How to Become a FIDE Master I was wondering what skills, abilities, and knowledge is needed to reach consistent 2300 FIDE elo and therefore become a FIDE Master. Now, I'm not asking about the innate abilities, but those which you can acquire by practice and study:

A pretty simple list:

Have a decent knowledge on most/or all of the typical openings, and be very good at one (or more) for each side.
Have a deep positional/technical game, having memorize and understand grand masters games, so you develop an intuition of the position.
Knowledge of the endgames. Pretty important. How the positions are going to be simplify and the chances in both sides.
Tactics.

Let me build on @Brian Towers' answer: Love, Play and Analyze! But let me add some points.

Love Chess. because you'll need it to train a lot and go through your list.

  GM Shipov suggests that the main requirement for success at chess is to be 100% dedicated and interested in the game. If you just a little interested, you will not be able to make serious progress.

Play Chess. Competition is indeed crucial. Play competitively over-the-board and online. Blitz and rapid games may help you practice and test openings. But it is true that classic games (90 min/40 moves + 30 min and increment) are the most important, as you will devote on average about four hours playing chess and thinking. In his book Deep Thinking, Gary Kasparov writes that a player is so concentrated during a game that the quality of her/his analysis is even better than in post-mortem. An addition: choose your tournaments to face stronger opponents. You will learn from them.

  GM Kazhgaleyev writes that in order to improve at chess you need to play
  more tournament games, study classics, solve tactics and endgame
  studies as well as be passionate about chess in general. That's how
  you can get to that 2200-2300 Elo.

Analyze Chess. But the most important thing is to analyze the losses because they will give you the feedback you need to improve. We loose because we make mistakes, at least the last one! After each game, write down your ideas and your analysis, the ones you had during the game. Then you can use a computer to check your analysis. The computer or a coach will help you identify your mistakes. You will improve by not repeating them.

  GM Shipov believes in importance of deep analysis of your own games
  and ability to judge yourself fairly. If you lose a game, don’t think
  that it’s because of that silly move you played, find the real cause
  and improve!

Quotes are from How to Reach 2200 ELO – According to GM Tkachiev... not too far from the FIDE Master level...


Best method of remote tutoring? My tutor and I are exploring ways of doing lessons over the internet, and to our surprise, there isn't an immediately obvious way to do this on lichess or chess.com. What we were looking for is an analysis board that we can both move pieces on at the same time with maybe a chat room too (though we could just call each other, so that part isn't a deal breaker).

Is anyone aware of such a site/program? Worst case, we can do a screenshare and I can just watch him move pieces on his screen, but that is definitely less than ideal.

Surely this problem has been solved since I can't imagine we are the first to encounter it. I hope I am just overlooking something obvious.

Have you tried lichess studies ?
They can be used exactly like that. Let me give you an overview of how it works.
First you need to create a study, which you can do by heading to  https://lichess.org/study/ and clicking in the green plus button.
Multiple Members
As the What are Studies page explains, you can invite people to your study:

Let me quote the page that explains what these studies are:

Invite friends to analyse that new trendy opening. Invite your coach to teach you something. Invite 20 students to your lesson. Why not?
If your study is public, anyone can review it; invited members can chat, and invited contributors can update the study.
If your study is private, only invited members can review it, and invited contributors can update the study

Moves, Symbols and Arrows
The study members can create moves, or delete them. Any move anyone does changes the board that all other members see. Any move can have arrows to point possible moves or threats as well as symbols which are the red circles that normally are used to point key squares:

Comments
Any move can have comments, and these will be identified by who made them:

Annotations
The moves can also have the common chess notation:

Chat
There is also a chat, in case anyone wants just to say anything that isn't a comment to a move:

Chapters
This feature is solely available in studies, and allows you to have multiple chapters over the same study. It is useful in many scenarios like when you want to try several different ideas with quite some depth and extended analysis while keeping the main line clean. You could have the analysis of all your games in a tournament within the same study, and turning each game into a chapter.

Engine
As you would also probably be expecting, there is a feature to use an engine evaluation any time you need it. At the time of this answer the default engine is Stockfish 9.


Which time control was set in the following game? [Event "Russia vs China"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2009.08.17"]
[EventDate "2009.08.15"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ding Liren"]
[Black "Nikita Vitiugov"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2530"]
[BlackElo "2681"]
[PlyCount "81"]

d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 h6 8. h3 a6 9. c5 Be7 10. Rg1 b6 11. cxb6 Qxb6 12. g5 hxg5 13. Nxg5 Rg8 14. Na4 Qa7 15. Qxc6 Bb7 16. Qc2 Rc8 17. Nc3 e5 18. Bd2 exd4 19. exd4 Qxd4 20. Be3 Qb4 21. O-O-O Nc5 22. f3 Bc6 23. Bd4 a5 24. Rg2 a4 25. Re2 Rc7 26. Be5 Rd7 27. Rd4 Qb6 28. h4 a3 29. b3 Rb7 30. Bh3 Rh8 31. b4 Ncd7 32. Na4 Qb5 33. Bd6 Ng8 34. Nc3 Qb6 35. Qf5 Kd8 36. Nxf7+ Kc8 37. Bc5 Nh6 38. Bxb6 Nxf5 39. Bxf5 Bf6 40. Nxd5 Kb8 41. Nxf6 1-0

Which time control was set in this game ?

I've looked all over the web and cannot find the specific time control used, but according to many sources I found via Google, this game was the 3rd round of the classical portion of the annual Russia vs China match, so definitely NOT a rapid/blitz game. I believe in recent years the classical time control for that event has been 40 moves in 90 minutes (relatively quick for that level).


1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 - is this opening worth it? While doing my spring cleaning, I came across an old book claiming to give a good opening chance for black. It's called the "Barcza-Larsen opening" and it is characterized by 2 .. c5:

[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5

I am very skeptical about this opening. It seems that after 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5 d6 white is already significantly better, due to the considerably weak black pawn on d6 and limited options for activating the bishops. Moreover, black will struggle to castle and will find himself in major trouble when white puts a rook on e1 and the queen on e2.

However, I found a top GM game from 2019 featuring this opening, in which the white pieces (played by Kirill Alekseenko no less) lost!

[fen ""]
[White "Alekseenko, K. (2704)"]
[Black "Salgado Lopez, I. (2605)"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 d6 6. f4 b5 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. Be3 Nd7 9. Qf3 Nc5 10. a3 Nf6 11. O-O Be7 12. Rae1 O-O 13. g4 Nfd7 14. g5 Rc8 15. h4 f5 16. Kh2 e5 17. fxe5 Nxe5 18. Qh3 Ncxd3 19. cxd3 Nxd3 20. exf5 Nxe1 21. Rxe1 Qd7 22. Ne6 Rf7 23. Bd4 Bf8 24. h5 Rc4 25. g6 Re7 26. gxh7+ Kh8 27. Nxf8 Rxe1 28. Qd3 Rh1+ 29. Kg3 Qc6 30. Qe2 Rxd4 31. Ng6+ Kxh7 32. Nf8+ Kg8 33. Ng6 Rg1+ 0-1

What is today's view on this opening? Is it still playable, or is its only value an effect of "surprise" as white does not usually expect 2. .. c5?

You need to realize that just because someone gave it that name on move two, that it is certainly going to transpose to another opening with a different name. When determining what opening is played, classification takes place from the end of the game, and moves backward so the last known opening position is considered the opening that was played. If you start 1.c4 Nf6 2.d4, it is already no longer an English opening, for example.

So that Alekseenko-Salgado Lopez game is actually ECO B54, a variation of the Sicilian, listed as "unusual lines" only because black refrained from Nf6. Had he chosen that move on move 6, which was the most common move there, it would have just been a mainline Scheveningen.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5, you are going to get a mainline Sicilian, or a Benoni (the position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.d5 ed 4.cd). If black plays Be7 it is a Schmid Benoni, or a regular Benoni if black plays g6 and Bg7, but where white played the less-common exd5, which is probably a minor win for black, but I have always enjoyed those positions with white.

For the record, in both Benonis, the pawn on d6 is not as big a weakness as you seem to think it is since the d-file is not open, and the only pieces that can typically get at it is a B on f4, and a Nc4/e4, but it is still easily defensible.

There is nothing wrong with this move order as long as you are willing to play the Benoni and Sicilian, but that seems odd considering the offer of playing the French on move 1...e6.


Why do players attack one apparently unimportant square? I've noticed one thing players tend to do in chess is concentrate on building up pressure on one square.  I can understand early in the game if it's a central square like d4 or e5 and the king is central, but for example what about this game: Kasparov v Short 1993 Speed Challenge Game 1

Kasparov is very intent on building up pressure on the pawn at d5 but why?  Is it because, if he eventually wins that exchange with the queen, he will have a pin on the king at g8?  Is there ever a justification for just building up pressure on one square even if it is an unimportant square when your pieces could perhaps be better used elsewhere?

I can't answer your question in general, but I can explain the main ideas of the game.  Here is the game (actually the game lasted a few more moves, but at the end position here it is lost for Short):

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O Be7 9. Re1 O-O 10. Nf1 Re8 11. dxc5 Nxc5 12. Be3 a6 13. c3 Rc8 14. Qc2 Qc7 15. Rad1 b5 16. Bd4 Nce4 17. Ne3 Rcd8 18. a3 Bf8 19. Qb3 Qc6 20. Ne5 Qc7 21. Nd3 Bd6 22. g3 Qc8 23. Bxf6 Nxf6 24. Nb4 Bxb4 25. axb4 h6 26. Rd4 Re5 27.Red1 Qh3 28. Qc2 Rde8 29. Rh4 Qe6 30. Rhd4 Qh3 31. Rh4 Qe6 32. Qd3 Kf8 33. Rd4 Qh3 34. Qf1 Qe6 35. R1d3 Re4 36. Qd1 Rxd4 37. Rxd4 Rd8 38. Kg2 Rd7 39. Qd3 g6 40. h3 Kg7 41. Qd1 h5 42. Qf3 Ne4 43. Nxd5 Ng5 44. Nf4 Qb6 45. Qd3 Qc6+ 46. f3 Rxd4 47. Qxd4+ Kh7 48. Qd5 Qf6 49. h4 Ne6 50. Nxe6 fxe6 51. Qb7+ Kh6 52. Qxa6 Qe5 53. Qb6 Qe2+ 54. Qf2 Qd1 55. Qe3+ Kg7 56. Kf2 Qh1 57. Qxe6 Qh2+ 58. Ke3 Qxg3 59. Qe7+ Kg8 60. Qg5 Qe1+ 61. Kd4 Kf7 62. Kc5 Qf2+ 63. Kxb5 Qxf3 64. c4

Opening

Take a look at the position after Black's 16th move.  The opening phase is over.  It is a typical isolated queen's pawn position.  Here Kasparov has a better pawn structure as his pawns are in two pawn islands as opposed to Short's three pawn islands.  Why does that matter?  A pawn island is pawns that can defend each other.  As you will see the only pawn on the board that can't be protected by another pawn (except after an exchange) is the d5 pawn.

