home/.../stockfish_6_x64
engine = chess.uci.popen_engine('stockfish_6_x64')

engine.info_handlers.append(handler)
engine.position(board)
if board.turn: print 'White to move'
else: print 'black to move'

for el in board.legal_moves:
    engine.go(searchmoves=[el],movetime=1000)
    print str(board.san(el)), 'eval = ', round(handler.info["score"][1].cp/100.0,2)

Note that this is not necessarily the best/most efficient way of doing it, I wrote this in 5 minutes just to showcase it at a basic level without using any advanced features of the engine, I'm sure you will do much better on your own. Anyhow here's the output once you run it (assuming you have python installed on whatever OS you're using, same goes for the python-chess library):

White to move
Na3 eval =  -0.39
Nc3 eval =  0.15
Nf3 eval =  0.15
Nh3 eval =  -0.37
a3 eval =  0.01
b3 eval =  -0.15
c3 eval =  -0.03
d3 eval =  -0.06
e3 eval =  0.12
f3 eval =  -0.49
g3 eval =  -0.33
h3 eval =  0.0
a4 eval =  -0.12
b4 eval =  -0.67
c4 eval =  0.07
d4 eval =  0.17
e4 eval =  0.17
f4 eval =  -0.15
g4 eval =  -0.74
h4 eval =  -0.15

There you go! The beauty of all this is of course the fact that you have now your own software to work with, modify and extend it as you wish...no limitations. All very easy to do, just acquaint yourself with the workings of the library we're using by following its documentation, and knock yourself out ;)

Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions about the code, or adding potential functionalities.

[*]: which also happens to be one of the strongest current chess engines.

Edit to address the common request:

Here's the updated version of the same code using the latest version:

python-chess 0.30.0 and using the latest Stockfish

import chess
import chess.engine
import os

#here we assume the engine file is in same folder as our python script
path = os.getcwd()
#Let's try our code with the starting position of chess:
fen = 'rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1'
board = chess.Board(fen)
#Now make sure you give the correct location for your stockfish engine file
#...in the line that follows by correctly defining path
engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci(path+'/'+'stockfish-10-64')

if board.turn: print('White to move')
else: print('black to move')

for el in board.legal_moves:
    info = engine.analyse(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=1), root_moves=[el])
    t = str(info["score"])
    if t.startswith('#'):
            print(str(board.san(el))," eval = mate in ", t)
    else: print(str(board.san(el))," eval = ", round(int(t)/100.,2))
engine.quit()

The output for ponder time set to 1 second per found move chess.engine.Limit(time=1):

White to move
Nh3  eval =  -0.43
Nf3  eval =  0.69
Nc3  eval =  0.29
Na3  eval =  -0.35
h3  eval =  0.41
g3  eval =  -0.2
f3  eval =  -0.62
e3  eval =  0.45
d3  eval =  0.03
c3  eval =  0.19
b3  eval =  0.1
a3  eval =  0.46
h4  eval =  -0.42
g4  eval =  -1.22
f4  eval =  -0.07
e4  eval =  0.82
d4  eval =  0.63
c4  eval =  0.57
b4  eval =  -0.26
a4  eval =  -0.02


What is the best way to maintain an opening repertoire in electronic form? I am torn between two options:

a) having a database with separate games (e.g. in pgn files, or any one of ChessBase, Chess Assistant or SCID database format), where each game would be a subvariation of an opening that I play. This has an advantage for adding verbal annotations, easier printing, etc. This seems also what most professional players, or opening book writers do.

b) A proper opening book in CTG, bin, or whatever other custom opening book format. Possibly one book for my white openings, and one for my Black reperoire. This is better for transpositions, but does not allow me to add verbal annotations - at least not in the formats that I looked at. Chess Position Trainer seems like a good tool for this approach, but still does not let me include variations from database games, so you really can't use it effectively to build a repertoire.

Neither option seems ideal. Any advice?

There is no one answer to this question, because what is 'best' in this case is subjective. It also depends on how you play chess (online/IRL, OTB/Correspondence) and what you want to get out of the record (Professional games using line X, or just a list of what moves you want to play).

If you just want a list of what lines you want to play, then you could even just use something like this in your text editor of choice:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5  a6 4.Ba4
  ........... Nf6 3.Nxe5
  .. c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

However, if you want a visual list or references to Master games using each line, then Other solutions would be more appropriate.


Move-order issue in the Grunfeld: ...Nc6-a5 vs ...Nc6-e7 My question relates to certain lines given by Avrukh (2018).

[FEN "..."]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. e3 e5 9. d5

Here 9...Ne7 is the most popular move (88 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives the continuation 10. e4 Bg4 11 h3. Bxf3 12. Qxf3 0-0 13. 0-0.

while 9...Na5 is the second most popular move (22 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives the continuation 10. 0-0 0-0 11 b3.

[FEN "..."]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. e3 O-O 9. O-O e5 10. d5

10...Na5 is the most popular move (537 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives 11 b3, transposing to a line given under the first diagram.

