Meaning and origin of 'theory' in 'opening theory' What precisely does 'opening theory' mean? Generally when I see the word 'theory', I'd expect a conceptual move away from the particular towards the universal. That is, I would expect 'opening theory' to refer to a generalizing reasoning about strategic options and dangers implicit in an opening, aiming for the formulation of guidelines and principles. But the way I see it used in the chess world, 'opening theory' seems to pertain to the memorization of particular variations. Is this correct? If so, I find this slightly odd: How did this use of the word come about?

You are right in your assessment of the usage.

Opening theory refers to particular variations; but also to typical plans specific to the respective openings.

Opening principles (develop pieces, occupy the center...) are of a more general nature applying to all (or most) openings and is closer to what one would consider a "theory".

I don't have a good answer to your question, but in recent years at least there has been a trend away from playing based on opening principles towards  concrete play. So perhaps at one point in time, "opening theory" was a lot more based on principles and less concrete lines!?


What's the best play when you're losing? When you're down a few pieces or even in a bad position, which is better, playing offensive or defensive?

Usually when you are decisively down in material, the best option is to make the position as complicated as possible. If you don't create any threats, your opponent doesn't have a chance to go wrong. And if nothing special happens, you are going to lose. So stir it up, create a mess, chaos on the board and suddenly everything is possible again, especially if you're opponent tries to play it super safe and gets low on time.

If your position is just somewhat worse, however, lashing out with some sacrifices often makes it much easier for your opponent to finish you off. So dogged defence against all tactical possibilities is often a better try in such a situation.

Of course if your position is somewhere between worse and lost, it is often hard to decide which way to go. Miss too many chances to mess it up and suddenly you're dead lost. Mess it up to early and suddenly you get messed up. ;-)

One final tip: Try to be ahead on the clock. It is a very common scenario that you defend very well for a long time, and just when the position is equal again, you blunder the game away, because you're low on time.

An example by the current World Champ:
Carlsen-Topalov, 2012:
Incredibly Carlsen just overlooked 20…Nb2, as he said after the game, but he immediately sacrificed a lot more material to get an attack going. Objectively this shouldn't have been enough, but he created enough chaos to eventually confuse Topalov and in the end even win the game.

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. c3 Ngf6 5. Qe2 a6 6. Ba4 Qc7
7. O-O e5 8. d4 b5 9. Bc2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Be7 11. Nc3 O-O
12. Bg5 h6 13. Bh4 Bb7 14. Rad1 Rac8 15. Bb3 Rfe8 16. dxe5
dxe5 17. Bg3 Bf8 18. h3 Nb6 19. Nh4 Nc4 20. Nf5 Nxb2 21. Bh4
Nxd1 22. Bxf6 Nxc3 23. Qg4 Bxe4 24. Nxh6+ Kh7 25. Bxf7 Qxf7
26. Nxf7 gxf6 27. f4 Bg6 28. Qh4+ Kg7 29. fxe5 Ne4 30. Rxf6
Bc5+ 31. Kh2 Nxf6 32. Qxf6+ Kh7 33. Ng5+ Kh6 34. Ne6 Rxe6
35. Qxe6 Re8 36. Qf6 Be7 37. Qxa6 b4 38. Qc4 Bf8 39. g4 Kh7
40. e6 Bd6+ 41. Kg2 Be7 42. Qc7 Kg8 43. Kg3 Kf8 44. Qf4+ Kg7
45. Qd4+ Kg8 46. h4 Rd8 47. Qc4 Bd3 48. Qc6 Bb1 49. h5 Bxa2
50. Qe4 Kh8 51. h6 Bf6 52. e7 Re8 53. Qf4 Bg7 54. hxg7+ Kxg7
55. g5 Kg8 56. Qf6 1-0


How much of the Principal Variation can I trust? Chess engines will have a Principal Variation (PV) that may be as many as 30 (or more) ply deep.  Of course, the PV and the other facets of the engine help to determine the best move at the root position (the first ply).

However, how accurate is the rest of the PV?  Some of the PV is most certainly wrong; for example, the very last ply of a depth 30 search will almost certainly change in evaluation if it were instead treated as the root position.  Is there an easy way determine how much of the PV is trustworthy, and how trustworthy it is?

The answer is, of course, it depends:

Sometimes the engine will accurately calculate a very long sequence of forced moves and all of it will be correct (the more powerful the engine, the most likely this is to happen)

Other times, not even the first move will be correct. It may also occur that the computer plays "correctly" but still gives a wrong evaluation (this is often the case in positions with fortresses)

In summary, your question is too broad, as the answer will vary too much depending on what software you are using, on which machine it is running, and most importantly, what position they are evaluating.


How to solve this puzzle of Martin Gardner? Martin Gardner mentioned the following "chess" problem in his column, Mathematical Games, for Scientific American (he got it from Smullyan, who learned about it from a high school math teacher):

... Assume that a game is played with the new rule that a knight can on a single turn move twice. It is not clear if this more powerful knight move is an advantage to the first or second player. The first player, White, offers to play the game without his queen. How can he be sure to win?

After thinking a bit, I could not make progress, so I look at the solution:

 White jumps queen's knight forward twice. Checkmate!

That's all it says. How is this a checkmate? I must be missing something.

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game

That means that if white has a knight which is 2 normal knight moves away from the opponent's king then the opponent's king is in check, under attack.
Then consider white starting the game like this:
[fen ""]

1. Nc3 null 2. Nb5

Then you can see the black king is in check. On the knight's next move it can go Nb5-d6-e8. But there is no way for black to get out of check. Hence it is checkmate.


Chessbase 14 - How do I enumerate variations in it? How can I enumerate variations in CB with A) A1) A2) B) etc. to make them more readable?

Like this:

Thank you!

Options > Notation > Structured Variations


Whose games should I collect for Scotch Opening? I have been adopting the Scotch opening recently with some moderate success. I would like to know whose games should I look at to have a good understanding. I see that Nakamura and Kasparov deploy Scotch reasonably often. Apart from him, I was surprised to see that Tal used Scotch in only 3 games and Fischer never. I was under the impression that Scotch gives rise to dynamic active position and hence my surprise.

I religiously play scotch in e4/e5 games. Sergei Rublevsky is the star I follow.


If on my turn I adjust a piece on its square without saying "J'adoube" or equivalent do I have to move it? Suppose I nudge a piece back on to the center of its square using a light tap with the back of my little finger. Will this constitute touching the piece within the meaning of the FIDE touch-move rule?

Article 4.3 of the FIDE rules states:

  Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move
  touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:

So, if it is clear that my intention is merely to adjust the position of one of the pieces then touch-move does not apply. Of course it must be done on my turn otherwise I am liable to be penalized for disturbing the opponent.

EDIT (2018): The latest 2018 edition of the FIDE Laws of Chess contradict this -

  4.2.1 Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for
  example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).
  4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

So, if I clumsily brush a piece with my army or knock one or more pieces over this does not count as intention. However if I adjust a piece without saying "j'adoube" or the equivalent then I must move the piece.


Rated Tournaments in France - For a Poor French Speaker My wife and I are relocating to France this year. As a very poor French speaker, I was wondering how I would cope with entering rated tournaments in France. Any advice from a native English speaker?

I am planning on joining a club out there, in a bid to improve my French and become more social.

As long as you enter FIDE rated tournaments you should be OK. If the arbiter is a FIDE International Arbiter he is required to know English. English is the main FIDE language and according to FIDE Regulations for the Titles of Arbiters -

  4. Requirements for the title of International Arbiter.
  All of the following:
  ...
  4.3 Obligatory knowledge of English language, minimum at conversation level; and of chess terms in other official FIDE
  languages.

Arbiters with just the FA title are not obliged to have good knowledge of English but will need it if they have ambitions to become IAs.

That said, the French are notoriously bad at foreign languages. I went to live and work there after having lived and worked in Germany for some time and the contrast was stark.

My experience going to open a bank account in Munich went something like this -

Me to stereotypical gorgeous, blonde teller: "Entschuldigung Sie. Ich moechte ein Konto oeffnen"
Brunhilde: "Certainly sir. Your passport please? You are working at Digital?"

I tried the same thing only in French at the bank near where I worked on the southern edge of Paris and got a reply in French. With my schoolboy French it was a struggle but she was patient and I just about managed.

For chess tournaments you might be OK but for general life I would strongly recommend you have French lessons while you are there.

Also, if you are the Owen Rees with FIN 343113860 then I would recommend you try and get a proper FIDE ID number before you go. If you are in England (might also work in Wales) then the cheapest / easiest way is to enter a FIDE rated blitz tournament. The ECF doesn't grade blitz and FIDE don't charge federations for rating blitz so you will end up getting a FIN free of federation membership fees.

PS. I'm guessing you already know "j'adoube". The other useful word is "remis" for when you want to offer a draw.


Studying Chess for the Ambitious Intermediate I'm about 1700 ELO, and I've recently started playing regularly in tournaments. I love playing, and I love the competition. My main goal is to be a 2000+ player.

I got to 1700 by simply doing tactics problems and playing as carefully as I can to not make dumb tactical mistakes in my games. I can beat weaker players this way, but I usually get outplayed against stronger players who just don't make obviously bad moves. I must study stuff other than tactics if I want to get better.

Thing is, I feel there is just too much to study. I can spare 3-4 hours a day on chess, but I cannot do anything constructive because I'm trying to learn everything: books on my most frequently played opening lines, books on pawn structures, books on planning, books on endgame studies, books on instructive master games, books everywhere! And then there is practicing my calculation and analysis by playing solitaire chess, and analyzing my own games to figure out my weaknesses, and improving my board vision. I can go on, but you get the idea.

If I was focusing on any one of those things I would be fine, but doing all of them is overwhelming. So the best way to figure out what to do is to ask people who are already at the point I want to be. 2000+ ELO players, how was your daily training (when you were not playing at some tournament)?

Obviously there are different ways to train, but I'd like to hear about these different ways so that I can have an idea about how to get started on making my own custom program that I can stick to.

First of all, there is no method that will just make you half an Elo point stronger each and every day. Chess improvement usually happens in leaps and bounds with long phases of seeming stagnation in between.

The reason you feel overwhelmed is that you focus on the result instead of the process. And you realise that between the desired result and your current state there is still so much work to do. And where to start?

The answer is that it doesn't really matter where you start. If you immerse yourself in chess for several hours a day, you will get better. It is not so much what exactly you do that is important, it is the attitude of mental activity and joyful exploration. Otherwise you will just lose motivation or never really get started.

Personally I played through lots and lots of books, basically what ever chess book I could get my hands on. But I know other people who got over 2000 Elo just by playing many tournaments (like rapid tournaments basically every weekend).

I also always solved a lot of puzzles. Played against myself (trying to find nice combinations), played against a board computer, probably didn't play enough tournaments.

My personal advice would be: Play as many tournament games as possible. Playing chess is a practical skill. In between tournaments do tactics and stuff that is fun for you. Go and get just one book at a time. If you need something really structured, do the Yusupov books.