As compensation for this tiny disadvantage black normally gets more active pieces.  As you can see Short has good pieces here.  If Kasparov can manage to get Short on the defence then this compensation (active pieces) will disappear.  This might not be much, but at the top level any kind of advantage is better than none.

Why can't Kasparov attack Short's king instead, or some other piece?  Well, any piece can always move (but remember that the d5 pawn cannot move) and since Short has more active pieces any direct attack will fail.

Moves 17-25

What did Kasparov gain from attacking the pawn here?  Well, he forced Short to give up his bishop against a knight.  A bishop is considered slightly stronger than a knight, in particular in positions with pawns on both wings.

Still the d5 pawn is the easiest target to attack, although now the a6 pawn has become weak as well.  It would be dangerous to attack this pawn though, as doubling rooks on the a file would leave the white king less well protected.  This is something Short would have loved as it could have given him a strong counter attack.

Moved 26-35

During this phase Short tactically defended the d5 pawn by putting his queen on h3.  Should Kasparov take the d5 pawn it would have let to a mating attack for black after rook to e1.

Moves 36-41

Still the d5 pawn is the only real weakness in Short's position.  It still cannot move and should it drop the endgame is very difficult for Short.  The plan for White would then simply to be to exchange all the pieces and win the pawn endgame.  That would not necessarily be easy, but would give Kasparov an easy plan.

Moves 42 and out

Finally, on move 42 Short blunders tactically and loses the d5 pawn.  Now the game changes character.  Kasparov tried his best to exchange pieces while Short tries his best to avoid trading pieces.  Short's best hope here is to trade pawns, hoping for a draw.  Notice how Short avoids trading queens.

I only found the score up to move 64.  Short played on, but finally he surrendered when he realised that Kasparov would get another queen by promoting the b pawn.

Conclusion

The pressure on the d5 square led to Short finally blundering the pawn.  Had he not the game might have ended in a draw.  Of course, there are other plans, but you have to pick one.  Kasparov looked for the point in Short's position where he could attack and found it on d5 as the pawn could hardly move without being lost and could not be protected by another pawn.

Really strong players will find small ideas like that.  Kasparov did not necessarily expect to win the pawn, but at least to force Short on the defence.  If everything else is equal, having the more aggressive position is an advantage. Although it could be small, it is better than nothing.


Rules on castling, what is allowed I have learned about a move called castling, where you move the castle and the king to switch. Can anybody explain the rules? Thanks.

Castling is done by moving the King two squares towards the Rook, and then placing the Rook on the square that the King skipped over. In order to castle, all of the following must be true.

It's your turn.
The squares between your King and your Rook are all unoccupied.
You have not yet moved your King.
You have not yet moved the Rook that you are using to castle.
You are not currently in check.
You will not end up in check.
The square that your King passes through must not be under attack by an enemy piece (in other words, your King will not pass through check).


Pawn to Queen probabilities chart Statistically speaking, which white and black pawns are most likely to be queened?

I have some partial statistics for the question, from the Million Base 1.74 database, a collection of 1742057 games. 77218 of these games (4.4%) feature at least one promotion.

I counted 49970 promotions for white (54% of all promotions) and 42519 for black (46%). Here are the destination square statistics (meaning there is no track of the actual initial pawn square, because that statistic is a lot more difficult to gather), for all games and depending on the type of castling:

White         a8    b8    c8    d8    e8    f8    g8    h8
all         15.8% 14.2% 13.8% 14.8% 11.5% 11.3%  8.7%  9.8%
with O-O    15.8% 14.3% 13.9% 15.9% 11.8% 11.2%  8.1%  9.1%
with O-O-O  17.1% 14.7% 14.2% 10.7%  9.9% 11.7% 10.8% 11.0%

Black         a1    b1    c1    d1    e1    f1    g1    h1
all         16.0% 14.7% 14.4% 12.6% 11.8% 11.3%  9.0% 10.1%
with O-O    15.9% 14.8% 14.3% 12.9% 11.9% 11.3%  8.7% 10.0%
with O-O-O  13.5% 10.7% 10.9%  9.7% 12.4% 14.0% 14.0% 14.8%

A few observations:

queenside promotions seem significantly more common than kingside promotions
column statistics are quite consistent between black and white (except maybe when black castles long)
castling long increases the odds of a promotion happening kingside


Opening book series with "complete" explanations I am looking for opening books, preferably a series that explain different openings, where the opening is explained with a complete view:

strategic plans for main variants,
main tactical ideas,
usual pawn structures and how to play them (e.g. minority attacks,...),
usual endgames derived from the opening ( 2 pieces vs. Rook, ....) and how to play them,
if there are, main opening tricks.

I see these points as the things one should learn to master an opening. I don't mind the actual opening that the books explain; but I would prefer a series of books with different openings.

I am looking for opening books, preferably a series that explain
  different openings, where the opening is explained with a complete
  view:

  strategic plans for main variants,
  main tactical ideas,
  usual pawn structures and how to play them (e.g. minority    attacks,...),
  usual endgames derived from the opening ( 2 pieces vs. Rook, ....) and how to play them,
  if there are, main opening tricks.

Of all the books I have read, the Starting Out series are the closest thing you can find that matches your conditions.

They give general information about main lines, informing the reader if they are theoretical or if you can get by with playing by general principles.

They also warn if knowledge of the certain pawn structure/typical endgame is required, giving general tips on how to play those, which is good enough to help the reader start to understand the topic, and to provide him with enough details so he can do his own research.

The format of the book is also beginner-friendly as they explain ideas in prose with illustrative games, rather than smothering the reader with reams of analysis.

The series cover lots of openings, and generally have a good critics and readers review.

Hopefully this answer will help you. If you have further questions leave a comment and I will reply.

Best regards and good luck!


Easy to use, MS Word-like tool to record chess games Apologies for being a noob in this matter - a senior citizen friend of mine is looking for desktop publishing-like software to record chess games (diagrams along with personal reflection). The goal is personal publishing of chess games from their history. He is familiar with MS Word, but not much with other software.

From what I can see, existing software is aimed at creating Portable Game Notation files, which can be played back online, or is a powerful chess game database like Scid.

Is there some software for recording chess games that's closer to MS Word? I'd imagine it basically like a text editor, with a chess board on the side that can be configured with a certain position, then an image of it would be inserted in the text editor. No playback capabilities are required.

The closest thing I can think of to what you want, though it is still PGN file based, is ChessPad.  http://www.wmlsoftware.com/chesspad.html.  It's a very basic pgn file editor/viewer which maybe your friend could use standalone, or he could use it to create diagrams which he then pastes into MS Word.


What is the best continuation in this problem-h4 or Qd8? In the given diagram, I have two best ways to continue for white, which is the better option out of these two and why?

[FEN "2Q5/p1P2pkp/1p2p3/5p2/3P4/5P1P/P2q2PK/8 w - - 0 1 "]

1. Qd8 Qf4+ (1. h4 Qf4+ 2. Kh3 Qc1 3. Qd8 Qh1+ 4. Kg3 Qe1+ 5. Kh2! f4 6. Qg5+ Kf8 7. c8=Q#)2. Kg1 Qe3+ 3. Kf1 Qc1+ 4. Kf2 Qd2+ 5. Kg3 f4+ 6. Kh4 Qe1+ ( 6. Kg4 Qxg2 7. Kh4 Qg3+ 8. Kh5 Qg6+ ½-½) 7. Kh5 Qe5+ 8. Qg5+ Qxg5 9. Kxg5 1-0

Also would be interesting to see what line Houdini selects and how much will be the points for each of these two moves...

problem taken from here

4...Qd2+ in your main line is an error; instead Black should play 4...f4, after which he delivers perpetual check. White can try to play on with 5.Qg5+ Kf8 6.Qxf4 Qxf4 7.c8Q+ but that's still a draw. So 1.Qd8 does not work.

1.h4 enables White to escape from perpetual check, and wins.


Do chess programmes keep a history of the full board for each move? I am creating a chess GUI for UCI engine as a hobby. I keep the history of moved positions (e.g., (4,6) -> (4,4) for the pawn in front of the white king moving forward 2 squares) and the type of the moved piece (e.g., pawn), and some minor states like castling, capturing, etc).
Now I am trying to implement checking for draw conditions. At first, I thought it was about repeated moves, but after seeing the official rules, it seems that it is about repeated positions. Is it practically possible to check for this without keeping the snapshot of the whole board (in my case, a 8x8 integer array, 256 bytes) for each move? I thought about taking a hash value of the board, but even if I take a long value, it can only represent 2^64 values, and according to a quick search, the number of all possible positions is about 10^120, so hash collisions will occur.

You are doing a chess GUI, not a chess engine right?
Chess GUI doesn't need to be super efficient, because you have no more than a chess game to look for. Even a game over 200 moves about the world record is absolutely nothing for a computer.
I would just simply keep your positions with an array of strings like FEN format (or any other format), and then simply linear scan the whole game for repetitions.
If you want to get fancy, try https://marcelk.net/2013-04-06/paper/upcoming-rep-v2.pdf.


Online resource for estimating my elo rating using my games? There are resourses that can estimate your elo rating such as this one. Usually I need to solve some puzzles and the system will give me an estimation of my elo rating. Here I have a different thought: Can an online resource estimate my elo rating based on the games that I play?

For example, if I can upload the recent 100 games that I played under some standard time control, will there be a way to estimate my elo based on how I play? It seems feasible to me but I am not sure if such resource exists.

For example, if I can upload the recent 100 games that I played under
  some standard time control, will there be a way to estimate my elo
  based on how I play?

If, as part of that upload, you also supply the ratings of opponents in the same rating system (i.e. all FIDE or all lichess or all chess.com) for at least 5 of the games in which you score at least half a point, then yes. Of course the moves played would be irrelevant.

The point being that no rating system gives a measure of absolute playing strength. Every single rating system gives a measure of relative playing strength.