10...Ne7 is the second most popular move (437 games in the Chessbase Live database), when Avrukh gives 11. e4 Bg4 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3, transposing to a line given under the first diagram.

Thus according to Avrukh it doesn't matter which move order is chosen.

Given that is the case, why in the top diagram 9...Ne7 is so much more popular than 9...Na5, whereas in the bottom diagram 10...Na5 is somewhat more popular than 10...Ne7?

Avrukh, Boris (2018). Grandmaster Repertoire 2A – King’s Indian and Grünfeld. Quality Chess.

Analyzing this position it seems like the N to the rim has potential issues getting back into the game. W will play b3 and both of the black N's on the Q side are very limited.

After Ne7 the N gets back into the game via c8 and d6 playing an important role blockaiding the p at d5.

That is the best I could find. Transposing to the same position did not come up in my analysis so maybe I am missing something.


Why do some UCI engines restrict input moves to 23 when using the command prompt? I am using some UCI engines from a command prompt. Most work fine (i.e. Stockfish, Houdini, Komodo) but when I use e.g. SOS (ver.5.1) or Hermann (Ver.2.8), I cannot seem to type any more moves after move 23. For example:
position startpos moves f2f4 g8f6 e2e3 d7d5 g1f3 g7g6 c2c4 f8g7 b1c3 c7c5 c4d5 f6d5 d1b3 d5c3 b2c3 e8g8 f1e2 d8c7 e1g1 c8e6 e2c4 e6c4 b3c4 b8d7 c1a3 a8b8 d2d4 b7b5 c4b3 a7a5 a1d1 c5c4 b3b1 d7f6 d1e1 f6d5 b1e4 f8d8 a3c5 d5c3 e4e7 c7e7 c5e7 d8d5 a2a3 b8e8
After b8e8, I just cannot type any more moves. Tried this on different computers running different O/S's.

I suspect this is due to the length of the command; the one in your question is 254 characters long, close to 28 = 256 which might be a maximum command length for some engines.
I do not know a solution for this, but it seems possible to use the position command with a FEN string, for example as used in this question.


Italian Game Response As Black How do I respond to the Italian Game here?

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d6 (I kind of got lost here)
5. Nxf7 1-0

What should I have done against this as Black?  For reference me and my opponent are rated about 1000-1200.

I blundered bad, but without taking my queen out early I can't see another line.

I've seen some stuff that suggests giving a pawn for other stuff, but I really would like to maintain material equality in the opening without extremely losing initiative / space / development.

4.Ng5 is a provocative move, threatening to take on f7.

The main line is 4...d5, and after 5.exd5 the best move might be 5...Na5. After 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 Black has sacrificed a pawn but has gained a slight lead in development. If instead you play 5...Nxd5, White will often play 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6, known as the Fried Liver. White has a very good attack despite being down material. At your level, White is probably wanting and expecting the Fried Liver when he plays Ng5, so I wouldn't give it to him.

The other common response is 4...Bc5, known as the Traxler Counterattack. Black is allowing White to take on f7 but is trying to get his own attack on f2. These games can get wild.

None of these really fit your criteria; they involve sacrifices by one side or the other. If you prefer material equality, I suggest you avoid this line altogether by playing 3...Bc5, going into the Giuoco Piano instead of the Two Knights as your response to the Italian. White cannot then play 4.Ng5 because you could take the knight with your queen.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 (3... Bc5 {Giuoco Piano}) 4. Ng5 d5 (4... Bc5 {Traxler}) 5. exd5 Na5 (5... Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 {Fried Liver}) 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 *


What is the fastest way to reach a position in which one side is forced to choose between checkmate and stalemate? I had an interesting idea recently. While there are many proof games ending in checkmate or stalemate, why not both, I thought. So, thus I wondered, what is the fastest way to reach a position in which one side is forced to give either checkmate or stalemate?
So far, my best result is a bulky 26 moves, or 52 plies. In the end, White must choose between Kb7# and Kc7# or Kc8=.
[FEN ""]

1. a4 b5 2. axb5 g5 3. Rxa7 Ba6 4. bxa6 Bh6 5. f4 Nf6 6. fxg5 Nc6 7. h4 O-O 8. Rxa8 Nd4 9. gxh6 Nf3+ 10. Kf2 Ng5 11. hxg5 Qb8 12. Ke3 Qxb2 13. c4 Qxb1 14. Kd4 Qxc1 15. Kc5 c6 16. Kb6 c5 17. a7 Qxd1 18. d3 Qxf1 19. gxf6 Qxg1 20. g4 Qxh1 21. g5 Qb7+ 22. Kxb7 Rb8+ 23. Kxb8 d5 24. g6 d4 25. g7 e6 26. e4 e5

12 moves (24 plies), adapting Loyd's classic 19-ply help-stalemate:
[FEN ""]

1. d3 a5 2. Qd2 Ra6 3. Qxa5 h5 4. Qxc7 Rah6 5. Qxb7 f6 6. Qxb8 d6 7. h4 Bf5 8. Rh3 Kf7 9. Qxd6 Bh7 10. Qe6+ Kg6 11. f4 Qxd3 12. Kf2 Qg3+

and White must choose between 13 Kxg3 stalemate and 13 Rxg3 checkmate.