Checkmate with two knights? Is it really possible to checkmate with two knights and king against a king?

There is a mating position with this but no extra tempo to do it in real game.

What are the explanations, why knights cannot create an extra tempo around 64 squares on the board?

Is it really possible to checkmate with two knights and king against a
  king?

Theoretically, the checkmate is possible, but you can not do it in practice unless the weaker side allows you to. This is related to a drawback in the way knight moves.

  There is a mating position with this but no extra tempo to do it in
  real game.

  What are the explanations, why knights cannot create an extra tempo
  around 64 squares on the board?

There are two reasons:

They can not do it because they can not move to another square while keeping the previous one in control ( like bishop and many other pieces can ) and because they need too much time to position themselves properly.

DEMONSTRATING KNIGHT'S INABILITY TO "LOSE TEMPO" :

Take the following position as an example:

[Title "This position is won with a bishop"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/4B3/8/P7/K1k5 w - - 0 1"]

This position is won for White because he can play with bishop and retain control over c2 square ( 1.Bh7for example ), which will create zugzwang. As you say in your question, White will "lose tempo" and force Black to move his king away.

Now analyze this position with a knight instead of a bishop:

[Title "If it is White to move this is a draw"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/3N4/8/P7/K1k5 w - - 0 1"]

Why is this endgame only a draw? Because White can not move and keep control over c2 square. This means that he can not create zugzwang, or as you say he can not "lose tempo" to force Black king away.

Without the ability to create zugzwang you are just not able to corner the opposing king.

DEMONSTRATING KNIGHT'S INABILITY TO POSITION ITSELF PROPERLY :

As for the positioning problem, we shall take a look at the below diagrams:

[Title "Agile and swift bishop"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1K1N4/3B4/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nb4 Ka1 2.Nc2+ Kb1 3.Na3+ Ka1 4.Bc3#

Here, bishop needed 1 move to reach the mating square. Notice that the endgame would be drawn, just as the one with two knights, if bishop was not able to reach c3 in one move.

In the following diagram you will see that knight needs more moves to reach the mating square, which enables the weaker side to draw:

[Title "Clumsy knight"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1K1N4/4N3/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nb4  Ka1 2.Nc2+ Kb1 3.Na3+ Ka1

and here Ne2 needs 2 moves to reach c2 and deliver checkmate.

Remember this: Knights experience great difficulties when they need to reposition themselves between short distant squares in a short notice. This is often impossible task for them. The following example demonstrates clearly what I mean:

[Title "Slow knight"]
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/1K5p/6N1/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

In this position we can see how hard it is for the knight to position himself fast to a square nearby like f3 or g4. Again he needs 2 moves to do this and thus he fails to save the game.

SUMMARY:

Knight's way of moving gives him ability to "do the impossible". He can "jump over" obstacles, his attacks can not be stopped, his line of fire can not be covered or intercepted, but all these beautiful features come with a price. He is slow and clumsy when he needs to reposition himself to a square in its proximity, and if player can not "buy" him enough time to do that then knight fails to accomplish this task.

Hopefully this post answers your question. If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.


Why doesn't FIDE recalculate ratings match after match? In this question I brought up two rating systems and wondered which is used by FIDE.
Briefly, they are:

Method 1 Ratings are updated (recalculated in other words) after every match.

Method 2 Ratings are recalculated after a specific period of time, say after a tournament or once a month.

I found out that FIDE uses method 2 (recalculates ratings once a month).
My question
Why doesn't FIDE recalculate ratings after every match?
Is there some kind of statistical problem with that? I don't mean to be partial to either method, but there must have been a compelling reason for FIDE to choose method 2 over method 1, and I'd like to know what that is.
I always thought recalculating the ratings match after match would make the system more accurate, but I'm not an expert, so I can't be sure.

The ECF only update grades once every 6 months and their main reason is practicality. If they were to update grades after every game, it would require team captains and tournament organizers to submit game results immediatley after the game was played. In reality, results are only submitted a few days or weeks after the game, making instant grade updates difficult. With regional leagues it is even worse, with many leagues only submitting the entire grading period's result in bulk once at the end of the period.

I suspect Fide has a similar reasoning. Most Fide rated games are not between super grand masters in highly visible professional tournaments, but amongst amateur players on a club or school level relying on volunteers to make it work. It would be impractical to expect of these individuals to comply to a rigid regime of correctly submitting game results continuously - the number of mistakes and complaints would be enormous. By only updating grades monthly, they allow up to a month's leeway on results submission.


What's the highest rating any computer has ever attained? Along with that, I'd like to know what the highest rating of any human has ever been - including historical estimates.

This page has a lot of good info.  Kasparov is the highest at 2851.  However, such comparisons are fraught with peril as ratings inflate, and they really can't be compared from era to era.  I don't think it will be long before Magnus Carlsen takes the 'highest rating' crown. This won't mean he's stronger than Kasparov at his peak.

Computer ratings are trickier.  Rybka 3 claims over 3200 Elo.  If this is the true, then only about 6 GMs in the world have a statistical chance of defeating it.

EDIT - that 3200 rating is on specialized hardware.  I think on a common (but beefy) PC, the rating is about 100 pts lower.  This means that currently there are about 30 players in the world who have a statistical chance of not losing.  None of them have an appreciable chance of winning.  Don't be depressed - no human has an appreciable chance of beating a car at a race.  Somehow this didn't make track and field less interesting.


Examples of hidden gems For the moment, I have a hard time finding time for chess due to studies, so for the time being, chess has to be a purely recreational activity for me. What I'm looking for are examples of beutiful games that may or may not be very well known.

For example, I like the following game played between Yuri S. Gusev (white) and Yuri Averbakh(or E. Auerbach, depending on the source) in 1946. In the game, White's winning idea could be described as(just slightly bending the truth):

Give your opponent a rook
Afterwards, give your opponent a queen, to balance things out
After that, dominate your opponent, and win

The game:

[Date "1946"]
[White "Gusev, Yuri"]
[Black "Averbakh, Yuri or Auerbach, E."]
[Result "1-0"]

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

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be2 Nc6 7. Nb3 Bg7 8. O-O Be6 9. f4 Rc8 10. f5 Bd7 11. g4 Ne5 12. g5 Ng8 13. Nd5 f6 14. Be3 b6 15. Nd4 Kf7 16. c3 Qe8 17. Ne6 Bxe6 18. fxe6 Kf8 19. Nxf6 Nxf6 20. gxf6 Bxf6 21. Bh6 Kg8 22. Rxf6 exf6 23. Qxd6 Rc6 24. Qxe5 fxe5 25. Rf1 Rc8 26. Bd1 Rc4 27. Bb3 b5 28. Bxc4 bxc4 29. b3 a5 30. bxc4 Qe7 31. Kg2 Qa3 32. Rf2 Qe7 33. Rf1 g5 34. Rf5 g4 35. c5 Qd8 36. c6 Qe7 37. c7 1-0

The purpose behind this post is that I would like to generate a collection of nice and inspiring games on this site, which I haven't really found yet. I know that it's quite subjective to determine whether a game is beautiful or not, but I feel like stuff like this might bring something valuable to this community.

Gusev - Averbach is a good start; it reminds me of the following game, where less material is sacrificed (only a knight) but more pieces are dominated:

The immortal Zugzwang game

(taken from here)

[Date "1923"]
[White "Saemisch, Friedrich"]
[Black "Nimzowitsch, Aron"]
[Result "0-1"]

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

1. d4 {Notes by Nimzowitsch's "My System"} Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. O-O d5 8. Ne5 c6 {Safeguards the position} 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Bf4 a6 {Protects the oupost station c4, i.e., by ...a6 and ...b5.} 11. Rc1 b5 12. Qb3 Nc6 {The ghost! With noiseless steps he presses on towards c4.} 13. Nxc6 {Samisch sacrifices two tempi (exchange of the tempo-eating Knight on e5 for the Knight which is almost undeveloped) merely to be rid of the ghost.} Bxc6 14. h3 Qd7 15. Kh2 Nh5 {I could have supplied him with as yet a second ghost by ...Qb7 and ...Knight-d7-b6-c4, but I wished to turn my attention to the King's side.} 16. Bd2 f5 {!} 17. Qd1 b4 {!} 18. Nb1 Bb5 19. Rg1 Bd6 20. e4 fxe4 {! This sacrifice, which has a quite surprising affect, is based upon the following sober calculation: two Pawns and the 7th rank and an enemy Queen's wing which cannot be disentangled - all this for only one piece!} 21. Qxh5 Rxf2 22. Qg5 Raf8 23. Kh1 R8f5 24. Qe3 Bd3 25. Rce1 h6 {!! A brilliant move which announces the Zugzwang. White has not a move left. If, e.g., Kh2 or g4, then R5f3. Black can now make waiting moves with his King, and White must, willy-nilly, eventually throw himself upon the sword.} 0-1


The path of learning chess I'm looking to become a better chess player. I play online and sometimes with my friends offline as well. I've also started to study openings.
It is very difficult to get the right direction of study. What way should I move to progress in my play? What is the "path" of learning chess?

Avoid the trap of studying openings, they don't improve your game. Say, at most 10% of your training time before you start making IM norms. They can be addictive and maybe even improve your results in the short term, but in the long term they just don't improve your chess playing.

The basis of improvement: playing serious, slow games (say at least half an hour on the clock) against decent opponents, afterwards if possible exchange thoughts about the game with your opponent (go through the game again). Then, before you forget them, write down as much as you remember about your thoughts during the game. Why did you play moves, but also why didn't you play others. Which moves of him surprised you. Then, go over the game again and check your thoughts. Was the line you were afraid of when you didn't play that move really so dangerous? That attack looked good, wasn't there a way to win? And so on. Find your mistakes, and don't make them again.

Play through well-annotated grandmaster games.

Learn how to win endings where you're material up, or draw them even when you're material down.

Train tactics on Chesstempo.com.

Play real tournaments over the board.

Once you're of sufficient strength (1600-1700ish over the board), start working through Yusupov's orange books. They have hard exercises covering a wide range of subjects you need to get good at. But that's probably for later.


What is the best move for black in this game? [FEN "1k5r/p1p2pq1/2n5/1p1p3n/1P1Pp2Q/P1P1P1P1/1B1K2B1/7R b - - 0 1"]

Today I was playing a game with myself only. This is the condition now it is black to move. What can be the best move in this situation?

The knight on h5 is pinned to a rook, and faced with the potential threat of g4. To unpin this knight, Black should play Rh7, so that the knight is free to go to f6 (where it will protect the rook).

[FEN "1k5r/p1p2pq1/2n5/1p1p3n/1P1Pp2Q/P1P1P1P1/1B1K2B1/7R b - - 0 1"]

1...Rh7 2.g4 { This move is just for illustration, and probably not best. } Nf6

I would argue that Rh7 is the best move in this position. It has been stated in a comment that Stockfish marginally prefers a6 to Rh7 (although it always prefers Rh7 when I try it, at all depths from 3 to 46 - it probably depends on cache state, number of threads, etc.). But from a human point of view, I don’t think a6 makes much sense: all the while the pin exists, White can try to find ways of exploiting it; Black ought to put a stop to this right now. In fact, the main purpose of a6 (from Stockfish’s point of view) seems to be to deal with one possible way of exploiting the pin; but clearly it’s simpler just to remove the pin.