Pawns pushes in the center There are some situations in chess where a pawn push in the center is the most played move, and also the one suggested by engines. However this is not done for winning material, but just for trading pawns. One such example arises from the Philidor Defense:

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3

3. d4 is the move I'm talking about, and the game after that move usually continues like in the PGN above.
I don't fully understand the advantages that White gains by exchanging its d-pawn for Black's e-pawn, ending in the position shown above. They are both central pawns controlling central squares. Can someone tell me some insight or considerations I'm probably missing?

The main ideas behind d4 serve several purposes.

It threatens dxe5 winning material.
It opens up your pieces, like the Bc1, in particular.
It gains space since the trade on d4 leaves white with a pawn that is more central than black's d6 pawn.
And probably most important, and this is typical of many
double-king-pawn openings, and that is that it is easier to inhibit
black from playing the freeing d5 move. If he manages that move
soon, he has generally solved all his opening problems, and the two
center files will open up, and the major (heavy) pieces will be
traded.


How to challenge a queen with a bishop pair in endgame? Any hints how to survive or win having a bishop pair against a Queen in endgames. What you should do? how to cooperate between them? what's the opponent best strategies?

This is one of the well known endgames and the side with the queen almost always (92% positions) wins, although some wins take more than 50 moves with perfect play.

See the solution for your position here by entering your position into the diagram.

I must point out that every move has been taken into account and every possible continuation has been explored.

I forgot to answer part of your question about challenging the queen:

with best play side with the bishop loses most of the time, as stated above;
side with the bishops can never win, due to reasons user ETD pointed out in his comment;
in order to defend vs queen, use bishops to create barrier for the enemy king; keep them close to your king in order to be safe from double attacks queen can make.

It is worth noting, that the position shifted down by one row is a fortress setup and black draws. The setup is known as the Lolli position.

8/6k1/5bb1/8/2Q5/8/3K4/8 w - - 0 1


Doubt on how move as black after pawn in e5 I am still at the beginning in playing chess, and I often encounter the following situation. Consider this sequence of moves:

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. e5

Presuming that I am the black player, how do I respond to this? Additionally, is 2. e5 a good move to do as white?

First, 2.e5 by white is probably not the strongest pure chess move, but it does have a huge advantage in that black is likely to be suprised by it. Anytime you can take your opponent out of his element, that is a small victory. In 40 years of playing, I have never seen that move played there, so that is saying something.

There is no question that 2.exd5 is the best move. It is one of the reasons that the Scandinavian Defense, aka the Center-Counter Defense, is considered sub-standard at higher levels. It is generally just considered a "tricky" opening, but it is also tactical in nature for those, who want that type of game.

2.e5 is likely to lead to French-Defense-type positions, which is a much more solid defense for black, so playing 2.e5 is not best, but there is nothing wrong with it chess-wise other than not being the objectively best move. That is where the intangibles of the game come into play, and black is not as likely to be as well versed in the French as white is there. That can easily outweigh the fact that 2.exd5 is better. I ALWAYS strive to take my opponent into a position they are not as comfortable as I am.

As far as what you are to do from there, you will play c5, maybe get the Bc8 out first (maybe even on that very move 2...Bf5), and then play e6, Nd7, Nge7-c6, Be7, and Qb6 but that is all very general. You will need to be careful putting your king on the short side as it may come under a big attack, but that is still where you want it if safe. Lastly, if you are going to face this often, I suggest you study the Advanced French, and use an engine to see if there are improved versions with Bf5 or Bg4 early.

There are a billion branches here, but here is a sample line I just ran on the computer. Black ends up slightly better.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. e5 Bf5 3. d4 e6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nd7 6. Be2 Ne7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Be3 Be7 9. Nbd2 O-O {With the Bf5 able to go back to g6, if necessary, your kingside is pretty safe.} 10. a3 a5 $15


What are black's possible plans in the exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit? I've reached this position, or something similar, a zillion times as both black and white (main line exchange queen's gambit):

[fen ""]

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Be7 7.Bd3 O-O 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9. O-O

As white, I typically employ the plans: (a) a minority attack with the a- and b-pawns, (b) put the bishop behind the queen on the b1-h7 diagonal and create weaknesses in black's kingside [more effective if black has played h6], or (c) aim the push the e4-pawn.

As black, I feel planless.  Hence...

Question: What are black's possible plans in the exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit?

The things that spring to mind are the ...c5 push (leading to a black IQP game), or ...b6 followed by ...Bb7 and ...c5 (although it always seems difficult to locate the queen after these moves).

Question: What are black's possible plans in the exchange variation of
  the Queen's Gambit?

I think the positions could be classified into two main types depending upon where White develops the g1 knight - f3 or e2.

A) Black's ideas when White develops Knight on f3

1) Knight mavouvere - d7-f8-e6-g7 followed by Bf5!

A very interesting idea was introduced in the game Reshevsky vs Stahlberg, 1937. Instead of "automatically" castling, Black first mavouvers the knight to e6, thereby saving a tempo and prepares to play g6 followed by Ng7 and Bf5! In his DVD on the Queens Gambit, Garry Kasparov considers this to be Black's main idea of solving the problem of the bishop on c8 and also exchanging White's strong bishop on d3.

  [Event "Knight manouvere d7-f8-e6-g7 followed by Bf5!"]
  [Date "1937"]
  [White "Reshevsky"]
  [Black "Stahlberg"]
  [Result "1/2-1/2"]
  [FEN ""]

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 c6 8.
    Qc2 Nf8 9. Bd3 Ne6 10. Bh4 g6 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Kb1 Ng7 13. h3 Bf5 14. Bxf6
    Bxf6 15. g4 Bxd3 16. Qxd3 Ne6 17. h4 c5 18. dxc5 Bxc3 19. Qxc3 Rc8 20. e4 Rxc5
    21. Qa3 Qd6 22. exd5 Rd8 23. Qxa7 Rxd5 24. Rxd5 Qxd5 25. Qe3 h5 26. Re1 hxg4
    27. Ne5 Ng7 28. Qe4 Qxe4+ 29. Rxe4 f5 30. Rc4 Kh7 31. Kc2 Re8 32. Nd3 Ne6 33.
    a4 Kh6 34. Rb4 Re7 35. Rb6 f4 36. Rb4 g5 37. hxg5+ Kxg5 38. Rb5+ Kh4 39. Re5
    Nd4+ 40. Kc3 Rxe5 41. Nxe5 Ne6 42. Nd3 f3 43. b4 g3 44. fxg3+ Kxg3 45. a5 Nf4
    46. Nc5 Kg2 47. Ne4 Nd5+ 48. Kb3 Nc7 49. Kc4 Ne6 50. b5 Ng5 51. Nd2 f2 52. a6
    Ne4 53. axb7 Nxd2+ 54. Kc3 f1=Q 55. b8=Q Qc1+ 56. Kd3 1/2-1/2

2) Traditional plan of equalizing with Ne4.

This is a very solid idea for Black to equalize. It leads to an exchange of pieces and stops White's ideas of pushing e4, thereby neutralizing White's positional advantage.

A sample line is

  [Event "Traditional plan of equalizing with Ne4"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Qc2 O-O 8. Bd3
  Nbd7 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Ne4

Note that this is a general idea and could be played in many different move orders. Here are some sample Grandmaster games where Black successfully used this idea to equalize and then even went on to win the game.

Pavel Eljanov vs Yuriy Kryvoruchko, 2013 0-1

Athanasios Mastrovasilis vs Mikhail Gurevich, 2007 0-1

3) Prevent minority attack with a timely b5 and invite White to overextend.

If Black doesn't employ the earlier ideas, then Black has to passively defend the position a bit longer. However, this often has the added psychological ploy of inviting White to overextend in his/her efforts to win from their "better" position. I found this Grandmaster game where Black manages to prevent the minority attack and White ends up overextending and actually losing the game.

Pavel Maletin vs Vladimir Malakhov, 2008 0-1

    [Event " Prevent minority attack with a timely b5 and invite White to overextend"]
    [Date "2008"]
    [White "Maletin"]
    [Black "Malakhov"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [FEN ""]

    1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be7 8.
    Bd3 O-O 9. Qc2 Re8 10. h3 Nf8 11. Bf4 Be6 12. O-O Bd6 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. Rab1 a5
    15. a3 N6d7 16. Rfc1 Rec8 17. Ne2 b6 18. b4 axb4 19. axb4 b5 20. Nf4 h6 21. Qd1
    Nb6 22. Ne5 Nc4 23. Qh5 Rc7 24. Bc2 Ra2 25. Ned3 Rca7 26. Bb3 R2a3 27. Rd1 Bc8
    28. Nc5 g5 29. Nfd3 Bf5 30. Qf3 Bg6 31. Rbc1 Be4 32. Qe2 Bxd3 33. Rxd3 Ne6 34.
    Bxc4 bxc4 35. Rxa3 Rxa3 36. Qb2 Ra7 37. b5 cxb5 38. Qxb5 Kg7 39. Rb1 Rc7 40.
    Qb2 Qc6 41. Rc1 Nxc5 42. dxc5+ f6 43. Ra1 Qxc5 44. Qb8 Rf7 45. Ra8 Qf8 46.
    Qxf8+ Rxf8 47. Ra5 Rd8 48. g4 Kf7 49. Kf1 Ke6 50. Ke2 h5 51. gxh5 Rh8 52. e4
    dxe4 53. Rc5 Rxh5 54. Rxc4 Ke5 55. Rc5+ Kd6 56. Rc3 Rh8 57. Ra3 Ke5 58. f3 f5
    59. fxe4 fxe4 60. Kf2 Kf4 61. Kg2 Rb8 62. Ra2 Rb3 63. Ra8 Rb2+ 64. Kf1 Kf3 65.
    Rf8+ Kg3 66. Rf5 Kh4 67. Re5 Rb3 68. Rxe4+ Kxh3 69. Re1 Kh2 70. Re2+ Kh1 71.
    Re4 Rf3+ 72. Ke2 Rf5 0-1

B) Black's ideas when White develops Knight on e2.

This is actually a more critical line than the Nf3 variation. In his aforementioned DVD, Kasparov claims that the results with Ne2 are in favor of White and looking at the games at the highest level, I have to agree with him.

Searching through a database, I found that the highest rated player to play this setup with Black was Ivanchuk against Carlsen in 2009. In that game Ivanchuk had to resort to passive defense and Carlsen missed a move which could have given him a decisive advantage.

Carlsen vs Ivanchuk 2009 1/2-1/2

Yusopov beat Portisch in this line way back in 1986 by first defending passively and then embarking on a kingside attack, although this cannot be suggested as a "general idea", so use this with caution.