Would the best mobile phone chess app be a favorite in a match against Carlsen? Assume that the phone is one of today's high-end phones, e.g. the Samsung Galaxy S6. Also, assume that the match is a classical time limit match.

Magnus Carlsen was beaten by his own chess app, but it wasn't a serious game and he did it for a presentation. I don't think that game meant anything. While I don't have data for the World Champion, I'm quite certain one of the former world women chess champions was overwhelmed by my iPhone mobile chess app. I also got similar reports for grandmaster over FIDE 2600.

To appreciate the power of a mobile chess app, we should review the match between Deep Fritz and Kramnik in 2006. According to the wikipedia, the machine had two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs. Wikipedia states the CPUs have clock speed of 1.06 GHz to 3.33 GHz. The wikipedia also states the latest Apple A8 chip has clock speed of 1.1 GHz to 1.4 GHz. Please keep in mind clock speed is a very rough guide to performance. Anyway, the Apple iPhone is at least competitive to an Intel Core 2 Duo in terms of raw clock speed. It has been reported the older Apple A7 chip has performance close to desktop. You should be assured the latest Apple A8 chip can give any grandmaster a challenge.

Let's take a look at the unofficial rating list for Android chess engines. While the rating scale is not related to the FIDE rating, it's hard to believe Carlsen will have an easy time against Komodo 9 on Galaxy 6, which has a rating of 3239 in the list.

Apart from the hardware, the engine algorithm has improved dramatically since Kramnik's match. We now have access to everything that a super chess engine should do; just look at the source code of Stockfish. Back in 2006 when the match was played, all of the strongest engines were closed source.

The version that Kramnik played was a 32 bits engine. This is a bit embarrassing in today's standard. The stronger mobile chess apps (including my own) are now 64 bits.

We don't have any concrete data because no grandmaster has played a serious match against a mobile phone (because there is no money involved). What we can do is infer from historical data, software improvement and rating list. I am confident Carlsen will be beaten by the strongest mobile chess app on the app store.

Finally, while Carlsen is the best player against human players, he's probably not the best player against computers. For example, Carlsen's usually trick; pushing hard in a drawn endgame would not work against a computer. Computer engine will never blunder and will never crack.


Making my own chess studies (like Lichess) with SCID vs PC I am learning how to use SCID vs PC on my Linux machine and I find the program very useful and well-written. I am reading through Lasker's book Manual of Chess and I would like to create my own "studies' (to use the Lichess termiology) based on what I've read from the book (various defenses, openings etc.)
While I am able to use SCID to log into FICS, play against Stockfish, view famous games (using  PGN files downloaded from www.chessgames.com) the one thing I cannot seem to be able to do is create my own study.
To be specific: sure, when open SCID I can shuffle pieces on the board according to how Lasker tells me to, and add annotations, variations, colored arrows and then save the resulting set of moves in a pgn file.
But once I want to start studying a new or opening, I don't want to have to create a NEW pgn file: I'd like to have a single PGN file containing, say, "chapters" as is done in Lichess studies. Is this possible?
Or are the SCID database files the way to go here? They seem a tad complicated at first glance. :-(

Use a separate database per opening, book, or any topic you study. You can export that database later as a single PGN if you want. Imagine what happens if you don't do that: You have to store these games somewhere, right? And you really don't want those in your main database with normal games.
You can also copy games between databases, which is useful if you want to annotate a game and move it back to the main DB later. Don't worry about performance: A database doesn't take any resources (besides disc space) if you don't have it open.
As a bonus, and something that lichess doesn't offer: you can have as many "chapters" (games) as you want, and you can sort them, search for specific positions or comments, whatever you need.


What is a "monster knight"? I was watching an agadmator video explaining a game between two chess engines, and at one point in the video after a knight move, agadmator talks about how that knight then became "basically a monster knight", and therefore must be taken. He then talks more about some other games involving "monster knights", but never really explains what he means by "monster knight".

My common sense is telling me that a "monster knight" is simply a knight that is well positioned, but from the way that agadmator talked about the concept, it seemed to me like there is a more precise definition of what makes a "monster knight". I googled around for a definition and didn't find it anywhere, hence why I am asking it here.

So, what's a "monster knight"?

The concept of a knight which is so powerfully placed (generally on e6/e3) that the game wins itself dates, according to Winter, from:

  An observation by Zukertort after 26 Ne6 in the simultaneous game
  Steinitz v Maas, London, 5 November 1873:

  ‘The appearance of the knight at K6 [e6 for white, e3 for black] is generally, for the opponent,
  the proper signal to strike his colours.’
  Source: City of London Chess Magazine, May 1874, pages 97-98

Here is the game extract:

[title "Steinitz v Maas, London, 5 November 1873"]
[fen "3q1rk1/1rb3pp/b2p1p2/n2P1N2/1p1NP3/2p1B3/P4PPP/1Bn1Q1RK w - - 0 1"]

1. Ne6 Qe8 2. Bxc1 Rf7 3. g4 Qa4 4. g5 c2 5. gxf6 cxb1=Q 6. Nh6+ Kh8 7. Nxf7+ Kg8 8. Rxg7++

More from Winter:

  When the game Steinitz v von Bardeleben, Hastings, 1895 was shown in a
  ‘Chess Movies’ article on page 336 of the November 1949 Chess Review,
  the following comment referred to 19 Ne6:

  ‘A knight at K6 is like a bone in the throat, says Steinitz.’