Comparing ELO ratings between different countries I've noticed (empirically) that American players tend to be weaker than Israeli players with comparable non-international ratings. Is there a tool for converting one country's Elo rating to that of another? Or of otherwise verifying this claim?

When you say 'comparable non-international ratings' do you mean USCF ratings?  Or perhaps Israeli ratings? There is no valid way to compare the ratings of players if they don't use the same rating system.  Even if they use the same system things can get odd when groups of players are isolated from one another.

While ELO isn't perfect (what is?), players' ELO ratings can be (and are) compared directly.  There is still the 'pool' problem especially at the lower levels but at least the system is the same.

Edit - my answer makes the assumption the entire ratings lists of both countries aren't available.  If they are available, a mathematical approximation can be made.  It will not be very accurate for the ends of the bell curve.  For example, I would not use this to compare the strongest GMs in each country.


A problem rebus-reproduce the game Here is a chess "rebus" problem. In this position, white and black circles correspond to White and Black pieces respectively. Each letter corresponds to exactly one piece type (king, queen, rook, knight, bishop or pawn). The task is to find letter-piece correspondence.

I know that the answer is:

 A = rook; B = king; C = bishop; D = queen; E = knight.

Can you a list of moves which leads to such a position?

Highly non-optimal, but here's one line that reproduces the position. The basic idea is to not capture the existing pieces, but capture pawns. A single pawn capture can free 3 pawns to promote. Here's a sample game.
   [FEN ""]

   1.h4 a6 2.h5 g5 3.hxg6 Nf6 4.g7 h5 5.g8=R h4 6.g4 h3 7.g5 h2 8.Nf3 Nd5 9.
   g6 Nb6 10.g7 Rh4 11.Rg1 h1=R 12.Rh8 Nd5 13.g8=R Rh5 14.R1g5 R1h4 15.Rh6
   Nb6 16.Rg8g6 f5 17.e4 fxe4 18.Nd4 e3 19.Bh3 e5 20.Ke2 e4 21.Qh1 Nd5 22.Kf1
   e2+ 23.Kg2 e1=R 24.f4 e3 25.f5 Bb4 26.f6 e2 27.f7+ Ke7 28.f8=R Rf1 29.Nb3
   e1=R 30.Rf4 Re6 31.Rf3 Rf6 32.Rgg3 Re1 33.R6g4 Ree6 34.Nd4 Kf7 35.Ne2 Bf8
   36.a4 Bg7 37.a5 b5 38.axb6 Nc6 39.b7 a5 40.b8=R a4 41.Raa3 Ra6 42.Rae3 a3
   43.b4 a2 44.b5 a1=R 45.Ra8 R6a5 46.b6 Nce7 47.b7 Nc6 48.b8=R Nb6 49.Kf2 d5
   50.Bb2 d4 51.c4 dxc3 52.d4 c2 53.d5 Qe7 54.d6 c1=R 55.d7 Nb4 56.d8=R c5
   57.Rg2 c4 58.R4g3 c3 59.Na3 c2 60.Nb5 Rd1 61.Ned4 c1=R 62.Nc2 Nd3+ 63.Ke2
   Ne1 64.Nc7 Ra6 65.Ne8 Na4 66.Rhg6 Bb7 67.R6g4 Rff5 68.Rb4 Rh7 69.Ree4
   Rh4h6 70.Qg1 Rhf6 71.Qd4 Ra3 72.Qc4 Rad3 73.Qa2 Rdd6 74.Qa1 Qc7 75.Rff2
   Qc3 76.Ree3 Qa3 77.Rbc8 Qa2 78.Rab8 Qb1 79.Reb3 Rd1d5 80.Ra3 Rb5 81.Qa2
   Rdc6 82.Rdd3 Rg6 83.Qa1 Bc3 84.Qa2 Rgf6 85.Qa1 Rfd5 86.Qa2 Red6 87.Qa1
   Rff5 88.Re4 Rdf6 89.Rb4 Rcc5 90.Rbb3 Rdd6 91.Qa2 Be4 92.Qa1 Rf4 93.Qa2 Bg6
   94.Qa1 Rf4f5 95.Qa2 Rcc6 96.Qa1 Nc5 97.Qa2 Nb7 98.Rd8 Rbb6 99.Qa1 Rc7 100.
   Rde3 Rde6 101.Rd2 Rec6 102.Rbd8 Re7 103.R8d3 Rd7 104.Ref3 Rdd6 105.Nb4 Bd4
   106.Qa2 Rc1c5 107.Qa1 Rcd5 108.Nc2 Bc3 109.Qa2 Ke7 110.Qa1 Ke6


Moves per depth in search engines I have been implementing a chess engine myself and it is playing pretty good but it seems to calculate way too many nodes.

I was looking at this post: Stockfish nodes

And tested it with my engine.

Nc3[48.0]:     depth: 01(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:059 total:        64    terminal :        21    fullNodes:        22    qNodes:        21
d3[-5.0]:      depth: 02(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:006 total:       157    terminal :        48    fullNodes:        61    qNodes:        48
Nc3[43.0]:     depth: 03(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:010 total:       771    terminal :       224    fullNodes:       323    qNodes:       224
Nc3[-5.0]:     depth: 04(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:010 total:      1494    terminal :       415    fullNodes:       664    qNodes:       415
Nc3[15.0]:     depth: 05(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:010 total:      2827    terminal :       787    fullNodes:      1253    qNodes:       787
Nc3[-10.0]:    depth: 06(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:029 total:     11695    terminal :      3128    fullNodes:      5439    qNodes:      3128
Nf3[15.0]:     depth: 07(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:163 total:    100382    terminal :     28074    fullNodes:     44234    qNodes:     28074
Nf3[-1.0]:     depth: 08(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:205 total:    152551    terminal :     42087    fullNodes:     68377    qNodes:     42087
Nf3[6.0]:      depth: 09(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:01:267 total:   1594238    terminal :    451868    fullNodes:    690326    qNodes:    451956
Nf3[-5.0]:     depth: 10(+0)    time[m:s:ms]: 00:00:982 total:   2470195    terminal :    690833    fullNodes:   1087889    qNodes:    691153

(These are results for a search to depth 10 using iterative deepening and no quiescence search.)

Basically at depth 10, the amount of nodes I am searching is almost 100 times the amount of nodes stockfish has searched.

Enabling transpositions brings this number down to 1.5 million which is still way more.

Maybe some information about my search:

- PVSearch
- LMR: if node is one of the first 4 or a capture, no reduction is done.
       if depth > 4, I reduce by depthLeft/3
       else I reduce by 1.
- Move ordering:
       I sort the moves in the following order:
       pv moves > good captures > killers > bad captures > no captures
- Null moves

One problem is that I do not use bitboards for move generation so I do not know if a move puts the king into check or not. (legal moves are only used for the first 2 plys)

I do not know how I could further decrease the amount of nodes.

  Is this only the effect of a hyper-aggressive LMR? What else should I
  try?

UPDATE:

So I just tested some things and realised that I sort the pv move first every time I sort the moves. So I implemented that the pv move should only be sorted first if and only if it is the first node (like the left most node in the tree).
I went down to 150000 nodes.

There’s no reason for you to scale down your engine doors if it’s fast. Why would you do that?

I am sure Talkchess used to have a post about how chess engines report searched nodes differently. I can’t find it now it was a few years ago. Read it before... their search function is not good.

If you are interested in the difference you will need to read the SF source make sure how they increment the node counter is consistent to yours. Also you may want to test SF on your own machine.


The Chessboard Editor at Apronus.com --- Is it any good? I am the webmaster of the online chessboard editor at http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php. I spend about one week each year on maintaining this utility but I never get to work seriously on it. I wonder if perhaps this has some potential that should be exploited.

The specific questions that I want to ask here:

Is it useful for playing correspondence games by email?
Is it useful for posting static diagrams (just one position image) in blogs and forums?
Is it useful for posting dynamic diagrams (showing games or parts of games)?
Is it useful for playing against computer from a set up position?
Is it useful for posting chess puzzles?

Is it useful for playing correspondence games by email?

I have never tried it.

  Is it useful for posting static diagrams (just one position image) in blogs and forums?

Do you mean something like this? I use it to generate FEN when posting answers here, all the time.

  Is it useful for posting dynamic diagrams (showing games or parts of games)?

Again, I generate the FEN on Apronus, but I post moves here myself. I have never tried to create "a game" and then simply copy/paste it here. If you can show me how, I could try it out and report my results.

  Is it useful for playing against computer from a set up position?

I did generate FEN on Apronus and successfully loaded it into Fritz.

  Is it useful for posting chess puzzles?

Again, it does a good job in generating the FEN, so I can post here any diagram I want.

  The Chessboard Editor at Apronus.com — Is it any good?

Serves me very well so far. I just don't know how to generate "games" and "dynamic diagrams" as you have suggested. That would be an awesome feature to posses, it would save me so much time!

If you need any help or you have followup questions, leave a comment.

Best regards.


Can you say anything if you see cheating at another board? Let's say you see that player A on the board next to yours violates a rule such as touch-move or changes the move after releasing the piece, but their opponent, player B, doesn't notice. Can you say anything to player B, and if so, could B make a claim based on third-party testimony for a violation B didn't even see?

You should not address player B directly, it is forbidden to talk to him about his game (it is actually forbidden to talk to him at all, but the spirit of the law is to prevent conversations about the game).

However, you can (and should) tell the arbiter about what you have seen, and the arbiter will decide on the appropriate action.


Pawn Structure database I wonder if there is any existing or a way to create a chess database organised only according to pawn structures, where the notion of a pawn structures is crudely defined by GM Andrew Soltis in his book Pawn Structure Chess and GM Mauricio Flores Rios in his book Chess Structure: A Grandmaster Guide as shown in this Wikipedia article?

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

I have the first book and I read a free excerpt of the second.

The software I am currently using is SCID vs PC.

In SCID, from the Game List you can select the "Change filter" icon followed by the "Search for material or board patterns" icon. In the window that pops up, you can select the location of up to ten pawns. Although ten is not enough to specify the pawns of both sides, you can also separately specify the number of pawns each side has.

You can also select just the file and not the rank (for example, you might care that your a-pawn exists, but not about its exact location.) And you can specify that a particular file doesn't have any pawns of a particular color. Here's what the screen can look like:

In this example, for a game to match the filter, Black must have pawns on b7, c6, e6, f7, and g7, no pawn on the d-file, and exactly seven pawns. Additionally, White must have pawns on c2, d4, and f2, with no pawn on the e-file, and exactly seven pawns.