Portisch vs Yusopov, 1986 0-1

  [White "Portisch"]
  [Black "Yusopov"]
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Passive queenside defense followed by kingside attack"]
  [Result "0-1"]
  [Date "1986"]

   1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Bd3 O-O
   8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O c6 10. Qc2 Nf8 11. Rab1 Be6 12. b4 a6 13. Na4 N6d7 14. Bxe7 Qxe7
   15. Nc5 Nxc5 16. bxc5 Rad8 17. Rb2 g6 18. Rfb1 Bc8 19. Nc1 Rd7 20. Nb3 Ne6
   21. Na5 Nd8 22. Qd1 h5 23. Qf3 Kg7 24. h3 h4 25. Qf4 Rc7 26. Kf1 Rh8 27. Rb3 g5
   28. Qh2 f6 29. R1b2 Nf7 30. Ke1 Re8 31. Kd1 f5 32. Re2 Qd8 33. Rb6 f4 34. exf4 Rxe2
   35. Kxe2 Qf6 36. Rb4 gxf4 37. Kd2 Re7 38. Qh1 f3 39. Kc3 Ng5 40. gxf3 Qf4
   41. Rb1 Nxf3 42. Nb3 Kf8 43. Rd1 Ng5 44. Nd2 Rf7 45. f3 Nxh3 46. Re1 Ng5 47. Re2 Re7
   48. Rxe7 Kxe7 49. Qe1 Be6 50. Qb1 h3 51. Qxb7 Bd7 52. Qa8 h2 53. Qh8 Nh3

1) New Idea - knight maneuver d7-f8-e6 followed by bishop to b7.

Nubairshah Shaikh vs Arvindh Chithambaram 2013 0-1

I came across a recent interesting game by India's rising star Arvindh Chithambaran. The idea, as I understand it, is to maneuver the knight to e6, develop the bishop on b7 and then invite White to trade the dark squared bishops. Black can also play f5 considering the fact that the knight on e2 cannot really get to the outpost created on e5.

   [Event "knight maneuver d7-f8-e6 followed by bishop to b7"]
   [Date "2013"]
   [White "Shaikh"]
   [Black "Chithambaram"]
   [Result "0-1"]
   [FEN ""]

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8.
    Qc2 Nf8 9. Nge2 Ne6 10. Bh4 g6 11. O-O O-O 12. f3 b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Kh1 Rc8
    15. a3 Nh5 16. Bf2 f5 17. b4 Bd6 18. f4 b5 19. Ng1 a5 20. Rb1 Nf6 21. Bh4 Ra8
    22. Nf3 Qe7 23. Bxf6 Qxf6 24. Ne5 Qe7 25. Qb2 Ra7 26. Rfc1 Rfa8 27. h3 Ng7 28.
    Rc2 axb4 29. axb4 Ra6 30. Qc1 Ne8 31. Ne2 Ra3 32. Qd2 R8a6 33. Kh2 Nf6 34. Nc1
    R3a4 35. Rcb2 Nd7 36. Nxd7 Qxd7 37. Bc2 Ra3 38. Nd3 Qe7 39. Bb3 Kg7 40. Nc5
    Bxc5 41. dxc5 Ra8 42. Qd4+ Qf6 43. Rd2 Re8 44. Kg1 Re4 45. Qxf6+ Kxf6 46. Bc2
    Rexe3 47. Kf2 Bc8 48. Bd1 Re4 49. Bf3 Rxf4 50. Re2 Be6 51. Rbe1 Re4 52. Bxe4
    dxe4 53. Rb2 Bd5 54. Rbb1 Ra4 55. h4 f4 56. g3 Ra2+ 57. Re2 fxg3+ 58. Ke3 Ra3+
    59. Kd2 Ke5 60. Re3 Ra2+ 61. Kc3 Kf4 62. Ree1 e3 63. Ra1 Rxa1 64. Rxa1 g2 65.
    Re1 Kf3 66. Kd4 Kf2 67. Ra1 e2 0-1

2) Preventing the Ne2 line altogether by playing an intermediate move 3...Be7!?

    [Event "Black plays 3...Be7!? and White is unable to get both Bg5 and Ne2"]
    [FEN ""]

    1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7!?

3...Be7 puts White in a dilemma because White cannot get in both Bg5 and Ne2. White has to try Bf4, but then Black's kingside is not pressured as much as after Bg5. In some lines, Black can once again follow the same plan of knight maneuver to e6 followed by g6 and Bf5.

     [Event "Sample lines after 3...Be7"]
     [FEN ""]

     1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. cxd5 (4. Bf4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 c6
     8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. O-O Qc8 12. h3 Qb7) (4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 c6 6.
     e3 Nbd7) 4... exd5 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. e3 c6 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Qc2 Re8 10. h3
     Nf8 11. O-O Ne6 12. Bh2 g6

P.S. This is definitely the longest I have spent answering a single question on chess.stackexchange.com!


Good follow up to 1.d4 Nf6 2. e3 for black I play the nimzo Indian defence, and so in response to 1.d4 I play Nf6, planning on playing e6 and Bb4.
However, if they follow up with any other moves, I am at a bit of a loss as to what to play. I tend to just play d5 and develop my pieces, but I was wondering if there was any other good opening I could use in response to that.

The Nimzo-Indian can be closely paired with The Queen's-Indian, or The
  Bogo-Indian, or much less closely paired with the Benoni.

Lets forget about the Benoni for now and focus on the other two options.

In the Bogo and Nimzo you see Black's Bishop going to b4.  The general idea is to fight for the e4 square, but in some cases Black will trade the Bishop off and then put his own pawns on dark squares (d7-d6 and e6-e5).
When you play an early d5 as Black you kill this secondary plan -- which is totally fine but something to keep in mind.

In the Queen's Indian you target e4 with Bb7 and the other Bishop usually goes to e7.  Here you are also fighting for e4 and because you aren't taking out Whites Queen's-knight who usually will attack the e4 square, you need help of a pawn and d7-d5 is often played.

  So, what's with the Benoni?

If White is avoiding c4 and Nc3 then they are playing slowly and it is not critical.
If they play c4 but avoid Nc3, say 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 then many players like to play 3...c5!   Since White has put their Knight on f3 a lot of aggressive lines with f2-f4 are avoided.

Nick De Firmian paired the Nimzo with the Benoni.
Karpov paired the Nimzo with the Queen's Indian.
Fischer sometimes played a hybrid of the Queen's Indian and the Nimzo Indian.

The smallest amount of theory to know would pair the Nimzo with the Bogo-Indian.


Full Footage From 1972 Championship Since the 1972 chess championship was televised I imagine there must be full footage of all the matches somewhere. I have spent time looking around, but found nothing but short clips of the games. Does anybody know if and where this footage might exist?

The Holy Grail of chess match footage! This question has been asked before on Reddit, on Chess.com and probably on many other websites and no one has come up with an answer.

There are many sources that claim that Chester Fox, an american businessman, had procured the filming rights for the match. According to an unsigned article on mark-weeks.com, "Fox sold the rights to the American television company ABC for 100.000 US$", apparently after the eighth game.

Another source of footage is Shelby Lyman's series of television programmes for PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). See, for example, The man behind the Fischer-Spassky show by Rudy Chelminski (Chessbase.com, 2003). It is not clear to me where he got his images (unless the programmes didn't use any footage that was shot during the games).

An article by Edward Winter about the match also contains a pointer to some coverage in the archives of AP (Associated Press), but these are mostly short news items and some footage from outside the playing hall.

So my best guess is that the footage is in the vaults of ABC and PBS.


Old FIDE Title Regulations I have seen on the FIDE website https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=10&view=category that only the regulations governing the award of FIDE titles effective from 1st July 2014 are available.

Are the regulations governing the award of FIDE titles prior to these ones available somewhere ?

I don't think there is an official listing of previous title regulations. You just have to glean what you can from internet searches.

Here's what I found.

  From the 1st July 2009 the following changes will apply to FIDE
  titles.

  1) Only one player can having a rating uplift, instead of two.

  2) The rating of the player uplifted has been reduced by 50 points.
  Hence the uplift for a GM norm is now 2200 (was 2250), IM norm 2050
  (was 2100).

  3) Performance requirements and requirements of the opponents’ ratings
  have been changed to even tens. i.e GM norm used to be 2601
  performance, now 2600, minimum average rating of opponents used to be
  2381, now 2380.

  4) For any given title norm at least 1/3 of a players opponents must
  hold that title. i.e. For a GM norm 1/3 must hold GM title. Whilst in
  comparison to the old regulations this makes no change to a 9 round
  event, it would effect a 12 round event where 4 GM's would be required
  (used to be 3).

Going back to the beginning, this chessbase article fills in some of the history - https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-gm-is-a-gm--fide-title-devaluation-270613

Summarizing -

When grandmaster titles were first awarded in 1950, they were given to the world champion Mikhail Botvinnik and all those who had qualified or been seeded in the inaugural Candidates Tournament: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky, David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, and László Szabó.

The title was also given to older living players who were recognized as having been world class at their peak: Ossip Bernstein, Oldrich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Borislav Kostic, Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin, Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan Vidmar.

In 1957 the regulations were set to give the GM title automatically to the world champion and to any player qualifying from the Interzonal tournament to play in the Candidates.

In 1965  the rules were tightened up so that a player had to score 40% in the Candidates Tournament, or reach the quarter finals of the Candidates Matches to get the title.

In 1970 the modern system was initiated whereby you had to get your rating up to a certain ELO rating - 2450 - and to get 3 "norms" in a 3 year period. A "norm" was a rating performance of 2551 or above in a suitable tournament.

Since 1970 that basic formula has been tweaked with changes to the ratings involved and the type and makeup of qualifying tournaments in terms of how many of the other players must be from different federations, how many have the GM title, what the time controls are, how many players, etc., etc.


Is today's chess.com daily puzzle a draw (as hinted at in the puzzle title)? Today's daily puzzle on chess.com is called Desperation Draw:

White to move

[FEN "r5k1/P4ppp/8/8/p1p1P3/4KP2/2P3PP/5R2 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rb1 Rf8 2. Rb8  *

One of the commentators asked:

  What draw?

I agree with this. I think this is a simple win for white who threatens to promote soon when black has no counter play, e.g. 2...a3 3. Rxf8+ Kxf8 4. a8Q+ Ke7 5. Qxa3.

My question is, am I missing the draw in the position above?

No, you are not.

It's an easy win for white as far as I can see.