  For the same attribution, see I.A. Horowitz’s books How to Win in the
  Chess Openings (New York, 1951), page 44, and How to Win at Chess (New
  York, 1968), page 50, but where did Steinitz make the comment?

  From page 212 of the first volume of Kasparov’s Predecessors series,
  before 16 Ne6 in Lasker v Capablanca, St Petersburg, 1914:

  ‘... the knight at e6 will be like a bone in his throat!’


A riddle just for curiosity The position is a variation of a computer game.
[FEN "8/3k1R2/2p1p3/2PpP3/3P1P2/6r1/4K3/8 b - - 0 1"]

Can this position be won by white ABSENT the fifty move rule? I know this is mostly exotic, because a eleven , or nine pieces position will be considered a draw under current rules both in over the board chess and in correspondence chess. Nevertheless , I am curious to know. Can the fortress be broken , even if it takes more than 50 moves?

The position very much looks to be a draw. The white king can't advance easily as the black rook stays on the third rank. All the maneuvers to bring back the white rook to help advance don't seem to work as both f4 and d4 can be weak. Furthermore the black king can stay on the d file to cover the e7 and c7 square while always having Kd7 if White attacks the weak e6 or c6 pawn from the side.
Therefore the only way to make progress for White is to play 0...Kd8 1.f5 exf5 2.Rxf5
Now White faces a similar problem. The d4 pawn is weak so as soon as White blocks with the rook on the third rank the black rook will move to the fourth rank and keep the d4 pawn attacked. For instance 2...Rh3 3.Rf3 Rh4 . To make progress White would have to block the fourth rank. However if White plays Ke3 Black can respond with Re4+ forcing the king to d3 from which it can not support a move like Rf4 blocking the fourth rank.
This of course is not a proof but I am very sure that for the reasons outlined here, the position is a draw under all circumstances.


Reason why a kingside attack is not justified Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.

In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).

However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.

However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.

Why is a kingside attack not justified here?

There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.

5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.

A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).

The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.

So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.

The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.


What are some of the best sites to play chess? What are some of the best sites for online chess?

Free sites with friendly communities are better.

Chess.com has become a hot spot, with live and correspondence chess, along with tactical problems, articles, etc.  The live chess is OK, but not the best.

ICC or playchess are the best for live chess, FICS if you want free, but it doesn't have as many titled players or features.  Those sites will also have video's, live commentary of top level tournaments, and much more.


Shortest possible game with 18 queens? The selected answer to this question shows a game in which all 16 pawns promote to queens so that there is a total of 18 queens on the board. It takes 80 moves...

  What is the shortest sequence of moves that achieves this goal?

And just to make things interesting, is the minimum number the same if we ask for 20 rooks, bishops, or knights to be present? This is not obvious, because one of the solutions could require extra moves (for instance, to remove a king from a check given by a new queen).


Help with the Sicilian Defence - I need to understand those early pawn moves Why we often see many pawn moves in the Sicilian Defense? I would imagine that this harms the development of the black pieces. For instance, there is this line:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 a6 4. Nc3.

Yes, in the Sicilian black often falls behind in development, and that is a problem -- white often gets the chance to mount an attack.

But black has some compensation. After ...cxd4 Nxd4 he has two central pawns while white only has the e-pawn. In order to attack quickly, white often castles queenside and black can use the half-open c-file to start a counter attack. His a- and b-pawns can be used in a minority attack against white's queenside. He has no clear weaknesses.

It turns out, after a century and a half of trying to refute it, that that is enough to hold the balance. Indeed, the whole situation is also risky for white and that means it can give black more winning chances than normal (as well as losing chances).

But that was by no means obvious!

It's not an easy defence to understand, and it's debatable whether weaker players should play it.


How to configure scidb to use ChessBase files like ChessBase? I've just installed scidb, hoping that it would read my ChessBase Fritz Trainer collection.It was able to read the .CBH files but no video appears. I don't know if that is even supported.If it is, how can I use it ? If it isn't, how can I mimic this behavior ?

Scidb does not support videos, and I don't think that videos will be supported before the second alpha version is released. Currently Scidb is still a beta (test) version. Whether it is really possible to read the ChessBase videos - this includes also the associated timing data - is still an open question.


What is zugzwang in chess? What is the zugzwang? I have read this term in chess book but the term not much clear to me. Anyone know to to use this and what are the advantage of this?