Is this a popular variation/continuation of the Sicilian Defence? I've grown fond of playing this opening with black against e4. I know it starts with the Sicilian but if it has a name or some background that would be nice to know.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 b6 4.b3 Bb7 5.d3 Qc7 6.Bb2 f6 7.Nf3 e5 8.O-O O-O-O

No, it is not popular. 2.g3 is already only the tenth-most common move. It is apparently technically called the Steinitz Variation in ECO though it's not common enough for that to be a well-known name. It seems to often transpose to the Closed Sicilian, which starts with 2.Nc3 and usually results in White also fianchettoing (putting on g2) his light-squared bishop, though the knight usually ends up on e2, not f3.

In any case, ...b6 as a response is not seen at all in my database. ...b6 is not very common in Sicilians since Black usually tries to get in the more ambitious ...a6 and ...b5.


What are these chess.com figures from my English Opening game? I am asking something that chess.com shows about the English Opening, based on a game that I recently played on chess.com

Chess.com showed the following figures:

1.c4 e5
..
2.g4 e4 9.6 5.8

-White: 9.6
-Black: 5.8

What are these figures? It comes with Gantt Chart

As previously mentioned, these numbers are from the chess.com website, specifically from the "15|10" gamemode that I played in.

These figures seem to be common for all chess games. I think that it pertains to Chess Mega Base and Chess Analytics, which was already done, and clearly counted to some number. What is this rational number about.?

I believe you mean this (correct me if wrong):

This refers to time in seconds that it took to complete a move. So in this case (my game), it took White 2.5 seconds to make a  move, and 0.9 seconds for Black to respond. Then it took 19.7 seconds for White to make a move, and 1 second for Black to respond.
In your case, it took White 9.6 seconds to make a move, and Black 5.8 seconds to respond.


What are some of the chess sites that allow Round Robin or Swiss Tournament to be organized? I have been experimenting with the Team feature and tournament features in Lichess, but I just learned that it's not possible to have swiss, round robin or manual pairing in Lichess. A couple of months ago, I organized a rapid league in my chess club and it went really well, but after a few months, we stopped it due to financial problems. There were three leagues, A, B and C with one round-robin tournament each month (For A and B) while C had a swiss tournament. After each tournament, the top and bottom two shift groups and the winners of the Swiss get a place in B group. Learned so much from running the league. Recently I checked Lichess and fell in love with the beautiful interface (but sad at the lack of features for Swiss/RR tournaments), so, I wanted to ask if there's a good place to organize such a league online? I checked chess.com but it wants me to pay. Still researching!

This is an online option:

https://chess.swips.eu/

But beware that the free version has the following limitations: up to 20 players in only one category, up to 5 rounds with only one tiebreak method.


How do you stop white's queenside advance in the Reversed Sicilian? My openings textbook gives this line (Closed Variation of the Reversed Sicilian):

[FEN ""]

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 d6 6.d3 Nf6 7.Rb1

with the note that the plan for white here would be to push 8. b4 and crush black on the queenside.

I want to stop that with black, so the first move I looked at was 7. ... a5, but I can't see how this doesn't fail to 8. a3. Still, this move is proposed in this answer and in this comment my question was asked, but it sadly went unanswered.

How do I stop b4?

You don't.

There is no way at this point to stop white from advancing on the queenside. Playing a5 still makes sense, because short term this will give you the open a-file and longterm this will eliminate a potential weakness that white might take advantage of once he breaks through.

Instead of stoping white on the queenside you have to develop play on the kingside or potentially even in the centre to compensate for white's attack.

Here is a nice and recent example:

[Event "World Cup"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2011.08.29"]
[EventDate "2011.08.28"]
[Round "1.2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Arman Pashikian"]
[Black "Radoslaw Wojtaszek"]
[ECO "A24"]
[WhiteElo "2616"]
[BlackElo "2683"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[FEN ""]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. d3 O-O
7. O-O d6 8. Rb1 a5 9. a3 h6 10. b4 axb4 11. axb4 Be6 12. Nd2
Qd7 13. b5 Nd8 14. Nd5 Nxd5 15. cxd5 Bh3 16. Nc4 Bxg2 17. Kxg2
b6 18. f4 exf4 19. gxf4 Qg4+ 20. Kh1 Ra2 21. Bd2 Nb7 22. f5
Qd4 23. Qb3 Rfa8 24. e3 Qh4 25. Qd1 Nc5 26. Qe2 Ra1 27. Rxa1
Rxa1 28. Be1 Qh3 29. Nd2 Bc3 30. Nf3 Ra2 31. Nd2 Bxd2 32. fxg6
Bxe1 0-1


Am I too late to be a professional in chess? I am at the age of 32 and my current rating is 1600. Is it too late to be professional in chess? I love chess from my whole heart, what should I do?

Sorry to put this bluntly, but you have absolutely no chance whatsoever of becoming a professional player if you are rated only 1600 at age 32.  This is not a realistic ambition.  People improving from 1600 to grandmaster level in their 30s and beyond is something that simply never happens.  It's very rare to reach grandmaster level if you are only 1600 at the age of 18, never mind 32.


Why I can't I play puzzles on Lichess? Lichess is a blind-accessible chess site that I like to play. But for some reason, it doesn't support puzzles in an accessible way.
I've done everything that I need to do to make them accessible. But they still aren't, even though it seems possible.
Why aren't puzzles accessible on Lichess for the vision-impaired?

On the Lichess database site for puzzles I found a link, where someone implemented an interface to solve puzzles "blindfolded" (i.e. without seeing the board):
https://www.tryit.in/blindfoldpuzzles/
However, because of my nonexistent knowledge in that matter, I have no idea if it's usable by blind people. It also seems limited to puzzles with very few pieces.


What makes chess engines so good at chess? Computers are thought to calculate every possible move. However, for eg. there are about 20 possible first moves and 20 possible responses to that and so by this logic the no. of positions after for eg.'n' moves is 20 ^(2n). This can become a huge number very fast. So I suspect that the computer may actually be using a huge precomputed opening database which may include all possible moves and responses to a huge depth - maybe around 30 moves or so. Their programming may also include a mechanism to look up transpositions so that it can transition from an unfamiliar opening to a familiar one. If it is indeed using a huge precomputed opening database, can this not be considered as cheating? Its like a bringing a chess book to a tournament.

Engines do use opening and endgame databases to help their play but that is only a small part of their strength. The strength of the engines come from what they do while they don't have a database move. The strength of engines come basically from two factors: evaluator and search.

The evaluator assigns a value to a position so that the search will know which positions to favor. Most engines nowadays evaluate on the order of 1 million positions in a second, so the evaluator needs to be fast. The evaluator may take into account for example material, pawn structure, king safety, mobility, just to name a few features. In state of the art engines, the parameters of evaluator function (i.e. how much a feature affects the total evaluation of the position) are tuned using thousands and thousands of CPU hours of testing.

As you mention, the number of possible variations grows very rapidly. The average number of moves in a position is around 35, so the number of positions already after 6 half-moves is more than one billion, which is clearly infeasible.

A simple improvement is using the alpha-beta search, which is based on the observation that, for example, if you have calculated that move 34.A wins a pawn, and you know that after move 34.B Black can reply 34...C after which White does not win a pawn, you don't have to check other responses to 34.B because clearly you already know that 34.A is better than 34.B. If you have a good heuristic such that best moves are always searched first, this reduces the number of positions required to search depth d to sqrt(35^d) instead of 35^d which is a huge improvement. Transition tables reduce the search tree even more.

But this is not even close to what top chess engines really can achieve! Using some smart and smarter tricks to decide which nodes (=positions encountered during the search) are important and which are not, they search some parts of the search tree deeper and cut some parts early, which allows them to reach depth d for important variations often in even less than 2^d nodes. A quite technical list of possible ideas for selectivity is given in the Chess programming wiki.


FEN inverter website/page? This board shows the black pieces on the bottom, but the white pieces are supposed to be there; I accidentally set up the board so that white's pieces are on the black side. I am looking to flip the board with the following FEN:

# R2K1B1R/PPP2QPP/5N1N/1n2q3/8/1p3n2/pbpp3p/1kr4r w KQkq - 0 1

Board:

R2K1B1R/PPP2QPP/5N1N/1n2q3/8/1p3n2/pbpp3p/1kr4r w KQkq - 0 1

How may I accomplish this without re-setting the pieces manually? I tried switching the rows, but I got:

# 1kr4r/pbpp3p/1p3n2/8/1n2q3/5N1N/PPP2QPP/R2K1B1R w KQkq - 0 1

Board:

1kr4r/pbpp3p/1p3n2/8/1n2q3/5N1N/PPP2QPP/R2K1B1R w KQkq - 0 1

Although one may try to place the first row as the eighth, the second row as the seventh, etc., the board will appear flipped (as shown above).

This is a horizontal flip (mirror-image over the x-axis) and does not look quite right. Switching the letters from lower-case to capital and vice-versa would switch the colors, but that's not the best solution.

Upon closer examination, a vertical flip (or mirror over the y-axis) of this horizontal flip would solve the problem: Reverse each sub-string delimited by a slash until you hit the second field, then leave it as is.

The final product is the same FEN, except the first field is a reverse string of itself.

# r4rk1/p3ppbp/2n3p1/8/3q2n1/N1N5/PPQ2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 1

Board:

r4rk1/p3ppbp/2n3p1/8/3q2n1/N1N5/PPQ2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 1


Why are my tactics ratings on chesstempo and puzzle rush different? I just started chess.com puzzle rush today for the first time. My chesstempo blitz puzzle rating is 1567, but I can only get to 16-17 on puzzle rush, which is about 1000-1100. My mouse is bit slow, but still, shouldn't I be reaching 25-27? What am I doing wrong?

After reading the comments, now I understand the question. The answer is simple: time. On ChessTempo you don't have a time limit, while on Puzzle Rush you have to answer within a few seconds if you want to make it to problem #25 or above. You also get a 1500 ChessTempo rating by getting right a certain amount of problems at that level (if you get them every single time your rating will go above that), but on Puzzle Rush you can only fail twice, so you'll need an effectiveness bigger than 90%... while answering within a few seconds!!!
There's also the difference in rating systems (each site could assign different ratings to problems of similar difficulty), so, as I wrote in the comments, if two numbers mean different things, you shouldn't expect them to match, despite looking related in appearence


What is the worst opening move, and why? Grouping of initial moves of a chess game are well known, though I've never seen analysis of the worst possible opening move, any thoughts? If so, please provide more than just a move, but the exact reason why such a move would be the worst assuming such a move was against a GM.

1. f3 is almost certainly the single worst move.  It irrevocably weakens white's king position without doing anything useful.

Other moves like 1. b3 and 1. g3 prepare to develop a bishop, so they're not so bad.  1. c3 doesn't do too much for white, but it also doesn't hurt him.

1. a4 and 1. h4 both ignore the center, but they do help develop the rooks, and there are positions where 1. a4/h4 can be useful (especially when the kings have castled on opposite sides of the board.


Carlsen vs Gelfand World Championship Candidates (2013). Could Gelfand have held it with 44...Bxf1! [FEN "8/5p1k/1P4p1/2P4p/2b4P/5Q2/5PP1/4qBK1 b - - 0 44"]

This position occurred on move 44 in the Carlsen vs Gelfand game in the World Championship Candidates, 2013.