Can you castle twice in Chess960? Consider this Chess960 game.
[FEN "rnkqbbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNKQBBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 Na6 2. e4 Nb8 3. Ba5 Na6 4. Bb5 Nb8
5. Qh5 Na6 6. Nh3 Nb8 7. Na3 Na6 8. O-O-O Nb8
9. Rd3 Na6

Can White's next move be to castle h-side? I can see an argument both ways: either yes, because the king never left c1, or no, because castling counts as a king move.

Excellent question. The rules state that this is not possible. Castling can only be done once.
This is explicitly mentioned under Guidelines II. Chess960 Rules:

II.3.1 Chess960 allows each player to castle once per game, a move by potentially both the king and rook in a single move. [...]

Specifically, castling (even if the king doesn't move) should still be done by touching the king before moving the rook. You can do this several ways but the standard recommendation is to move the king off the board, move the rook to the new location, and move the king back to the new position (which can be the original c1 square).

II.3.2.5.1 When castling on a physical board with a human player, it is recommended that the king be moved outside the playing surface next to his final position, the rook then be moved from its starting position to its final position, and then the king be placed on his final square.
[...]
II.3.2.7.1 To avoid any misunderstanding, it may be useful to state "I am about to castle" before castling.


Emotionally getting over silly, stupid, mistakes At one point, I reached a Rook and pawn endgame in the Chicago Open. Winning this game would have landed me in the money. I ended up with a rook and connected a- and b- pawns, while my opponent had a rook and a c-pawn. I was able to push my opponent's king back to the eighth rank, but due to time trouble I actually lost both pawns (lol what). Now my opponent had a c-pawn on the 3rd rank, so he needed five more pawn moves to promote.

I lost this endgame. But I'm reading the Secrets of Rook Endings by John Nunn where he discusses this ending in deliberate detail, so I could have definitely drawn. I haven't gone over a single game from the tournament, because the ones that I lost were all due to silly mistakes; all of my games were won (with opponents LITERALLY begging for draws) and somehow I lost over half of them - mainly due to time trouble, but they shouldn't have been lost regardless.

I can review that rook and pawn ending game if I wanted to and see which moves I made a mistake, but I'm simply too embarrassed. How can I get over losing won games?

No serious chess player has managed to avoid losing in a way similar to that which you described. Failing to play at ones usual ability is certainly disturbing when it happens, but it is part of being human; after all, humans can get tired, distracted, or fall into a panic due to time pressure, affecting their ability to play.

Always remember this while you play: since you're human, you can make silly mistakes! If, during a game, you realize that you've made a silly mistake, you need to get your emotions in check no matter what. Just admit to yourself "ok, I made a mistake" and afterwards go on and try to salvage your position with a cool demeanor. DON'T BEAT YOURSELF UP DURING A GAME FOR THE MISTAKES YOU'VE ALREADY MADE! Letting your emotions take over while you're still playing will just end in a disaster.

After the game however, feel free to be as disgusted with yourself as you please, but if you still have games to play, it's better to take a deep breath, tell yourself that you played bad but will bring down the hammer of judgement on yourself after you're finished playing, and go on to play your games as if nothing happened.

When you finally get some time to reflect over what happened in the game(s), you should once again try to be objective, and try to figure out the reasons why you made your mistake(s). Were you distracted? Were you careless, and if so why? Was it because you didn't know what to do in the position? What can you do to prevent the mistake(s) from happening in the future?

In the specific case you brought up, I think you may be able to prevent yourself from losing in a similar manner in the future. Let me ask you this: Would you have lost the position due to time pressure if you had K+Q vs. K instead of K+R+2p vs. K+R+p? Probably not! Why? Because I assume that you know how to win K+Q vs. K like the back of your hand! Here I boldly assume that you weren't down to 5 seconds without increments (severe time scrambles without increments isn't really chess, it's more of a lottery imo), but rather that you had the time on the clock to actually perform your moves without dropping the pieces. If you lose a theoretical ending it's almost always possible to practice it afterwards until you know it as well as K+Q vs. K. That way you can play such endings perfectly, even under rather severe time pressure.

To summarize: everybody makes stupid mistakes in chess, don't beat yourself up about it during actual games, and try to see whether there is an easy way for you to avoid making the same mistakes in the future by being objective in your criticism of yourself.


What's a Confession Box? The upcoming Norway chess tournament will implement something called a confession box. http://www.chess.com/news/grand-chess-tour-kicks-off-monday-with-norway-chess-7194

What's that really? What is that supposed to do? What's the point of it?

Apparently, it is supposed to make the live broadcasts more entertaining.

Up until now, the live broadcasts (e.g. on chess24), although increasingly popular, only featured a video of the players, chessboards with constantly updating moves and engine evaluations, as well as live commentary from GMs/IMs.

As far as I understood, the players will be allowed (and encouraged) to, during the games, go into the "box" and speak about their games - so the live audience and commentators (but not their opponents) can hear their thoughts and considerations about the games, what their plans are, which moves they looked into etc.. A "Big Brother" sort of thing.

Apparently, it has already been used in EnterCard Chess Qualifier, the qualification tournament for Norway Chess 2015: http://www.chess.com/news/hammer-qualifies-for-norway-chess-6703

  Right after the game Hammer went to the “confession box,” a room next to the playing hall where the players were encouraged to give some thoughts about their ongoing game. Co-organizer and webmaster Tarjei J. Svensen explained:
  “They could do this whenever they wanted and it was a completely voluntary thing, but all the players had used the opportunity to do it, sometimes even more than once per game. The idea was suggested by Team Carlsen for TV2. It has been rather well received by the players and the viewers.”


Chinese Chess online (Xiangqi) I was curious about this question, I watched two videos and learned a bit about Chinese Chess. Where can one play it online? What site has the biggest online Chinese chess community, where  you can play against computers or challenge other players.

It must be free and and must support westernized pieces because I can't read Chinese characters.

If the site has tutorials on the Chinese chess, it would be nice.

You can try PlayOK, it's free and has quite a lot of players for Xiangqi, and supports westernized pieces (though I'd recommend just learning the chinese characters, it doesn't take long). It also has some players for Shogi (japanese chess), which I personally find to be a much more interesting chess variant, though if you want to play more of that there are better sites (for example 81dojo). For rules/tutorials, I guess the best place to start is simply the Xiangqi Wikipedia entry.


Best reply against the Italian Game after 3...h6 4. d4? After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4:

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4

What is the best answer to avoid pile up of opponent pieces in the center as black? Especially after Nc3 and 0-0, this position sometimes gets awkward as it's difficult for the black queen to find a suitable square that both defends the king and attacks the opponent.

3...h6 is not a mistake, but it's certainly not the best move in the position.

In the opening, one of your goals is to develop your pieces, and ...h6 doesn't do this. The only point of ...h6 seems to be to avoid the line 3...Nf6 4.Ng5, but this line is not dangerous to black at all. Play can continue 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5, and black will have good compensation for his pawn in this well known line.

The reason you may experience difficulties as black after 3...h6 is because you don't achieve any activity with h6, and you let white take control over the center with 4.d4. This is a Scotch Game / Scotch Gambit where white has the useful move Bc4, while black has the much less useful h6.

Thus, you should not play 3...h6 as black, but instead either 3...Nf6 or 3...Bc5 as black, which take control of the center and activate your pieces. These openings, the 2 knights (Nf6) and Giucco (Bc5) are very solid openings for black.

Finally, even though a GM used to experiment with this line, it doesn't mean you should play it. Hikaru has played an early 3.Qh5 before in open games (1.e4 e5), but that doesn't make the move good. If black responds properly, white will have no chance to secure an opening advantage. While Hikaru can outplay many GMs even in worse positions, for non-master players, there's no reason to play a sub-optimal opening that has no surprise value (unlike 1.b4 or 1.g4, which can catch opponents off-guard). Thus, one of 3...Bc5 or 3...Nf6 is what you should do.

*If you are set on playing 3...h6, then you will have to accept a slightly worse position as black. He has wasted time with h6, and gives white an opening edge. An awkward queen might be one of these problems.


What is covered in "Grunfeld Defense: Russian Variations" (1988) by Eric Schiller? I'm interested in the Russian system of the grunfeld-defense:

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "10"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d54. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3

I'd like to buy a book on this line alone (I'm not interested in books offering other mainlines, as I much prefer the Russian).

That's when I came across Grunfeld Defense: Russian Variations (1988) by Eric Schiller for sale on Amazon.

My problem is that I don't know what I'm buying, as there are no reviews, previews, blurb, contents or even number of pages for me to weigh up the benefits of purchasing.

So, my questions are:

What does the book cover?
Can you provide a review of the book?
Would you recommend any other resources specifically for the Russian system?

This is D96/D97 classification - ECO D would be your best bet. It would be comprehensive in variations but in Chess Informant style.

I would add this:
Even though Eric Schiller is somewhat known for his error-prone books, this book is in it's second edition. I would venture to say that, as far as Schiller books go, it might not be all that bad. It really depends on your playing level. If you are a relatively weak player (say, 1400 rating or less), I'm sure it is fine to get your feet wet using this book. It is important to know how not to play an opening as well as know how to play it. It might be a good jumping off point for the opening. Of course, get an inexpensive used copy if possible.

Good luck!


Can you manually type moves into Arena? (copy pasting notation) Is there a way to copy/paste a game into arena? I know how to load a PGN, but suppose I have: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 1-0 as my game.
Can I copy paste this anywhere to get it loaded into the GUI?

PGN file format is a simple text format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Game_Notation

So ideally you should be able to save your text as pgn and import in GUI.

However it depends on GUI how strict the rules are for importing pgn.

For example, you can copy paste your text or import your pgn here and it works perfectly.

https://lichess.org/paste


5...Nf6 in Sicilian defense [StartPly "10"]

[fen ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 Nf6 *

5...Nf6 looks like a good move for black, however I failed to find analysis about this variation. Am I overseeing something, why would black not want to play this move? What is the best next move for white?

6.N1c3 does not seem good because of 6...Qa5 (6.Bg5 for the same reason), and 6.Nd2 would make white to lose the ability to pressure Nd6+ and would close the bishop at c1.

White's best move seems to be 6. N1c3, when 6... d6 transposes into the Sveshnikov.

After 6... Qa5, White just replies 7. Bd2, threatening Nd5 and Nc7. Black has nothing better than 7... Qd8 when White enjoys a huge advantage in development.