Here are some zugzwang positions which have been shown in answers to earlier threads:

4k3/8/3P1P/8/8/3p1p2/8/4K3 w - - 0 1

First to move loses (posted by GloriaVictis at this question on symmetrical zugzwangs).

8/8/8/3pK3/2kP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

The "trebuchet" (posted by Evargalo in the same thread).

3k4/3P4/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

Posted by Simon Louchart in this thread.

Here is a Q v RPP zugzwang: White to move can't win, but Black to move loses:

[Title "KQkrpp position from John Beasley's collection of zugzwang positions"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "kr6/1pK5/pQ6/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rc8 2. Kxc8 a5 3. Qxb7#

Seeing as a KBP v K position has been posted in another answer, here's an example of such a position which really is a zugzwang: White to move can't win, but Black to move loses:

[Title "KBPk position from John Beasley's collection of zugzwang positions"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "kB6/8/1PK5/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Kxb8 2. b7 Ka7 3. Kc7 Ka6 4. b8=Q Ka5 5. Qb3 Ka6 6. Qa4#


Pawn Promotion Endgame Problem-White to move and mate in 1 So I have not been this interested in chess for a very long time indeed. This problem was posed to me by someone who has recently become experienced in chess and also participated in a chess tournament, in which he did fairly well considering his level of experience.

[Title "White to move and mate in 1"]
[FEN "8/kPR5/5Q2/8/8/8/6B1/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

From my own deductions, the only possible way in which to even begin to solve the problem is with the move b7 to b8. However, I have yet to figure out how promoting the pawn can have an effect on the eventual outcome of the scenario, seeing as the black king can simply take whichever piece I decide to transform the pawn into.

The last hint I was given, by the person who posed to question to me, was that the relationship between the piece into which the pawn is transformed and the black king is paramount to the solution.

Please help me. All the chess engines I have tried using after an absurd amount of time, trying to figure it out by myself, and doing it with the help of others have failed me.

All helpful tips/hints/advice/directions which may lead to the correct answer are welcome.

It's probably a trick problem with a promotion to a black knight.

Such promotions to the wrong colour are not allowed, and never were. In the official rules it is now specifically pointed out that the new piece has to have the same colour as the promoted pawn.

FIDE's laws of chess, Article 3.7 e:

  When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it
  must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a
  new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s
  choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.
  This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and
  the effect of the new piece is immediate.


What's the best strategy against the Hippo? What's the best strategy against the so-called Hippopotamus opening or defense, in which White or Black pushes almost all of her pawns on the 3rd or 6th rank, except perhaps the a and h pawns, and then possibly moves her Knights and Bishops on the 2nd or 7th rank? Would you try a breakthrough with the d or the e Pawns, or something else?

In my opinion, against these openings, the best strategy is to maintain the tension. Move around your pieces building up threats, and prevent the opponent's pawn breaks. Against these positions usually there is no forced win, but it is very hard to play them because of the cramped position, so your opponent will sooner or later make some mistake, and then his/her position will collapse.


In the case of en passant, should I move my pawn first or remove my opponent's one? I know that, according to chess rules, every move should be made with a single hand. However, this does not clarify if, when making an en passant capture, I should move my pawn first or remove the opponent's pawn from the board. I understand that the result is pretty identical in both cases, but I wonder what is the preferred consequence if you are playing an international tournament game with strict rules, for example. So, for instance, what do most grandmasters etc. generally do first? (Moving their own pawn vs. removing the enemy pawn.)

Both methods are legal. There is, however, one difference between the two options. If the en passant turns out to be illegal, then you must make a move involving the first piece you touched, if it is legal to so.

So, if you touch the opponent's pawn first, you must capture the opponent's pawn. If you touch your own pawn first, you must move your own pawn.

I can't say I know which is preferred by grandmasters. But it seems like moving your own pawn first is somewhat less likely to result in disaster if the move turns out to be illegal-imagine having to capture a defended pawn with your queen.


Jin chess pieces, how to obtain higher resolution? There are a set of good chess piece graphics at: https://code.google.com/p/raptor-chess-interface/wiki/AdditionalChessSets. In particular, I'm interested in the graphics used by the Jin Chess client, e.g.: JinAlpha.

Unfortunately, the highest resolution is at 132x132, which is too little in the 2015 standards. I'm looking for something like 256x256, or even SVG (resolution independent).

Anybody has any idea where to get the source for the graphics (e.g.: Adobe files)? Who created those graphics? Is there any way to increase the resolution without image loss? Who would have the skills to enhance the graphics?

Free or paid solutions are welcome.

I found this link to Github which could be useful: https://github.com/lukasmonk/lucaschess/tree/master/Pieces/JinAlpha

They seem to have the pieces in SVG format.


Equalizing ratings across rapid, blitz and bullet? I've been noticing that whenever I play rapid games at my current 2050 Lichess Elo my opponents are also between 1900-2100 blitz and sometimes their bullet rating is also sufficiently equal to their rapid/blitz rating. In my case , I'm stuck at 1750 blitz and 1750 bullet; I cannot seem to be able to increase these two ratings to that of my rapid rating.
So a question arises:

are there any benefits from equalizing one's ratings across blitz/rapid/bullet or is it sufficient to focus solely on rapid rating (as that is conventionally known to be the best way to improve at chess seriously) ?