Here, Gelfand played the losing move 44...Qxf1+. However, I analyzed the position after 44...Bxf1! and I do not see a win for White. Black sets up a blockade to stop the queenside passed pawns from advancing.

       [FEN "8/1Q3p1k/1P4p1/2P4p/2b4P/8/5PP1/4qBK1 w - - 0 44"]

        1. Qf3 Bxf1
        2. Qxf7+ Kh8
        3. Qf6+ Kh7
        4. Kh2 Qe8
        5. Qf4 Qd7
        6. Qf3 Bb5
        7. b7 Qc7+
        8. g3 Kg7

And how does White win? Black blockades the passed pawns. If White tries to use his kingside pawn majority, his own king gets exposed and could lead to a perpetual check.


Is there an easy way to detect a draw in a King + Pawn vs King endgame? I know the basics of opposition, but I am struggling to evaluate positions for drawishness in King + Pawn VS King endgame. A lot of times it is useful to know whether you should make an exchange. For example, in this position:

[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "k7/8/8/8/1PR4r/2K5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Black can simply exchange the rook and then move to b8 knowing that he has a draw. But in order to do so, he should know that position after exchange is drawish.

The problem is, that looking at positions like this

[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "8/4k3/8/8/8/2P5/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]

this

[Title "Black to move"]
[FEN "k7/8/8/8/1PR4r/2K5/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

or this

[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/2P5/8/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

I can not quickly determine whether it is drawish or not. I end up thinking for 5 minutes and in the end I can be wrong (so to me it looks like I am simply guessing).

So is there an easy way to determine win/draw in King + Pawn vs King endgame (I am not asking how to secure a draw/win. I hope that I will be able to find it, knowing the evaluation in advance).

There is a very easy way to detect whether King and Pawn endgames are drawn or not.

This method I use is a very easy to understand one from Karsten Mueller and Frank Lamprecht's excellent book Secrets of Pawn Endings

It concerns key squares and opposition

The rule states that if pawn has not reached or crossed the central line (5th rank for White and 4th rank for Black) then there are 3 key squares 2 squares in front of it.

For example this starting position, the key squares are b5, c5 and d5. If white's king can occupy any of these key squares then the game will be a win for white no matter what.

  [Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/8/8/2P5/8/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "27"]

1. Kf2 {The Key squares in this position are b5, c5 and d5. If white's king
can occupy any of these key squares then the game will be a win for white no
matter what.} Kd7 2. Ke3 Kc6 3. Kd3 (3. Kd4 Kd6 $11 {Opposition}) 3... Kd5 {
Unfortunately black has occupied the key squares mentioned, there is no way
for white's king to enter the key squares, therefore, the game is a draw.
Analysis will be continued to prove this} 4. c4+ Kc5 5. Kc3 Kc6 6. Kd4 Kd6 7.
c5+ Kc6 8. Kc4 Kc7 9. Kd5 Kd7 10. c6+ Kc7 11. Kc5 Kc8 12. Kb6 Kb8 13. c7+ Kc8
14. Kc6 $11 (14. Kb5 Kxc7) 1/2-1/2

It turns out white could not occupy the key squares in time, therefore the game is a draw.

The second rule is that if a pawn is on the 5th rank (or 4th for black) or beyond, there are 3 key squares in front of it.

In this position the key squares for white's king are f6, g6 and h6

White is able to occupy one of these squares with his king and the win is secured. The variation shown shows if white had chosen a different route, black would then be able to secure the opposition and the key squares and the game would be a draw.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round ""]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/8/8/6P1/6K1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "9"]

1. Kh5 (1. Kf5 Kf7 2. g6+ Kg7 3. Kg5 Kg8 4. Kf6 Kf8 5. g7+ Kg8 $11) 1... Kf7 2.
Kh6 Kf8 3. g6 Kg8 4. g7 Kf7 5. Kh7 1-0

One last key squares example, with a position you gave.

This is a win because White can occupy the key squares of the pawn b5, c5 and d5 (3 squares since the pawn is on the 3rd rank) without any problems

However the variations I gave are to show if white had chosen the wrong route to get to the squares, 1.Kd3 would be a heartbreaking failure as black can secure distant opposition with 1...Kd7 and can therefore control the key squares.

The second variation 2.Kc4 would also be met by brutal opposition 2...Kc6 and control of the key squares for Black.

The text moves show white occupying the key squares, sidestepping any tricks black has (and there are plenty as shown) and securing the win.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result ""]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4k3/8/8/8/2P5/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

1. Kb3 (1. Kd3 Kd7 2. Kc4 Kc6) 1... Kd7 2. Kb4 (2. Kc4 Kc6) 2... Kd6 3. Kb5 1-0

One final position, I hope you know this one!

OK, Black has the opposition, isn't he safely drawing the game then? Well, there are exceptions to every rule, and this happens to be one. Opposition in King and Pawn endgames always works, except when the pawn is on the 5th rank and your king is also in front of it. This is an important pattern to know!

This position is a good one to emphasize the fact that King and Pawn endgames are very concrete and are based on calculation, judgement can be used with opposition and key squares but in the end stone cold analysis is the ultimate weapon; although it is best equipped with the knowledge of opposition and key squares! :)

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date ""]
[Round "?"]
[White "White to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/8/6K1/6P1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]

1. Kf6 Kf8 2. g6 Kg8 3. g7 Kh7 4. Kf7 1-0


Philidor Defence - White's attack on the center Does white always have a very strong central attack against black in Philidor defence?

I need some resource suggestions on Philidor defence theory.

The most popular (and arguably the most precise) move order for black to play the Philidor defence is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5. Alternative move orders are, for example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 or 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 followed by 4....e5.

According to the Game Database of ChessTempo, the most popular continuation is 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0. However, 3.f3, 4.dxe5, 4.Nge2 and 5.g4 are also interesting alternatives for white.

There are a couple of repertoire books on the Philidor, for instance by GM Bauer (2007) and IM Barksy (2010).
If you are interested in the Philidor from white's perspective, the book by GM Negi (2014) can be recommended.

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "1"]

      1.e4 d6 (1...e5 2.Nf3 d6) 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (3.f3) e5 (3...Nbd7) 4.Nf3 (4.dxe5)(4.Nge2) Nbd7 5.Bc4 (5.g4) Be7 6.O-O O-O


Is there a setting in recent versions of Fritz to turn off checkmate announcement? In one of the recent versions of Fritz, every time I analyze a position in infinite analysis mode, and hit a checkmate position, Fritz pop-ups a dialog box and a voice with German accent loudly says "Checkmate", or some variation of it. Does anyone know how to turn that off? While not a big deal, but after analysing a few combinations a day, this gets annoying more than one would imagine.

Turning off the audio announcements should be possible by going File > Options > Multimedia and then setting Audio to 'off'. I have no idea if this will disable the blunder dialog, but I cannot see anything else that would do it.


Is 1...d5 ever a bad move? I notice that as Black, I virtually always play d5 as my first move. It's usually in response to 1. e4 (Scandinavian Defense) or 1. d4 (Queen's Pawn Game).  As a hypothetical, if I premoved 1... d5, what is the worst that could happen? Are there any openings in which it is not a strong move?

Against 1.c4. This will allow white to exchange their c-pawn for black d-pawn and later gain a tempo. 2. cxd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3, or 2...Nf6 at some point will be followed with e4 with tempo. All in all, white can take control of the center.
According to lichess' database 1.c4 d5 is very rarely played.
However, the move is probably not losing; stockfish gives it: 0.6. The significance of this advantage varies a lot depending on the player's strength.


Is it really possible to beat a stockfish level 8 computer in any time that is between 3+0 and 15+0? I've watched a couple of games where people play against stockfish level 8 on lichess, and they pretty much lose all the time. Is it possible for someone to beat a level 8 computer in any time between 3+0 and 15+0?

IMHO playing against Stockfish level eight is a lost cause when playing against its full 16 quad core processors and basically unlimited flash storage, no matter the time constraints. Magnus Carlson stated a couple of years ago that he always lost against that computer program. The lichess version is but a shadow of its real self.


How do I "Get My Foot in the Door"? The title may be a little misleading. My question is, how do I become or begin to become a player who is in the FIDE system? Is there a specific process I must go to, specific tournaments, steps I must take etc. to "get my foot in the door" of the FIDE system. I'd like to play in official tournaments and all the like, but I am not sure how to start.

Thanks.

Updated.

You need to play in FIDE-rated events. Even playing one game would get you in the system (meaning they would be aware of your existence), but you would not be officially rated until you played at least 5 games against FIDE-rated players, during the course of 26 months, and be rated over 1000. It no longer appears as if you need and minimum score.

For more of the detailed points, check out the FIDE Handbook here, specifically under section 7.


Where can I find learning material on how to play the Alekhine-Chatard Gambit Declined? I'm looking for materials on how to play the Alekhine-Chatard Gambit Declined. Which books and references are available for this variation? I'm looking for possible good moves to play for when this  gambit is declined.

May I suggest a game I recently played over the board to equality?  Both my opponent and I are 1680-ish FIDE-rated.  I don't know the theory of this line yet, so moves were found over the board.

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 a6 {I went into a long think here, but a6 is necessary to prevent the knight from entering from the flank, if Black plays an early c5 now} 7. Bxe7 Qxe7 8. Qg4 f5 9. Qg3 c5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. O-O-O cxd4 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Rxd4 Nc5 14. Bd3 Nxd3+ 15. Qxd3 O-O 16. Qe2 Bd7 17. g4 Rac8 18. gxf5 Rxf5 19. Rg1 Bb5 20. Nxb5 axb5 21. Rdg4 Rf7 22. Qxb5 Qc7 23. Qe2 Qc5 24. f4 g6 {Rxf4 now is tempting, but Black would get checkmated via Rxg7+ Kh8 Rxh7+ Kxh7 Qh5#} 25. h5 Rxf4 26. hxg6 h6 27. R4g2 Kg7 28. Rh1 Re4 29. Qd2 Qe3 1/2-1/2

And Chess History page has this http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/french.html


How to improve blitz chess rating?(Time management) I have a blitz rating of 1900 on Lichess and I can't seem to improve from there. My road to 1900 was fairly quick, but I have been stuck in 1900. My Classical rating is higher than this, so I know that it is a problem with shorter time controls. I have noticed that I spend too much time throughout the game and that is the reason. Can someone please explain how do I manage my time well throughout the game.

Blitz is a bit of a different chess "animal". In order to play blitz well, you need a few things, and that is great tactical vision, good time management, and some positional skill so you can make decent moves quickly in quieter positions. It also helps to be young because you think faster when you are young.

The first part to getting better is obvious, and that is work diligently on your tactics. Do a lot of them in a short period of time for the best results. I also recommend reading games, especially fun tactical ones, without a board. This will also help your vision.

As far as time goes, personally, I hate falling behind on the clock at any time control, but it is more crucial in blitz. If you do fall behind, it cannot be by too much...ever. You simply have to play fast, and keep an eye on the clocks at all times to stay ahead on time, or at least, close. Only every now an then, can you afford a longer think.