In "The Queen's gambit" were there any famous games played? Throughout "The Queen's Gambit" (Netflix) we see games at an advanced stage (after the opening).
And while the characters are fictitious, the show being set in the 1960s (Beth adult), Benny Watts (US champion) is probably Bobby Fischer, and Vasily Borgov (World champion) Tigran Petrosian.
Were there any famous games (or part of) played within the show? (involving Fischer, Petrosian or any other famous player)
Note: Garry Kasparov and Bruce Pandolfini were the main chess advisors.

Agadmator made a video about the final game between Harmon and Borgov which I recommend you to watch. The first 37 moves of that game were identical to a game played between Ivanchuk and Wolff in 1993 Biel Interzonal.


Opening creation-is it ever possible? I have invented (to the best of my knowledge) a really decent opening. I would like to note that over the ICC I have actually beaten a few masters with this opening, with one master having an ICC rating of 2400 (45 45). I would like to popularize my opening without somebody else stealing it from me, but I really don't know how. Is there a way to do this type of thing?

Openings cannot be copyrighted, but analysis and comments can be.

The best you can do is probably to publish an extensive analysis of the variation online (or in a magazine, but you should make sure it is available online as well). In that article you should explicitly name the variation. You might also want to throw in some engine-engine games, instead of just concentrating on your own games. Real tournament games would probably be more convincing than online games as well.

If you do that you can always prove precedence by pointing out your article if somebody tries to reinvent and rename the variation. If the article is well written and contains high-level games, it is also quite likely that other people interested in the variation will quote/link you, i.e. accept and cement your precedence.


Is this really limitation of absolute ELO? Lately I've been wondering what could be maximum Elo achieved by a computer. I mean, we have super-computers, give super computer (1st in the world) chess program and let it play, it will probably pre-calculate first 30 (or maybe 50) moves within a second.

I went Googling and this site offered, kind of answer, particularly this one:
https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/5252

Answer shortly was:

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

Okay, so there's 3351 Elo, which currently maxxed out value. Is there any other value that I could absolutely assign to human as well as computers? I don't want to sound cocky, but I'd really like to compare power of my processor to the one of human brain. Of course I know that processors as fast as human brain will come within 40 years and don't exist now. But I mean, I want to measure and compare on how my computer performs compared to champions. In absolute values, so it's not just limited because it's extremely relative. Just... you know, hard to explain, I hope you understand. Is there such absolute measure for human/computer calculation/prediction?

My experience is with the ECF system, which is probably not technically elo but I understand it approximates it. With that understanding, Tony gave the correct answer, but I want to elaborate.

A simple explanation of how the ECF rating works, using elo units: when you beat your opponent, you get his rating + 400 points for that game, if you draw you get his rating and if you lose, his rating - 400. Your rating for a period is calculated by averaging out all the ratings points so obtained over that period.

As you can see, your rating is normally expressed as a function of your opponents' rating. (There may be exceptions like when your opponent has no rating, or a rating very far away from your rating, but that can be safely ignored for this discussion). That means that no matter how good you are actually, you can only be measured in terms of how good you are relative to your opponents.

The implication of this is that if all your opponents' ratings remain static (as it would be between rating set points), your maximum possible rating is the highest opponent's rating plus 400. This can only be obtained if you keep on playing the next best rated player and win every game.

Let's say someone with Magnus Carlsen's ability appears out of nowhere and enters a junior tournament where all his opponents have ratings of +-1400. Low and behold, he wins all his games - but his rating for the tournament will still only be +-1800, because it is calculated based on the strength of his opponents.

Hence, as you can see, there is no absolute maximum theoretical rating, but there is a relative theoretical limit. As your opponents' ratings increase, your theoretical maximum rating also increases, but never above the highest opponent rating + 400.

** Note to technically minded: ECF rating is convertible to elo using a formula established by the ECF as described here. How accurate this is is probably disputable, but according to the latest formula, I should have used 375 points instead of 400 as described above.


Timeline of key historical changes to FIDE Laws & WFCC Codex? A well-answered question here: FIDE Laws of Chess pre-2017 asks for locations of historical sets of FIDE Laws. I am asking for something which partially builds on that.
Is there a timeline of "key" historical changes to rules (FIDE, USCF and earlier) & the WFCC Codex of Chess Problem Conventions, please? It's not going to be perfect initially or ever, but something which can grow.
Having such an artifact would allow us to assign a historical context to those chess compositions that riff on specific rules and conventions, for example: Dummy Pawn, Bosma theme, Dead Reckoning, Retro Strategy & Partial Retro-Analysis. This would be a general foundation for specific timelines listing relevant compositions themselves, e.g. the one at When (if ever) was it a rule that pawn promotion was optional?

Is there a timeline of "key" historical changes to rules (FIDE, USCF
and earlier)

Not so far although former FIDE rules commission member, Stewart Reuben, recently said:

To make it clear. I am writing a book, together with my co-authors Alex McFarlane and Sean Press. It is called A History of the Laws of Chess. Alex is dealing with the first section, from about 600 AD to the 15th century with the old rules. Sean is dealing with the introduction of the augmented powers of the queen, bishop and pawn 15th century to the formation of FIDE. I am dealing with the Laws since FIDE was formed IN 1924. That section is more-or-less completed.


What are the downsides of fast tie-breaks after drawn games? It is well known that a lot of games in the top level round-robin tournaments end in draws, often not very exciting ones. Many consider that detrimental, as it leads to spectators and sponsors losing their interest in the game. The anti-draw measures that have been tried are Sofia rules (ban on draw offers) and/or Bilbao rules (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw).

There also has been a proposal to introduce the following rule: if a game ends in a draw, the players switch colors and play another game with faster time control. If that also ends in a draw, they switch colors again and play one more game with even faster time control. And so on until the first game won by one of the sides, who then gets the full point. The tie-breaks may be played after the round (which shouldn't be too bad with modern time controls), or on separate days like the adjourned games of old times.

This leads to every pair in each round having a winner, and, at its face, this has several immediate advantages. The pre-agreed draws, or just quick draws between players who are not in a mood to fight, would not make sense anymore. A player with white pieces gets an incentive to try and get as much winning chances as possible, or face a rematch with black; playing solidly for a draw with white against a stronger opponent would not make sense.

However, despite all these advantages, and despite the fact that there are many rapid/blitz tournaments, I have never seen this scheme implemented. Why is that? What are the downsides of this rule? Have any top players ever commented on that?

For at least some of us, the sort of scheme you propose is an unsatisfactory way to break a tie/settle a draw. If the tournament is being played under classical time controls, but then every draw is turned into a win/loss by having the opponents play a blitz game, the nature of the game is different. While a patzer like me is never going to defeat a grandmaster (or even national master) at any time control, different players excel at different types of events, and it's not fair to someone who's good at classic time control chess to suddenly decide the winner of a game via rapid chess. As an observer, I might want to watch a rapid time control tournament sometimes, but when I'm following a classic time control event, I don't want to see it decided in a short time control tie breaker. (Yes, I know other people will have differing opinions.)

Also, why is a draw so bothersome? Is it necessary for every game to have a winner for you? Personally, I'm accustomed to the nature of chess involving lots of draws at the highest levels. Admittedly, I don't like pre-arranged and quick draws, but there other ways to handle that.

Of course, for a tournament, eliminating draws does not eliminate ties (although it may make them less frequent) at the end of events. While players' final scores may be more scattered, it will still be possible for two or more players to finish with the same total.

Addressing something you said in the last paragraph: While it was a match, not a tournament game, a famous example of using rapid games to decide a winner was the 2016 World Championship, which was decided by a series of rapid games after being tied at the end of the scheduled 12 games.

As for comments from top players, the Wikipedia article linked to above notes that former World Champion Anatoly Karpov didn't like using rapid games to decide the (classical) World Champion. Former candidate Yasser Seirawan also disliked it. Carlsen himself expressed a desire for a different format, but it wasn't clear whether he dislikes the rapid tie breaker.


How to understand Stockfish’s source code? I am a newbie. I want to code a chinese chess engine, and I want to modify Stockfish source code to do so. But the Stockfish source code is too hard to understand. There are no document to explain everything. I don't know where to start. For example, today I try to understand the bitbase.cpp file. This line of code in this file is not well documented:

constexpr unsigned MAX_INDEX = 2*24*64*64; // stm * psq * wksq * bksq = 196608

I really don't know where to ask questions about these kind of things. It's open source but it seem to be understanded by only few people. Please give me suggestions to understand the source code better. Thanks!

I believe the line you quote is about probing KPK tablebase endgame. There are 64 squares for the king, and 24 squares for the pawns (mirrored from file A to D). Nothing special, just how Stockfish indexes the bitbase data structure.

The code is not going to work in Chinese Chess for obvious reason.

  This line of code in this file is not well documented

No, the line was fully documented. Please look at the code file again.

  Please give me suggestions to understand the source code better

In the open source world, if you don't have sufficient coding experience you just can't do anything. You may ask on the Fishcooking forum, but you will still need decent programming experience.


Can you run "Full Analysis" in Fritz with a different engine? I have added Stockfish to the Deep Fritz GUI, and I even marked all engines except for Stockfish as inactive. However, when I run the "Full Analysis" it's still using Fritz.

Is there a way to use a different engine?

Go to Engine->Change main Engine... All you have to do then is select StockFish and click OK. Then click on New Game icon and the change will be applied, you should see title change from Fritz to StockFish. All that is left is to setup a position and run analysis...


What next after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 for the White tactical player? How should a tactical player as White play after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6?

The openings I am looking at are:

Ruy Lopez
Italian game
Scotch game
Three Knights

I am currently playing Scotch since it opens the centre early and I think it gives me more activity. Are there any other variations I should consider if I want activity and tactics?

I would recommend the Scotch Gambit. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4! The game becomes very tactical. For example, if Black attempts to protect the pawn by playing 4. ... Bc5, 5. c3! is a very useful recourse. If Black takes this pawn, 6. Bf7+! is a tactic, after 6. ... Kxf7 7. Qd4+! Wins the piece back.

Example game (White player = Nakamura) https://lichess.org/Zny0pBLO#27


Can black play the London system? After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3, Black usually plays Nf6  or e6 (which blocks his light-square bishop) and I wonder if it is possible for him to adopt the ideas from the London System and play Bf5 before e6. This is a rare move but I wonder if it is sound. After all, black is one tempo down compared with the London System by white. But is black's position solid enough to compensate this?

That is the Slav, but the problem for black in many of these lines, and specifically immediately, is that if 3...Bf5, then 4.cd cd 5.Qb3 forces you to sacrifice d5 or b7 since 5...b6 just loses.