I want to continue playing rapid and focus on slow tactical/strategic games, but it just feels weird that my blitz/bullet skills are disproportionally low when compared to my rapid rating, and it's weird that my opponents do not seem to have a similar problem.

Bullet and blitz are mostly for fun (especially bullet). You don't have to have the same rating in both bullet, blitz and rapid as not all the people can think that fast. Keep playing rapid games if you like them and remember that chess is a fun game.
If you (plan to) play seriously (participate in competitions), then you'll realise that rapid games are by far the most helpful because of the long time controls which allow you to think more and therefore make better moves.


Looking for a chess program that evaluates my playing and adapts its level to it As the title of the question says, I'm looking for a chess program that evaluates my playing and adapts its level to it. Maybe Lucas Chess does this (it's said that it does), but I found the tips of the movements I could play were full of mistakes... I don't have a lot of experience in this field and I know Lucas Chess is recommended by people who know chess much better than me.
But that was my experience.
So I started searching for other programs. I exchanged some e-mails with people at Schredder and they said the program does this, but it is expensive (in fact I don't mind, if it does this), and I want to do a good search. Maybe someone knows a good program for this kind of thing I'm trying to do.

The Shredder app for IOS/Android has the following (optional) feature:

The program assigns to you a starting Elo.
When you play it, it adjusts its internal strength to match your Elo.
After the game, it adjusts your Elo based on the result.
The next game, it again adjusts its strength based on your Elo.

As you win more, it becomes more competitive until you reach a stage where your win ratio reaches around 50%.

About it being expensive - I recall paying about $5-10 for it, I guess it's up to you to decide whether that is worth the feature.

A few caveats from my experience:

The Elo calculated by Shredder is not a good estimate of your FIDE Elo. I stopped playing Shredder at around 1800, while my actual FIDE rating is less than 1600.
Shredder is better than most, but still not very good at simulating "human" play. This is especially noticeable at the lower strength settings - it will play like a GM for a few moves, then make a rather stupid tactical mistake, and then proceed to play like a GM.

If you are simply looking to have a bit of fun, then Shredder is great for that purpose, but if you are looking for a way to measure your playing strength as it would be against human opposition, it is simply not suitable for that - the only way you can measure how good you are against humans is to play humans.


Nationality of the Azerbaijan Shakhriyar Mamedyarov and Teimour Radjabov I hope this kind of question is allowed. In any case, I want to clarify that there is no intention for racism or political arguments, etc. It is just a sincere wonder from the anthropological point of view.

What is the nationality of the Azerbaijani players Mamedyarov and Radjabov?

Do they identify as Azerbaijanis, which is a Turkic nationality, or as Russians who happen to live in Azerbaijan? I think they speak Russian as native language.

Are they Russian Jews living in Azerbaijan? I think this is a possible, and at the same time, very complicated issue in anthropology.

Are they Azerbaijani Jews who just learned Russian as a second foreign language?

I have read a lot about them over the years, and I have never heard anything that would lead me to believe that they are anything but true Azerbaijanis, and have both played under that flag forever. Both were born in Azerbaijan while it was still part of the Soviet Union.

Speaking Russian is simply explained by the fact that since both born in Azerbaijan while it was still a republic of the Soviet Union, and no matter where you lived, or your ethnicity, Russian was the official language of the Soviet Union. You might have been bilingual, but you spoke Russian with the masses. I would imagine that even after the Soviet Union fell, they did not automatically switch away from that since it was so pervasive, and easy to talk to more people with.

I have never seen anything written about them being Jewish and the country has a demographic of 97.4% Muslim, 1.1% Christian, and 1.0% None, making that all the more unlikely.

I worked as a Russian translator from 1980-1988 while in the military.


About castling “fights” Today I played as White in an interesting bullet game in which a strange “fight” occurred.

[FEN ""]

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 b6 3. e4 Bb7 4. Bd3 g6 5. Be3 Bg7 6. Nc3 Qe7 7. Qd2 Nc6 8. a3 a5 9. h3 h5 10. Qe2 Bh6 11. Bxh6 Nxh6 12. Qe3 Nb8 13. e5 Ng8 14. Qd2 d6 15. exd6 cxd6 16. Qe3 Nf6 17. Ne4 Ba6 18. Bxa6 Nxa6 19. Nxf6+ Qxf6 20. Qd3 Nc7 21. Qe3 Kd7 22. Nd2 Rae8 23. Nb3 Nd5 24. Qd3 e5 25. O-O-O Nf4 26. Qf3 Qg5 27. dxe5 Rxe5 28. g3 Ne2+ 29. Kb1

During the game, it seemed, to me at he least, that were playing out a “fight” of who would castle first. In my thoughts, it is advantageous to castle on the same side as the other side, so we tried to make each other castle first to know each others intentions. In other words, it was a drawn out tempo play revolving around who would castle first. This fight lasted in my game until Black played 21... Kd7.