The positional skill comes with time, and reading a lot of books about pawn structures, and other positional elements will help with this. I strongly recommend the Yusupov series of books as they cover all areas of the game. This may not be good for your regular play and long-term chess development, but also if you play openings that have very standard places for the pieces, like the Stonewall, or London System, you can save time in the opening.

Lastly, you just need to play a lot, although this may not be conducive to your classical rating as you can become shallow. Personally, while it is fun, for a serious player, blitz is not the best think for your game (Botvinnik agreed), but it can be especially useful for testing out your openings.

P.S. I know that 3-0 is a common control, but you can also play 3-2, or 5-3, which is still fast, but gives you a little more time to think. Conversely, you could also play some bullet, and when you go back to regular blitz, it will feel like you have a lot of time.

There is actually a whole book on the subject here. For the record, although I have a lot of books, I do not have this one, so it may, or may not, be any good.

Again, be aware that this may not be good for your tournament chess, if you play tournaments.


What is the highest mobility score of a board without a checkmate, stalemate, or draw? I consider the mobility score of a board to be the number of legal moves one player could make less the number of legal moves the other player could make.

8/7k/2Q2K2/8/6b1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

Using the board above, white king has 3 legal moves, white bishop has 9 legal moves, black king has 4 legal moves, and black queen has 11 legal moves. According to white, the mobility score of this board is (3 + 9) - (4 + 11) = 12 - 15 = -3.

What is the maximum mobility score possible of a board which is not a terminal case (checkmate, stalemate, draw) keeping consideration for a legal number of pieces (ie. maximum of 9 queens, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, 2 knights, 1 king of each color)?

I don't really care if the board configuration is impossible to get to (it's probably possible to have 9 queens on the board and not be a checkmate/stalemate, but not possible to get to that state without a checkmate/stalemate), I only care that the configuration is legal.

I've written a chess engine which uses a heuristic which considers the mobility score of a board. I want to know the maximum possible mobility score so I can better define the value of a checkmate, check, etc. There's no point in setting a checkmate to, say, 200, if the mobility score of a board can exceed this, yet I don't want to define a checkmate as an arbitrary number: it need only be the highest mobility score plus one.

Sorry for the late answer, but here’s “my” suggestion of a total mobility 215 in a legal configuration. White has 216 total moves, minus away one for Black’s only legal move for total.

[FEN "1Q5R/4Q1K1/B1Q5/B4Q2/N2Q4/pQ4Q1/pn2Q3/krQ4R w - - 0 1"]

This position was originally created by William Shinkman as the record for the most mates in two. This position’s mobility will be very hard to beat, as it has no checkmate/stalemates in one, in addition to how the known maximum for any move is 218 contains so many checkmating/stalemating move that it won’t work here.


Black repertoire for players who love the English Opening When I started playing chess I picked 3 openings (Queens Gambit as white, Caro-Kann and QGD as black) and pretty much stopped studying the openings to focus on endgames and middlegames.
Some months ago I started analysing the games of Ulf Andersson and fell in love with the English Opening. I am wondering if there are black openings who are similar.

My current repertoire looks like this:

• White: English

• Black: Caro-Kann (vs. 1.e4) and Nimzo/QID (vs. 1. d4)

Some info on what I like in the English and in general:

My preferred way to win is getting a small advantage and converting into a winning endgame. I love endgames.
I really like playing against structural weaknesses.
I do enjoy queenless middlegames.
I like quiet games with time to maneuver and frequently employ a double fianchetto as white.

The reality is that you cannot force such openings as black, but you can pick openings that may suit your style.

I really think that the Nimzo-Indian/Queens-Indian may suit your style very well. They will not get you queenless positions too often right out of the opening, but the nature of the Nc3 in the Nimzo, and it often getting exchanged resulting in doubled pawns for white, you will get a lot of strategically complex positions that have structural weaknesses to work against (usually in exchange for the bishop pair), and there is often a lot of maneuvering. In the Queens-Indian, you get the fianchettoed bishop you like, and nice control over e4, which allows you to try and chip away as the white center. I have also gotten a number of nice kingside attacks too against the white Kg1.

This has been my bread and butter opening pair as black against 1.d4 for decades, and I like the type of positions that you like. The theory is old now, but if you can get a hold of the book "Understanding the Queens Indian Defense" on eBay, it does a great job of teaching the underlying ideas. You can also study Karpov's games, as this was his main weapon as black during his peak years.

In the Nimzo take this famous game in the Huebner variation of the Nimzo. Of course, there are many variations, and you would have to learn more than just the Huebner.

 [Event "World-ch27 Fischer-Spassky +7-3=11"]
 [Site "Reykjavik"]
 [Date "1972.07.20"]
 [Round "5"]
 [White "Spassky, Boris Vasilievich"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E41"]
 [BlackElo "2785"]
 [PlyCount "54"]
 [EventDate "1972.07.11"]
 [EventType "match"]
 [EventRounds "21"]
 [EventCountry "ISL"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 8. e4 e5 9. d5 Ne7 10. Nh4 h6 11. f4 Ng6 12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15. O-O O-O 16. a4 a5 17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2 Qe7 20. Bc2 g5 21. Bd2 Qe8 22. Be1 Qg6 23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. Rxf8+ Kxf8 26. Bd1 Nf4 27. Qc2 Bxa4 0-1


What should be my plan? This is a game I played recently. After 12. Be2 ..., I really didn't know how to proceed. Eventually, after thinking for a very long time (>30 minutes, it's a correspondence game by the way), I moved 12. Be2 Be7, a simple move that was one the first moves I considered.

[fen ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Him"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 b6 5. Nc3 Bb7 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. Ne5 Qd6 8.
Bd2 a6 9. a3 Nd7 10. f4 f6 11. Nxd7 Qxd7 12. Be2 Be7 13. cxd5 exd5 14. Bf3
Na5 15. Qxd7+ Kxd7 16. O-O Nc4 17. Bc1 c6 18. b3 Nd6 19. Bb2 h5 20. Rae1 Rag8
21. e4 dxe4 22. Nxe4 g5 23. d5 gxf4 24. Bxf6 Rh6 25. Bxe7 Kxe7 26. Nc5+ Kd8
27. Nxb7+ Nxb7 28. dxc6 Nc5 29. Rd1+ Kc8 30. b4 Ne6 31. Rd7 Rd8 32. Rfd1 Rhh8
33. Ra7 Rxd1+ 34. Bxd1 Nd4?? 35. Ra8+ 1-0

These are my considerations:
0. I don't really like my position, it feels cramped. Where did I go wrong..?
1. My plan: Break open with ... e5. Prepare for this by positioning a rook on e8, and the other one on d8, e7, or f8 (but which of the three?).
2. But I don't really want to move the rook on a8, because after c4 ..., my pawn on a7 hangs and the White Queen will be near my King if I O-O-O'ed.
3. ... c4 feels very annoying to me anyway, but especially if I plan to O-O-O, because my Pawn structure that is supposed to protect my King will be weak.
4. I guess I should plan on O-O'ing. But how? If I make way with ... Be7, it will be in the when I try to maneuver the rooks as in point 1.
5. But ... g6 followed by ... Bg7 feels like I weaken the Pawn structure behind which I want to O-O.
6. I have spent enough time on this, 12 ... Be7, YOLO!

So, what do you guys think about my thought process? What should be my plan be in this situation? Where did I go wrong before this that led to this position that feels not so good to me? Is this position actually not so good?
Et cetera. :)

(By the way, I feel that this is in general my weakness. Usually I tend to make solid moves while sniffing for a weakness. However, if a weakness doesn't 'spontaneously emerge from the noise', I don't really know how to make one, and I end up drawing or winning/losing due to a random emerging tactic. How can I learn this?)

Thanks a lot in advance for taking the time to think about this and help me get a better understanding. :)

EDIT: Thanks Dag Oskar Madsen, for fixing the diagram for me so fast.

The only opening move I really didn't like is 6…Nc6. Usually you don't want to put something in front of your c-pawn in these d-pawn openings. And incidentally it also seems to lose a piece (because of 8.cxd5 with Bb5 to follow). It also leads to all your positional problems: The pressure on d5, the slightly weakening move f6, the inability to free yourself with c5.

Your thought process is ok, Be7 and castling short is a decent conclusion. But you probably should have looked for a tactical solution as well: 12…dxc4 looks quite interesting for you. 13.Bxc4 is not possible, due to 13…b5 and Qxc4 can be answered by Na5 and Bxg2. Ok, it's not exactly risk free, but it's a pawn. Also, the bishop on b7 is really waiting for the diagonal to be opened sooner or later, so it should always be on your radar.

Generally to improve your strategic understanding you can do the usual stuff: Go through well annotated games, play and analyse tournament games, work through some instructive books. But on the other hand, putting your pieces on nice squares and waiting for something to come up, is an entirely valid strategy. Also, finding some creative tactical ideas can often substitute for a deep strategic plan and without decent calculation you can forget about implementing even the best plan.


Chess fatigueness and recovery? I have been playing chess for almost two years now and my playing strength revolves around 1000.

Quite often every month or so, i play below par and drop to 900's and never been consistent. I dont play to win, i enjoy playing chess.

What is causing this? Am i playing too much chess?

Having some fluctuations in rating is quite natural and not something I would be overly concerned. At your rating level blunders are very common, so that games are to some extent not decided by apparent playing strength (=rating) but by a random process and this shows in your rating fluctuations.

However, with your approach (for fun) to chess you should not be worrying about ratings at all and just enjoy playing.

If you do want to improve your chess there are many ways and even a little work will have a large impact on your playing strength at this level. For suggestions on how to improve see this question and answers.


On rapid /Armageddon tiebreakers Do these playoffs count as official matches? So do you lose win ELO in playing rapid tiebreakers? Also in blitz playoffs, such as the one in Norway Chess 2014, do they count towards official rating?

In general, yes, all of the games played in an official event count and can make you lose or win rating points.

For example, rapid tiebreaks in the World Cup count for the rapid FIDE rating, while the Armageddon tiebreaks count as blitz. In the Norway Chess, the classification process via blitz games also counts for the FIDE blitz rating.


Why does chess.com's tactics player avoid taking the queen in this problem? Why can't the black pawn take the queen at h6? Instead the computer makes the king go to g8.


How many queens can be on the board without neither forced mate nor forced stalemate (53?)? I was wondering how many queens can be put on boards without the position being a forced checkmate or a forced stalemate. The best I came up with is 53 this position.
[FEN "QQQQQRK1/QQQQQPr1/QQQQQRNk/QQQQQQpB/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ w - - 0 1"]

Is there a way to fit 54 or more queens, given the constraints)? And if not, how would one show that more queens cannot be placed?