         [FEN ""]

         1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Bf5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3! b6? 6.e4! (6.Nc3) Bxe4 (6...dxe4 7.Ne5+-) 7.Ne5 a6 8.Ba6! Ra6 9.Qb5 Nd7 10.Nd7! Qd7 (10...Ra5?? 11.Nf6++#) 11.Qxa6+-

This is just one example, and white can also play it more quietly with 6.Nc3 instead of 6.e4, but no matter how you do it, it is either the loss of a pawn with insufficient compensation, or worse, death on the light squares.

Lastly, you can try to postpone Bf5, but the same basic ideas are still strong later, or you lose a tempo with a6 putting you two tempi down on the same white opening. Basically, the answer is "no", the position cannot withstand the attempt to bring the B out early there.

P.S. I just looked at your picture again, and noticed the computer eval listed, and that +.73 is modest. It will probably grow after just a few moves.


To what extent should you prevent your opponent from castling? I normally try to prevent my opponent from castling if possible, by forcing their king to move or keeping an attacking piece on a diagonal or file.

I tend to make this a priority, giving up the opportunity to capture a pawn or pursue a different strategy early on.

Does this make sense? Would I be better off capturing a pawn if I can? Is preventing castling something that should be given priority, or is it more of an afterthought?

Can you try answering why are you trying to prevent your opponent from castling?

When you think about this more - you realize that castling prevention is just a tactical weapon, nothing more. Of course you can win a game if you are good at tactics, if your opponent makes mistakes, but, to quote Alekhine:

  "It took me many years to get rid of the bias that I can win in any
  position, even in a bad one, using some amazing combination".

The need for playing to prevent your opponent from castling is dictated by the position on the board. Of course it makes sense to follow this plan if you achieved some development advantage in the beginning of the game, your pieces are more active and you have good chances to start a massive attack against the enemy king that's trapped in the middle. Of course, sacrificing a pawn (or even more pieces) in this case is justified, since your positional advantage will compensate that.

What if you can't prevent your opponent from doing multiple exchanges after you sacrificed a pawn? Losing many active pieces (due to exchanges) will reduce your attacking potential. And you will have to play an endgame without a pawn. If your opponent is better than you at endgame - he will force those exchanges with the endgame in mind - entering it in a better (or even won) position. Since he will have at least two advantages over you:

+1 pawn
king in the middle (assuming you castled), which is considered an advantage in endgame

This is very important to consider, since often even a single exchange (of queens) serves as green light to endgame.


Downloading Games From Lichess I'd like to be able to automate downloading specific games that have been played on Lichess. Is there any software available that, if given useful information such as the Lichess usernames, colours, time control and (approximate) time of the game will download the game in pgn format? Command line please - ideally it will also flag an error if it fails to find exactly one match.
I'm running Linux, but as I expect anything that might exist will be in something like python I don't think that is a big issue.

Lichess has an API which can also be used to download games. For example:
https://lichess.org/api/games/user/{username}?max=3&color=white

This will download 3 most recent games played by {username} with the white pieces.
You can find the docs for this operation (and others) here:
https://lichess.org/api#operation/apiGamesUser
The introduction page lists some clients including one for Python:
https://lichess.org/api#section/Introduction


How is this position a checkmate? In the photo below, it does not appear that I have the black king under attack. The next move that I made was my white queen to d8 and instantaneously I was told I had won by checkmate.
How is this possible in this situation as I don't believe I had the king in check prior to that move?

No, the Black king is not checkmated in the photo, but it will be on the next move if you move your queen to either of the squares indicated by the arrows (i.e. to c8 or f7).  Qd8# would also work.  This is because all of the black king's potential escape squares are covered by your men in the case of Qc8# or Qd8#, and of course there are no potential escape squares after Qf7#. The opposing king doesn't have to be in check before you make your move for it to be a potential checkmate.


Is castling allowed in this position? [FEN "8/8/b7/8/8/8/8/4K2R w - - 0 1 "]

In this case White hasn't moved his King yet. Is castling allowed?

It's not possible to castle, because the f1 square is attacked.

See the Laws of Chess; article 3.8 (King moves), b(2):

  Castling is prevented temporarily:

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


Are world-class correspondence games more likely to be drawn than world class OTB games? A games of chess with perfect play from both sides may be a draw. And while we don't have any perfect chess players it does seem that a match between two equally strong grandmasters is more likely to be drawn that a game between two equally strong amateurs (though I have no statistics on this).

I believe the closest thing we have to perfect play is world-class correspondence play. Are top quality correspondence games yet more likely to be drawn that OTB grandmaster games?

EDIT in response to @Rauan's question: I'm not sure whether world-class correspondence play allows for use of computer, but I would be interested in statistics either way.

EDIT: in response to @Spork's point engine vs. engine games, I looked around online. The CCRL list shows the strongest AIs drawing 45%-60% of the time at relatively brisk 40-moves-in-40-minutes time controls. I found a post on chess.org that says that human grandmasters "have a draw rate approaching 60% or more in their games with other GMs," but these would be at longer time controls than the 40/40. So I don't think there's a clear signal.

A site called KCEC has a regression analysis showing that stronger engines to tend to draw more than weaker engines even when correcting for the difference in rating between opponents.

Yes (actually, hell yes).
World class correspondence chess is very close to the infamous "draw death" of chess. If you thought 70-80% draw rate among the world elite at classical chess was bad, check out what it's like at world correspondence chess championship level: 9 decisive games out of 136 played, or about 95% draws.
World class correspondence chess has some pretty crazy statistics as a result:

Anyone can draw against anyone else (comparatively, a player rated ~2000 has no chance against a player rated 2700+ in OTB classical).
Because most games ends in draws, it's awfully hard to gain elo. You stay where you are!
Some openings are considered so drawish that a draw can be predicted right out of the opening, e.g.:

DN: What is your Centaur opinion over AlphaZero? Would you be able to beat it in a fair match?
WM: That whole spectacle seemed to be a spun tale with a stacked deck. If AlphaZero were to play in an actual engine tournament like the TCEC, I seriously doubt it would even make it to the semifinals. In terms of beating it though, I couldn't say if that would actually happen. It could play something like the Petroff and easily draw and that would look like some sort of small victory on its part. However, I will say it will NOT beat me in a Centaur CC game. That's just not going to happen.

Can you imagine an OTB tournament where there is no winner because every game is drawn? It's happened in correspondence chess.
I've seen one top correspondence chess player say he'd have some pretty good odds of drawing against a 32-piece tablebase (!) in some lines such as the Ruy Lopez Berlin, even as Black.

As engines keep getting better, this draw rate is going to keep increasing.
Edit: here's a graphic by former World Correspondence Chess Champion Leonardo Ljubičić with the draw rates in correspondence chess. Engines are clearly having an impact in the middle range and above.


Caro-Kann 3.Nd2: is it worthwhile delaying or avoiding 3...dxe4 to exploit the poor position on the d2 knight? In the Caro-Kann where white plays 3.Nd2, it seems like the d2 knight is misplaced: it's on a worse square than c3, and it blocks the c1 bishop.  Black playing 3...dxe4 relieves white of both these problems (along with allowing white to play Bc4).  However, 3...dxe4 is by far the most popular move, probably partly because black has probably "booked up" on this line.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2

Question: Is it worthwhile delaying or avoiding 3...dxe4 to exploit the poor position on the d2 knight?

Judging from LiChess's master games, some players have tried 3...g6 followed by 4...Bg7.  For example, some master games follow the following lines (e.g. Smirin vs. Bologan, 1994, 1/2-1/2):

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 g6 4. Ngf3 Bg7
5. c3 Nd7 6. Bd3 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Ngf6 8. Nxf6+ Nxf6
9. O-O O-O

Here, g6, transposing to a Modern defense, Gurgenidze variation, isn't quite as good as it is against 3. Nc3. The problem with is that c3, supporting the d4 pawn, is still a possibility after 3. Nd2, vs 3. Nc3. 1. In other words, the slightly poor position of the knight is more than offset by being able to setup a strong pawn chain

According to the chess.com opening explorer, looking at master games only, black scores 26% with g6 against Nd2 (41% for white, 33% draws), as opposed to 30% against Nc3 (39% for white, 31% draws). While black scores about 2% better than the main dxe4, white scores about 5% better against g6.

1) Joe Gallagher, Starting out: The Caro-Kann.


Pawns In The Bishop Endgames Are there any general guidelines to choose the square colour for your own pawns in bishop endgames?

Especially in knight vs bishop endgames, would you put your pawns on same coloured squares as the opponent's bishop?

In general, the pawns should be on the opposite colour of the bishop, especially if this forces the opponent's pawns onto the same colour as the bishop.

This prevents the bishop from being bad (locked in by it's own pawns) and gives the bishop targets.

In my answer to When and why should I trade minor pieces?, I gave this sample position of a bishop dominating the knight:

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

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

This position is cited from Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn


Expected score in my first FIDE tournament Going to play my first international tournament next week.

As this is my first I do not have a FIDE ELO (I have national rating however).

How will my games be rated and how is my expected score for each game calculated?

The FIDE Rating Regulations give details of how the system works. You should scroll down to section 8. The working of the FIDE Rating System
which describes the mathematical tables and formulae used for calculating ratings.

Note that a fudge factor called the "Development Coefficient" is used in calculating ratings which determines by how much new results affect your existing rating once you have one.

  K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed
  events with at least 30 games

  K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.

  K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains
  at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.

  K = 40 for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their
  rating remains under 2300.

As a new player you will have a high K which will mean that your rating will change rapidly if you have results which vary widely from your previous results.


How would you play this opening as black? I keep fumbling through my openings and would love to improve and learn from others.  How would you play this position as black?
r1bqkbnr/p1pp2pp/1p3p2/n3P3/2B1P3/1P3N2/P1P2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 1

Well, Black has some weaknesses, is a little behind in development, and is down a pawn. The position isn't great, but things aren't hopeless.
The first thing I'd do is play Nxc4. I assume the knight was placed on a5 to do just that. White gets some doubled isolated pawns and loses a potential attacker in the bishop. It seems like a no-brainer.
Next, I'd develop the bishops with Bb7 and probably Bc5.
We probably need to deal with the pawn on e5 before very long. It's hard to develop the g8 knight with that pawn there. While playing fxe5 is possible, I don't like inviting the White knight to e5. It may be better to play d6 instead to attack the pawn from the other side, depending on how the game goes.
Black also needs to decide where to castle - the middle is too open to leave the king there for long. Both sides have their pros and cons. The movement of the f-pawn has weakened the kingside and White will likely put their remaining bishop on b2 to attack the kingside, but the queenside has a half-open b-file and it wouldn't take much for the c4 pawn to go to c5 to try and crack Black's queenside. Overall, I'd probably pick the kingside. An opened f-file might even be good for the rook after castling.
Obviously, any plan may need to be adjusted based on how White plays.