My question is not about my game, but about this concept of such a castling fight. What should be done if you find yourself in one? Are their any strageties for these situations? Finally, have there been any top level games where a, preferably somewhat extended, castling fight occurred?

You may have been in a fight or not.  Top players do not fight that way they make the moves best for their position.  Sometimes they delay castling but not to fight the opponent.

This seems to be a tactic used by weaker players who might want to mount an attack on the other king.  The position should decide whether that is the best strategy or not.

Not sure why you two  did it that way as there had to be better moves available.  it looks more like you all were struggling to just make moves so did what you did. So  being a bullet game might explain some of the moves that I would not have considered.

That said I would have just moved the white king up earlier and not castled at all as there is no danger of an attack and it would ensure that my king has an endgame advantage should black castle.   I note that is what black did to white later.

But then I would have made a number of different moves earlier on that would have changed the entire game making the question moot:)


Understanding Bb5 after Nc6 in the opening In the opening, when the black knight goes to c6 white often responds with bishop to b5. What is the purpose of this move?

For example the Ruy Lopez/Spanish opening:

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

This opening is called the Ruy Lopez or the Spanish Game.

It is actually quite logical: 2.Nf3 attacks the e5 pawn and Nc6 defends against this attack. Now Bb5 attacks the defender, which renews the attack on e5. For tactical reasons the threat of taking on c6 and then taking on e5 isn't acute yet, but the idea is nonetheless to exert pressure on the black pawn on e5.

Additionally 3.Bb5 makes it possible for white to castle in one of the next moves. This is another motivation for an early kingside development.


Oscillating Stockfish Evaluation on Laptop I'm using stockfish-9-bmi2 on my laptop to provide me move by move evaluation of games. I've set Stockfish to evaluate to depth = 25 plys. I find that the evaluation provided oscillates move-on-move after a certain number of moves. Below is the plot of the evaluation:

In the above plot, the ply-count is on the x-axis, the evaluation from Stockfish is on the primary y-axis (left), the Mate-In number is on the secondary y-axis (right). The Blue line with white circles is the plot of the evaluation and the red circles depict the mate-in number.

However, for the same game, when I jot down the evaluation from lichess.com's analysis board, which is also using Stockfish 9, I get a much more stable evaluation move-on-move. Lichess.com's analysis board also uses depth = 25 for most moves but can use a different number for certain moves. Below is the plot for the same:

In the above plot, the Blue line depicts the evaluation. The break in the trend is because of a Mate-In-3 on ply count = 63.

Considering that both methods use Stockfish 9 and is set to depth = 25, can someone help me with why the results on my laptop oscillates so much?

My Laptop's configuration:

OS: MacOS High Sierra
Processor: Intel core i7 2.2 GHz
RAM:  16GB
Stockfish: stockfish-9-bmi2

The game used is Praggnanandhaa vs Vishy Anand - Tata Steel Chess India Blitz 2018

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6 6. a3 g6 7. Be2 Bg7 8. Be3 O-O
9. Qd2 b5 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. f3 Nbd7 12. h4 Ne5
13. Bh6 Bxh6 14. Qxh6 Rc8 15. g4 Rxc3 16. bxc3 Qa5
17. Nf5 gxf5 18. gxf5 Qxc3 19. Rdg1+ Ng6 20. fxg6 fxg6
21. h5 Bxe4 22. fxe4 Qa1+ 23. Kd2 Nxe4+ 24. Ke3 Qc3+
25. Bd3 Qd2+ 26. Kxe4 Qxh6 27. hxg6 Qf4+ 28. Kd5 h6
29. g7 Rc8 30. Ke6 d5 31. Rg6 Rc6+ 32. Kxe7 Rxg6
33. Bxg6 Kxg7 34. Bd3 Qe5+ 35. Kd7 h5 36. Rg1+ Kf6
37. Rg6+ Kf7 38. Rh6 a5 39. Kc6 b4 40. axb4 axb4
41. Kd7 Kg7 42. Re6 Qd4 43. Ke8 Qg4 44. Ke7 h4
45. Be2 Qg5+ 46. Kd6 h3 47. Re7+ Kf8 48. Re5 Qf6+
49. Kxd5 h2

P.S.: I have also tried using stockfish-9-64 instead of stockfish-9-bmi2 and the results are similar

If I understand correctly your x axis is the moves. Your script implied Anand and Prag were blundering every time they make a move,

Clearly you have a bug in your script. Stockfish engine always give you a score relative to the player making the move, NOT white. You need to multiply the score by minus one if it’s Black to move.

Please do this and you will be fine.


The strength of blind chess players Before I begin, I'm not asking about people playing "Blindfold chess", but those who are actually blind.

Reading through the FIDE rules of chess like any good player should, I've previously noticed the section containing rules for players who are visually handicapped. I never really paid this any attention before other than to note how difficult it must be to both learn the game (containing as it does complex spatial movements and a large amount of information to be kept in the head if it cannot be seen) and to study it (most learning resources being books that are probably nowhere near popular enough to be made 'accessible').