57 Queens:

[FEN "QQQQQB1k/QQQQQ1bq/QQQQQQKB/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ/QQQQQQQQ b - - 0 1"]

(edited FEN, White to move).
(2edited, thanks Noam D. Elkies)


Clock simul time control We would like to organise a simultaneous exhibiton at our chess club, but as we only have the room booked for 2.5hrs, we fear that it might not be over in the given time. I've heard about clock simuls, but I haven't found any "rules" on how to set the time control for each player. I'm assuming that the exhibitor should have a lot more time than the challengers (as he needs to spend time at different boards while all his clocks might be running simultaneously) but I don't know how much time would be fair to set (given that the simul should last for 2hrs, for example). Do you have any suggestions?

A chess simultaneous display is where a strong player takes on more than one opponent simultaneously. Sometimes this is done with clocks but more usually without, when people must move when the simul giver arrives at their board.

Source: Chess Simul – Advice on giving and taking part, emphasis is mine

I would suggest using a single (normal) clock for all games. If a player (not the simul giver) has not ended their game after that time limit expires, then they lose on time. In this system, the simul giver cannot lose on time.

I would also advise that there is an arbiter present to prevent unreasonable delays when the simul giver comes to a player's board. In some simuls, a player is allowed three passes when the simul giver arrives at their board.


Kind of popular variation in Tournament I am just an ordinary chess player who does not know about Chess Tournament even just a little thing,

as I saw at my Houdini vs my Houdini at Tournament level in 5 minutes (and now I still testing in infinite time [based on maximum search depth].. and will move when depth reaches 99. [believe me, it's really deep]),

in early (at 3 games) seem  to be played and transposed to Benoni variation,
are there some information that in the real Tournament, it is often to happened too??

if it is not,

what kind of variation which seem to be played in any Tournament,
because I want to learn opening and it's transposed to another which was proved and tested in Tournament first.. ^^

Thanks,
Ahmad

EDIT: You seem to be concerned if the opening is "tournament tested." I can affirm that almost all of the mainstream openings are well-tested, and you can figure out what these are yourself by doing the appropriate research online (i.e, which openings are most commonly played. See the links I supplied with this post.)

It would be great if you could clarify your exact question, but I feel as if you're asking if the Benoni Defense is a respectable opening. The Benoni positions arise after:

[FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5

And here Black can play the Benko Gambit with 3...b5or go into more typical Benoni lines with 3...e6. Of course, there are many other moves that can transpose into Benoni positions.

As for its reputation, the Benoni is certainly playable at all levels and has been played in World Championship matches. However, in recent times, the Benoni has been considered inferior to other Indian/Hypermodern defenses against the Queen Pawn openings such as the Grünfeld or Queen's Indian.

A few years ago at a coaching seminar in New York City, former World Champion Garry Kasparov remarked (perhaps jokingly) to my friend who played the Benoni that he should find a "real opening." That being said, Tal and Fischer employed the Benoni in the middle of the 20th century, with the former winning several brilliant games in the 1950s and 1960s and the latter winning a key game in the 1972 World Championship Match against Spassky.

You can read more about the Benoni Defense here.


Interactive chess coaching software Is there chess software that helps you train while you play against it? I know there is software to train openings and such, but I would like one to actually advise you interactively as you play against the computer, maybe giving you hints and tips for example.

EDIT:

The kind of interactivity that I'm looking for is not necessarily audio or text related and can be either PC or phone based, doesn't matter. To further explain my idea let me explain you my situation:

I know how to play chess, I know all the rules, the basic principles and I have some knowledge of the strategies and tactics that can be made in the game. The thing is that at a certain moment I honestly don't know what to play. There are so many options that I just get lost in the possibilities. It would be nice to have something to tell you that a move is just accomplishing nothing at a certain moment. Or maybe just to tell you that a certain move exposed a vulnerability that you just didn't see, and it actually recommends you a move.

I think this is just more practice than anything, but sometimes I play with people that commit mistakes (develop queen early, don't care about control of the center) and I still lose, because I don't know how to capitalize on mistakes. It would be nice to also have something train you on these kind of things: to see and punish mistakes and gain tempos.

I know it's too much to ask for, but who knows, maybe a software like this actually exists.

This is sort of the holy grail of chess training sofware ... something that substitutes for a human Master/GM level coach instructing and critiquing you whenever you needed it.

Till date, I believe nothing comes close to the quality of instruction/critique of a good human coach, though software that tries to offer some kind of interactive feedback-based training include:

Ubisoft's ChessMaster.

Very rudimentary feedback + post-mortem move analysis. The cheapest of the three ... the move-by-move feedback is usually mostly suited for tactical errors. Good for people just starting out using computers to train with.

Chessbase's Fritz

Probably the best bang for your buck of the three, given the quality of feedback and lots of bells and whistles. A fairly annoying/helpful "coach" who will flag any error you make (though doesn't clearly explain why it was a mistake). Features such as explaining (or more or less summarizing)  the benefits of each move in a given position, a hotness indicator for how critical or "on the edge of a cliff" a position becomes.

Chess.com's Chess Mentor

The most "human" like feedback but these are pre-programmed scenarios based on instructional positions you have to play through, rather than your own games.

Once again, these all fall short of explaining nuances in a way that you are guaranteed to understand (a human coach can figure out precisely what doesn't make sense to you and focus on that mental roadblock!) , though if you are not really intermediate-strength level yet, software such as the kind listed above might be of some help.


What does an engine do if it has found the shortest mate? For example, take this famous position from Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2005:
[FEN "5N1k/6p1/7p/4P3/pp2Q3/4q3/1P4PP/2b4K w - - 0 1"]

Obviously White wins with Qh7#, and equally obviously, there are no possible better moves (since it's impossible to have a mate in 0).
If I let an engine run on this position, what does it do after finding the mate in 1? There's presumably nothing else to do since it has already found the best move. Does it just exit, then?
I tried running Stockfish 13 on this position, and it reaches depth 99/99 instantly, but I can't tell what it's doing afterwards.

It does what it was programmed to do.  During any Alpha-Beta pruning, the computer would stop searching and just do nothing.
In another game, like an RTS, the computer would constantly go through a todo list.
What should/can I build?
What should/can I produce?
How do I defend/attack?
...
Since a chess AI has only one objective, find the best move, there's no point in searching once it's objective if found.


Why isn't 5. f4 considered strong in the French Advance, main line? Why isn't 5. f4 considered a strong move in the main line French Advance, after

[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6

Everyone plays 5. Nf3 here, but isn't it logical to support e5 with a Pawn and later 6. Nf3, as it is for example in the Steinitz Variation of the Classical French, after

[fen ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4, black can put white's center under pressure very quickly. For example, after 5....Nh6 6.Nf3, black is already better after 6....Qb6 or 6....cxd4 7.cxd4 Nf5.

In contrast, one of the main lines of the Tarrasch variation goes 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3. In this line, white has a firm grip on the center, while black cannot manoeuvre Nd7 to the outpost on f5.

      [StartPly "4"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 (3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3) c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4 Nh6 6.Nf3 cxd4 (6...Qb6) 7.cxd4 Nf5


What was the first "Opening Repertoire" book? As title above states, what was/were the first "Opening Repertoire" book/s? I remember that opening books of the 1970s and early 1980s weren't actually repertoires for White or Black, but treatises on the various openings and defences. Now the concept of "opening repertoire" is very popular.

1939: White to Play and Win by Weaver Adams. Adams believed that 1.P-K4 (1.e4) wins by force. In this book he presents his recommendations for White against the various Black defenses. For example, against 1...e5 he recommended the Bishop's Opening 2.Bc4. He continued to revise his system and write more books, e.g., he switched from 2.Bc4 to 2.Nc3 in his 1946 book Simple Chess.


Indian theme in real life We all know this beautiful theme of self-interference.

[Title "Loveday, mate in 3"]
[fen "3R4/5K2/8/4k1P1/4p3/7B/4p3/8 b - - 1 0"]

Solutiom:

   1. Bf1 d6 2. Re2 Kc4 3. Re4#

Has such a motive ever occur in an OTB game?

The Indian theme appeared in a game between Rudolf Spielmann and Siegbert Tarrasch (San Sebastián, 1912):

[FEN "..."]
[Event "San Sebastian"]
[Site "San Sebastian ESP"]
[Date "1912.03.12"]
[EventDate "1912.02.19"]
[Round "17"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Black "Siegbert Tarrasch"]
[ECO "C80"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "82"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5
7. Bb3 d5 8. a4 Nxd4 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 c5
12. axb5 Be7 13. Qf3 Be6 14. Rxa6 O-O 15. cxd4 c4 16. Ba2 Rxa6
17. bxa6 Qa5 18. Bb1 c3 19. Qg3 Rc8 20. f4 Bf5 21. Re1 Bf6
22. Kh1 h6 23. h3 Rb8 24. Be3 Qxa6 25. Rd1 Qa1 26. Qe1 Be4
27. Kh2 Be7 28. Qf1 f5 29. Re1 Bh4 30. g3 Be7 31. Bf2 Bd6
32. Rc1 Kh7 33. Re1 Rb6 34. Rc1 Ba3 35. Re1 Qb2 36. Qe2 Rb4
37. Rg1 Rb6 38. Re1 Qb5 39. Qh5 Qxb1 40. Rxb1 Rxb1 41. g4 Bc1
0-1

I copy Tarrasch's comments to move 41...Bc1 from here and the original source is Tarrasch's book The Game of Chess (London, 1935), p. 422-423.

  "The move Bc1 is analogous to the blocking move of the 'Indian Problem'; intrinsically it is an extraordinarily unlikely, even ugly move, since the Rook which is to give mate is masked. The 'Indian' character of the move is seen in the following variation: 42. Kg1 Be3+! 43. Kh2 Bxf4+ 44. Bg3 Th1#. Another possibility is 42. Be1 Bxf4+ 43. Kg1 Bg3! followed by mate or the gain of the Queen. The main variation is 42. Kg3 g6 43. Qh4 Bxf4+! 44. Kxf4 g5+, and Black wins."


Is this an illegal chess move? Can the White king move to g2 to checkmate?
8/8/8/8/4Q3/7k/5K2/8 w - - 0 1

1. Kg2

Playing Kg2 in this position would "put your king in check" in that the black king is attacking that square already. So, no, that would be an illegal move.
The fastest way to checkmate in this position would be Qd4 (forcing the black king to move to h2) followed by Qh4#.


SCID (or any alternative) on iPad I'm looking for a Scid port (or alternative software) to run on an iPad. Currently I use SCID + Stockfish in my Ubuntu Linux, but I'd like to use my iPad for the same functionality.

AFAIK there's a SCID port for Mac, but I've found nothing for the iPad. Any suggerence?

Update:

When I ask for the "same functionality" what I'd like most would be:

Games database (of course).
Database search.
Openings explorer (aka tree view).
Analyze games.
Annotate games.

Others like playing on FICS/ICC or playing the computer are not needed as I can use other clients for that.