Why do some players consider it rude not to accept a rematch in online blitz? I play a lot of online blitz, and frequently my opponent would offer a rematch after a game. Although I sometimes accept, I usually am more interested in analyzing the game to see if I can learn from my mistakes, so I usually decline.

Reading some of the comments posted on chess.com, it seems that some players take offence at this, even going so far as to block opponents who don't accept their rematch request.

Why do players think they are entitled to a rematch? Am I breaking some unwritten etiquette? If I keep declining these requests, will I find myself out of opponents?

They may have made a fatal mistake and think that in another game they can win.

It happens sometimes. You could make a mistake, or miss a mating pattern, and suddenly you've lost the game although you thought you were in the lead. In this case, many people may ask for a rematch because they think that they should have won and want to redeem themselves. If you decline this request, they may see it as claiming a "cheap win".

They may also get offended by you declining their request because they might see it as "running away" from them, a more able player. This is almost insulting because they may see it as acknowledging that they "should have won", but running away with the victory regardless.

They could be Rating Farming.

If your opponent beat you by a large margin, they may ask for a rematch in order to secure a couple of easy wins against you, especially if you have a higher rating than them. Declining this rematch is denying that possible rating boost and could be taken the wrong way.

Both of the above reasons depict your opponents in a rather negative way, however I think that anyone who blocks another user on the basis that they won't accept a rematch request may not be the best sportsman. The thing is, if they are asking for a rematch because they like your playing style, or want to learn from you, they aren't going to block you if you decline, are they?

Perhaps it's me, perhaps not, but I think that anyone who blocks others for not accepting a rematch is either trying to get easy wins for rating or annoyed / in a bad mood about their own play.

Being frustrated about making mistakes, if allowed to affect your play, will lead to more mistakes and more frustration. Frustrated players make rash decisions and are more likely to take out their anger on their opponent.

I don't think you are breaking any unspoken code of online chess, I just think that some of the chess players out there lack a certain amount of maturity. Take them to a real tournament where you are face to face with your opponent and perhaps they'll learn some tips.


Why does the computer want to undermine this pawn chain at the tip instead of at its root? I had the following position with black in a game I recently played:

[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/2Pp4/3P4/4PN2/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 9 5"]

and proceeded with 5... e5

However, after the game was over, while reviewing it with a chess engine, Stockfish suggested 5... b6 instead and gives -0.16 (equal)

I find this very confusing. I was taught in Nimzowitsch's My System (among in other sources) that one must undermine a pawn chain at it's root, hence e5 seems appropriate.

So my question is: without looking deep into variations, why is in this case b6 a good move (in principle)? Wouldn't white follow up with b4 and have a nice position?

You would like an answer that does not "go into deep variations", but if all such questions could be answered just on general principles, chess would not be as interesting as it is. In this particular case 5.c5 is definitely premature and BOTH methods of undermining the center work well, transferring the initiative (but no more) to Black. The tactics are important. AS Glorfindel observes, after 6..a5 the chain cannot be preserved. If it could, the assessment would change. Usually, though, you either need to strike soon, or you must be able to see that a delayed strike cannot be prevented.

But computer assessments at early stages of the game do not mean much. Stockfish is just saying that both approaches are playable, and you cannot trust it more than that.


Chess endings progress story There are lots of questions asked here about best books about endings or which types of endings are important at the beginning. I have another question - how do you benefit from learning endings?

E.g. You've read Silman/Dvoretsky/Averbach/Pandolfini books and how did it benefit you? You just achieve (trying to achieve) positions from the books in your games, or is it just easier to create plans in endgames and you just 'see' what should be played?

I think there are several ways you benefit from endgame study.

Your middlegame can benefit: For a beginner player it is often easier to process an emptier board with few pieces. The limited move options and plans then can help to focus on main concepts or ideas.

For instance if you learn to mate K+R vs K, you will learn how the pieces move, which squares are "attacked" (unavailable to the enemy king) and that in order to win you need to checkmate (take away all possible moves from the king and attack it). Also you will learn about zugzwang. All of this can be useful in the middlegame as well.

As another example you will learn that isolated and other weak pawn structures are things you don't want to have in an endgame, so you will want to avoid them in the middlegame (unless you get another advantage in exchange).

Also the importance of piece activity is usually pronounced in endgames which could make you pay more attention to it in the opening/middlegame.

It can make you win equal positions (or hold lost positions) ...if you are much better in endgames than your opponent.

It can help you decide whether and how to change from middle to endgame If you know that an endgame position is won/lost/draw, you might or might not want to go for a line in the middlegame that leads to that endgame.


What is White's objective from this state? [fen "r4rk1/pp1q1p1p/2p1b1p1/3pPp2/1P1Q1P2/P7/2PB1P1P/2KR2R1 w - - 3 14"]

Hey all, I've used SE for other things and I just played a Chess game and I figured this might be a good place to turn for answers.

I am fairly novice at chess and I was playing a timed game and this is the state of the board at the end of the online game.  Obviously White wants to force the game on dark squares and black is pushing for light squares, but given the board state I cannot see what either player can hope to accomplish without sacrificing many pieces to break down the pawn structure.

What should white's objective be to try and win this game?  Can he even win if Black doesn't make any horrendous mistakes?

White needs to put his bishop on f6 in order to create winning chances, so a good way to start is by playing f3, planning Be1-h4-f6, followed by Qf2, with two ideas: either Qh4, Rg5-h5 (possibly with Rdg1 first if necessary), or Rg3-h3, then Rxh7, with mate in either case.

The first question is whether black can defend against this by moving his king to the queenside, and playing h5 at the right moment. But a more important question (as the former is a best case scenario in which white cannot lose) is whether black's counterattack on the queenside with b6 and a5 or c5 may end with white getting mated (as white's plan is slow, whereas black's counterattack is quick, though mate is not obvious).

But in any case, with the white pieces, you must realise that lines will be opened on the queenside, so black can also play for a win. The only reason why white may claim an advantage in this position is because his bishop may potentially have a future over black's, but this isn't necessarily true if black can find a good square for his bishop if and when he plays c5 and d4.

So f3 and manoeuvring the bishop to f6 is white's only way to win; black has the option of defending or counterattacking. Conversely, white can attempt to establish a grip on the dark squares by playing Be3 and c3, and try to hold the position to a draw, but this seems unlikely as black will be able to crash through.

Long story short: white's plan as described is practically forced, but whether he will win or not is a different story.


Are there any papers that highlight the problems with rating systems? Ratings are a paradox.   Mathematically they seem to dependent on other factors than ability.  Yet people are obsessed with their rating as if it defines them as a person somehow.

Are their any papers that discuss the many problems that all current rating systems have along with their shortcomings and the ASSUMPTIONS that were used in deciding how to create a rating system.

Are there any statistical studies showing the distribution of wins/draws based on rating differences that have been validated and show whether the assumptions used in FIDE tables and other places are accurate?

OTOH  Ratings are useful and 'close enough for government work'
But they fall far short of what many people believe about them.

It's a bit old, but this paper from 1995 by Mark Glickman (creator of the Glicko rating system) discusses some of the rating systems in use at the time, including the ones used by the USCF, FIDE, and the PCA. In it, several issues are mentioned, such as rating inflation/deflation, regional variations in ratings, variations in time controls, and the advantage of White. There's some other interesting stuff in there, like how natural ratings variation means that a stronger player will have a less than predicted actual performance against weaker players.

Not everything in it is still accurate. For example, at one point it states that the USCF rates events in the order they are received rather than the order in which they were played, but currently the USCF will re-rate the more recent event if an older event is submitted to it, so that is no longer a problem with that system. It also states that FIDE has a minimum rating of 2000, and that is no longer the case. The paper also obviously doesn't discuss any of the more recent systems. But it may be a good starting point.


How many moves of head start does white need for a guaranteed win? As we all know, it is not known whether white can always win in chess with optimal play. If, however, white got to make two moves before black made their first move would they be able to win with perfect play? What would those first two moves be? How about if white gets three "headstart moves"?
If white is allowed four moves of head start then it is clearly a forced mate as can be seen from the fact that a scholar's mate can be achieved in four moves if black waits patiently.
I feel like three moves would be enough of a headstart, even though mate can't be achieved immediately, though I could be wrong. Any ideas or strategies are appreciated.

There is a similar ancient question, but this isn't a duplicate since White may move anywhere.
For an upper bound, I can prove a guaranteed win for White in 5 moves. Indeed, it is reminiscent of Scholar's Mate.
[FEN ""]

1. e3 null 2. Bc4 null 3. Qf3 null 4. Nh3 null 5. Ng5

With Black to move, as White has now used up their five given moves, Stockfish announces a mate in 6.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/6N1/2B5/4PQ2/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... d5 2. Qxf7+ Kd7 3. Qxd5+ Ke8 4. Qf7+ Kd7 5. Qf5+ Kc6 6. Qb5+ Kd6 7. Ne4#

(If Black plays 1... d6?, then it is instead a mate in four with 2. Bxf7+ Kd7 3. Be6+ Ke8 4. Qf7#.)
The problem for a setup four is that, with the Scholar's Mate setup, f7 needs to be attacked thrice, which doesn't seem possible. Additionally, there is no obvious way to do it without Scholar's Mate.


What is the origin of descriptive notation? Algebraic Notation is the modern standard for recording chess games. It is easily human-readable, yet it can be parsed by computers without difficulty.

Descriptive notation predates algebraic significantly. Essentially all English-language chess literature from 1960 or earlier records moves descriptively. The Wikipedia article doesn't provide sources for who developed this notation or when it emerged. There's an unsubstantiated reference on the Chess Notation Wikipedia page to 18th century usage, and it claims that Philidor's defeat of Philip Stamma stunted the growth of algebraic notation. Hence the question:

Is there any history as to when descriptive chess notation emerged, and who developed it?

AFAIK, Edward Lasker (not Emmanuel) Lasker was the only master player resident in the USA to publish in Algebraic before the 1970s, substituting English initials for the German he would have used before immigrating. Not only are Bobby Fischer's books in Descriptive, so are his scoresheets.

I don't know about 18th Century usage, but I have read 19th Century British works that use a descriptive phrase like "King to his third square" for K-K3, either Ke6 or Ke3 (the color being obvious by whose turn it is to play). The transition from phrasing to a strictly symbolic Descriptive notation, I can't help with.