Just recently I started thinking about this, and I'd like to know a bit more about this aspect of the game, but information is rather hard to find. To begin with, How strong are the strongest blind chess players in comparison to those without disability? Ideally we'd be talking about people using the same scale (i.e. theoretically entering the same 'ordinary' tournament with perhaps minor allowances for the games of the disabled person, and needing to have comparable Elo ratings, etc.), though if there's a separate rating system that information would be useful too.

On a related note, Have there been any blind players notable for their strength or players they have faced?

According to this link, the World Blind chess championship includes IM-strength players.

A separate rating system isn't used but one cannot accurately compare ratings from two different player pools.

According to this link, the 2009 Blind US champion was a USCF Expert.

Roughly, I'd say being blind costs 600 rating points. Why? An USCF Expert is around 2100, the USCF National champion is about 2800, so subtraction gives 700. Similarly, a super-GM has about 450 more ELO points than an IM (2400 vs 2850)  700... 450... call it 600...)


Why always 4...dxc6 and not 4...bxc6 in the Ruy Lopez Exchange? [FEN "r1bqkbnr/1ppp1ppp/p1B5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b - - 0 1"]

In the Ruy Lopez Exchange, black always takes back the bishop with 4...dxc6. In Timothy Taylor's 2011 book Slay the Spanish, he advocates 4...bxc6 instead.

I want to analyze his lines and reach my own opinion, but I've never played these lines before. I want to know more about the arguments for 4...dxc6 that he is arguing against first, so that I can be a bit more skeptical about the lines he gives.

White still can't win a pawn with 4...bxc6 5.Nxe5 because of 5...Qe7 6.d4 d6 7.Nf3 Qxe4+.

I can see that 4...dxc6 does more for development than 4...bxc6 does, and it leads to two pawn islands instead of three, but 4...bxc6 captures towards the center.

Is there more to it than that? What is concrete analysis that's usually used to argue that 4...dxc6 is so superior that it is virtually always played?

Good question. Indeed 4..bxc6 is extremely rare compared to the main line, and the reasons are multi-fold specially strategically, but foremost, from a concrete point of view it leads to a rather poor position for black after the immediate d4-exd4-Qxd4 and white's completely controlling the centre:

 [title "Important concrete reply"]
 [fen "r1bqkbnr/2pp1ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]

 1.d4 exd4 2.Qxd4

From a strategic point of view, 4..bxc6:

leaves black with an isolated a6 pawn without any effort required from white.
More damaging to the structure than dxc6 as black's left without any prospect of a queenside expansion since move four already! First repercussion of the latter is the fact that white has the assured prospect of blockading black's isolated a pawn and in doing so render it into a permanent weakness.
Despite black having the bishop pair in principle, the bishops have very poor prospects in this structure, in particular the light squared one, e.g.: developing it along the long diagonal is no longer meaningful as the fianchetto option is gone and an indirect one with c6-c5-Bb7 will in turn block-in the f8 bishop. Moreover, to develop the bishop along the side diagonal c8-h3 is now at least delayed for an extra tempo, which means white could easily include h3 without any real drawbacks. Instead, with dxc6 both bishops are immediately activated and the bishop pair compensation is more tangible (specially with Bg4 being readily playable).
The latter is really pointing to the fact that with bxc6 black is left with very poor piece activity, and the structure guarantees no real outpost for the knight, in fact not even the immediate Nf6 is playable after bxc6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nf6 the knight is pushed around to non-ideal posts such as b6 or e7 after e5-Nd5-c4.
Unlike bxc6, dxc6 is in fact challenging the immediate d4 (which is one of white's main plans in this structure) as the queen trade becomes forced and having the bishop pair black definitely doesn't mind the endgame. Thus, as mentioned in the beginning, with 4...bxc6 black is even playing into white's hands by inviting d4.
This line of bxc6-d4-exd4-Qxd4 is really critical as it perfectly highlights the major differences between the two sides: white has all the space, perfectly healthy pawn structure, ready to castle (while black is at least 2 tempi away), while black has no prospect to claim the centre, nor to liquidate the isolated a6 pawn. I highly encourage you to play through some of the ensuing lines after this move order, you'll quickly develop a feel for the kinds of struggles black is facing.

Now consider going through all above points but with the position after 4...dxc6:

 [title "Main line after dxc6"]
 [fen "r1bqkbnr/1pp2ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]

in doing so, hopefully you'll be able to convince yourself that all the aspects of dxc6 outweigh that of bxc6, both concretely and strategically. Last but not least, note that here the immediate c3 (for d4) is not possible due to Qd3, moreover, black is well in time to keep the fight over d4 alive (e.g. 5.O-O Bg4 pinning white's most important piece of they're to ever play d4).

At the high level, the key downsides to be emphasized for 4...bxc6 are: isolated a pawn, no prospect of expansion on the queenside, extremely limited minor piece activity, delayed development, and the lack of any ability to create a target in white's camp.