Giordano Vicoli's Chess_Studio (not to be confused with a similarly named e-reader app from Gambit Publications) seems to have many of the features you are looking for.  I've only tried Chess Studio Light, but it is able to import a much wider range of PGN files than any of the PGN viewer apps.  Within a PGN archive, you can view lists of games sorted by Event, Opening, Player or Year. The game window in the Lite version allows you to add nested variations and text and some NAGs (!, ?, only move, and novelty), but you may need the paid version to analyze with Stockfish as kibitzer, or add long lines of moves to a game.  You can save games, or send them by email.  It registers itself as a PGN program, so you can use the "Open in..." menu item to add PGN files to it from programs which have "Open in..."  You can download and upload from Dropbox and iCloud.  You can download from TWIC or PGN Mentor.  It also has Nalimov tablebases for 6 men endings.  In the paid version, it looks like you can play against Stockfish, and set its rating from 500-2500 elo with a choice of aggressive, active or solid styles.  You can set up a position, and play the engine from there.  There isn't a tree view or keys.  The openings index is sorted by ECO codes with no diagrams or names.  Even so, it's the most complete PGN editor/database I've seen for iOS.

In Smallfish, Smallchess and Stockfish, when you try to add a new variation, the app deletes the moves that were there before, so nesting is impossible.  They don't seem to allow you to add text comments or NAGs either.  Smallfish can display text comments from PGN files you import, but the moves in these comments are not clickable.

Re. Android, Chess PGN Master Pro, Droidfish and Chessbase Online all seem to allow you to annotate games, and add subvariations and some NAGs.  The Chessbase app for iOS seems to be more about just accessing their website.

Re. opening repertoires, I haven't tried the iOS version of Arnel Domingo's Chess Opening Trainer, just the Windows demo, but it lets you input your own repertoire, test it, and has trees.

I should also probably mention that there are a number of PGN Editors that you might be able to access online using Safari: Chess.com's Analysis Board Editor, Lichess.org's Board Editor, Apronus and Caissa's Web.  A lot of sites also have opening trees, eg. 365chess.com, Chessbase and ChessOK.


Bobby Fischer and the U.S Why did Bobby Fischer despise the U.S and why did he get exiled?
Wasn't he America's hero at one point?
I'm a big fan of his games.

It is not so much that Fischer got exiled as much as it was that he chose to exile himself (though yes, out of a certain necessity). He was indicted by a U.S. court for ignoring sanctions against Yugoslavia when playing his 1992 rematch against Spassky in that country, and so Fischer chose to avoid returning to the U.S. rather than face prosecution and a potential 10-year prison sentence. As to the various reasons he might have despised his home country, I won't speculate myself, but plenty has been written about Fischer's troubled later years elsewhere.


What's a good way to learn opening theory? I'm a hobbyist chess player and usually play online. While I've seen thousands of great chess games and win a fair number of games online, the one thing that I have struggle with is studying openings. Simply put, there are just so many of them and each of them has so many variations. And to add to that, every out-of-book move my opponent makes throws me off and I don't know how to continue, so it turns out to be some hybrid/weird opening (or perhaps its a real opening with a name that I just don't know about)

I guess my question would be:

What's a good way to learn some of the common/easy openings? Is it
just memorize or understanding the principles for instance, what
that particular opening is looking to achieve?
How do I identify which of the variations to look at for a
particular opening, there are often so many?
What's a good strategy to deal with my opponent suddenly going out
of book or playing a novelty in an opening that I've memorized?

In reading your question, I can't help but think you aren't asking your real question, which I read as, "When I'm out of my book I get abused.  How do I stop this from happening?"

I'm assuming that, like me, you're a USCF player rated under 1800.  I offer the following advice:

Learn two openings with White and two with Black.  Choose white openings begin with e4 or d4.  Avoid long lines where your opponent may be more booked-up.  At the amateur level, most openings and variations are playable.  Your openings with the Black pieces should be sound but off the beaten path a little.  Study games online, buy books, whatever.  Hour for hour, books are cheaper than movies. Go for it.
Find an instructor who's rated 400 or more points above you.  Ask this person to help you with your game, especially when you're out of your book.  They'll help you with applying guiding principles.  Chess principles are simple until it's time to apply them. Your instructor can help.
Don't memorize without understanding.  It is critical to understand why book moves are standard.
Don't be afraid to lose.  "I'm out of my book, I better play it safe!" is poison.


What K factor should be used if two players are in different K factor brackets? Apparently, when calculating a player's USCF rating difference after a win or loss, the K factor that is used is based on the player's rating. Now, I was always under the impression that two players with ratings a and b would play each other and that a difference in score is awarded to both of them such that their ratings after the match would be a+d and b-d (assuming player A won the match).

But let's say you have a player at 2075 (who would have a K factor of 32) and another player at 2125 (who would have a K factor of 24). Which K factor would be used? I could see a case for either of 32, 24, or even 28 being used in this case. What does USCF do here?

K-factor is used for each player individually. So, if one of them got 30 K-factor, his rating will change on the basis of that K-factor, while another player with 10 K-factor, for instance, will get rating on the basis of his own K-factor.

There are Chess Rating Calculators on FIDE's official website. You can have a look: FIDE Rating Change Calculators


Best heuristic for memorizing positions in chess Opening variations may be memorized by recalling what the objective behind every move is. For example, the first few moves of the Ruy Lopez fight to control e5.

In the middlegame, we may find ourselves thinking about a critical move - a move that requires tactical precision. Said tactic, if performed correctly, will yield an improved position. The tactic may reach several moves, usually six or seven and occasionally ten moves.

We would like to memorize a position in the middle of our visualized tactic as a "mental checkpoint". In case we don't like a move, say our eighth move, we can return to the position after the 5th move in our visualized tactic instead of the current position (move one).

What is a consistent method for creating the checkpoints?
Next, where in the tactic do we set the checkpoint? Do we set it every fourth move, do we only create one, or do we only create it in quiet circumstances?
If the method is not consistent, such as it does not work for all positions, list the exceptions.

This seems a bit theoretical/artificial to me.

I'd say, just do whatever works best for you. In the end all this should happen subconsciously without you thinking about any "methods".

  What is a consistent method for creating the checkpoints?

Do you mean, how to memorize a position 5 moves from now? For any reasonably strong player this is not a problem (could be more problematic with positions very far in the future). You could use similar methods as in blindfold chess, e.g. you could combine groups of pieces (e.g. store the information of "fianchettoed bishop" instead of the position of each piece separately). Also for tactics very often only a small part of the board/limited number of pieces are relevant; so you could ignore irrelevant pieces.

  Next, where in the tactic do we set the checkpoint?

Could make sense to create them at points where you have a number of alternative moves. Also, could create them at positions that are easy to remember.


Strategy in "double-isolated" Queen-pawn positions? What should the plan be for both sides in the Double Isolated Queen Pawn formation, such as the one arising from:

    [fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4 Bb4 5.exd5 exd5 6.cxd5 cxd5

E.G. - should each side focus on attacking the other's isolated pawn? Defending their own pawn? Ignoring the isolated pawns & playing in the open files? Does it depend on the position?

Thanks in Advance!

It will depend on the placement of perhaps mainly the light pieces and the queens. Attacking the enemy d-pawn is definitely an option. Over-protecting your own d-pawn is also an option. Placing a knight on the (for white) e5-forepost is an option.

In general, it is a good idea to have a knight that is ready to grab the enemy d-pawn when given a chance. The reason is because the enemy will try to build pressure on your d-pawn by placing the queen (as black) on b6 or f6. Then, as white, you are ready for e.g. Nc3xd5 hitting the queen.

You can consider placing a bishop (as white) on the h1-a8 diagonal to pressure the enemy d-pawn. Note that when you play Nf3-e5, you lose a defender of your d4-pawn and black can build up on d4.

With the heavy pieces, you should probably invade on the c-file (since the enemy has castled kingside and the c-file is further away from the enemy king than the e-file). You can try to use the c5-forepost to weaken the enemy queenside and invade with a rook on c7 or c6 (also push b2-b4-b5). Then, later, you can place a knight on c6 (given that black has done b7-b6 and made c6 weak).


Is memorizing tactics a sign of improvement? I am currently re-doing a book of tactical exercises. I have not seen some of the exercises for longer than a year, and when I look at the position at first it seems new and I see nothing, until it clicks and I remember the solution. It is not through calculation, I just stumble upon it and remember it. I of course verify my "guess" by calculation, but once one know it works it is not hard.
I was wondering whether it is even worth going through a book if this is how I solve about 95% of the exercises, it feels a little like cheating and I should do new exercises. But then I think: Is this not how it is supposed to work? If a motif appears in my game, I will get the same feeling that something is there, and that is what the point of my training was, and by going through the book again I will reinforce the patterns.

I think it is a sign of greater awareness of certain patterns and positions. So my answer is Yes, I do think it is a sign of improvement.
I doubt that there is anything wrong with going back through an old chess book, even if you remember everything -- rather I think it is good; it is something that I have done quite often as well. It will certainly reinforce what you already know. I would advance and get more exercises to work on, but you will find that all the previous exercises that you have done will help a great deal with your new exercises.


Why is 12... d4 a blunder? I recently played a game featuring the Old Sicilian with a bit of a branch-off. White played 3. Bc4 after 2. Nf3 Nc6, which I don't deal well with. I ended up playing 12... d4, attacking the White knight, which the analysis later marked as a blunder. I'm not an advanced chess player, and I can't find out why this would be so.
[FEN ""]
[startply "23"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 g6 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. b3 O-O 8. Bb2 Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. gxf3 e6 11. f4 d5 12. Bb5 d4 13. Bxc6 dxc3 14. Bxb7 cxb2 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. Ba6 Nh5 17. Rxb2 Nxf4 18. Qf3 Qg5+ 19. Kh1 Bxb2 20. Rg1 Qe5 21. Rb1 Ba3 22. Qg3 c4 23. dxc4 Bd6 24. a3 Rb6 25. Bb5 Bxa3 26. Ra1 Bd6 27. Rxa7 Ne2 28. Qe3 Qh2#

Can anybody please can clue me in to how 12... d4 was a blunder?

Because black can play 12...Nd4 instead. The threat is to catch the bishop b5 with ...a6 and ...b5 and eventually ...c4. I do not see how white can prevent this. White loses a piece.


Maximum number of captures in a position I was wondering what the maximum number of captures in a position is, either in a real game or a problem.

I have some records from a book published in 1969. They might have been surpassed since then, but if that is the case, I was not able to locate that information. I guess, since there is no reply after ~2 weeks, this should be better than nothing. These are records for captures by one side.
74 captures; legal position:
[Title "T. W. Marlow & William Cross, Problem 05/1967"]
[FEN "r1n1n1b1/1P1P1P1P/1N1N1N2/2RnQrRq/2pKp3/3BNQbQ/k7/4Bq2 w - - 0 1"]

Additional Source: Die Schwable Chess Problem Database Server
Edit: In response to the comment - here's a legal position without underpromotions in play, 65 captures possible.
[Title "T. W. Marlow & William Cross, Problem 05/1967"]
[FEN "k2Kb2R/1RrQnQN1/8/BqQbQqQn/8/1QbQqQNB/8/3rQq2 w - - 0 1"]

Additional Source: Die Schwable Chess Problem Database Server
Source: Guide To Fairy Chess by Anthony Dickins.