What are some solid attacks in chess? By solid attacks, I mean, attacks that have been tested over time.  They don't necessarily have to be used at the top-level. I will give an example of what I am looking for:

The Fried Liver Attack can be used against the Two Knights Defense and the Traxler Counter Attack can be used against the Fried Liver Attack.

I think the Cochrane gambit is sound enough:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7!?

Also the Evans Gambit:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

The Marshall counter-gambit in Ruy Lopez, sacrifices are pawn and gives black a good attack. However, it seems that some Grandmasters are using it as drawing tool, but for us black should have an attack.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5


When was the oldest person ever to have a FIDE rating born? Specifically, one FIDE rated player was born before all other FIDE rated players. Who was it and when was he born?

I've no proof him to be the earliest born of them all, but after browsing the earliest FIDE rating lists, my candidate would be Esteban Canal:

Born in 1896, April the 19th, the Peruvian master was 75 when he entered the first published list in July 1971 with an Elo of 2270.

He beats grandmaster Friedrich Saemisch by five months.


What's the plan against Black's kingside fianchetto when playing Queen's pawn game? I often play 1. d4. In many of the variations that arise, Black decides to castle kingside with the bishop fianchetto.

I do not know what the general plan is in this case. Normally without the fianchetto I would play f4-f5, some kind of Marshall plan or Stonewall formation with the Knight. But when there is a fianchetto I do not know what to play for.

I know the question is vague. But I am looking for strategies from different players with different styles. What to do with a kingside fianchetto when playing 1.d4 and also castling kingside?

You can still play a Stonewall Attack when Black decides to castle kingside with the bishop fianchetto.

Black reacts with d5

Here is an example with "normal" moves from Black.

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. f4 d5 5.Nf3 c5 6. c3 O-O 7. O-O Nc6

The stonewall attack is a solid opening with grip in the center:

White controls the important central squares (d4, and e5)
White can install a knight in e5 which will force Black to weaken its position if it wants to remove it.
White can play this typical manoeuvre to exchange the bad bishop in
c1 against the knight in f6 by playing Bc1-d2-e1-h4.
With a closed center, White can then expand on the king's side with g4...

Here is an example with black normal moves that are a bit cooperative!

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. f4 d5 5. Nf3 c5 6. c3 O-O 7. O-O Nc6 8. Bd2 b6 9. Be1 Bb7 10. Bh4 e6 11. Nbd2 Ne7 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. g4

Black reacts with d6

The setup with d6 suggested by @user1583209 is very clever. d6 is a flexible move that allows Black to counter-attack with e5. Here is an example where Black is okay:

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. f4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O Nc6 7. c3 e5

I would suggest reacting with 7.e4 instead of 7.c3 like in this game (obtained by transposition)

[Title "Gleizerov, Evgeny (2544) vs Das, Arghyadip (2404), Gurgon Op. 2009"]

[FEN ""]
1. f4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. d4 Nf6 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d6 6. O-O Nc6 7. e4 e5 8. d5 Nb4 9. fxe5 dxe5 10. Be3 b6 11. Nc3 Ng4 12. Bg5 Qd6 13. Qe2 h6 14. Bd2 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Bd7 16. h3 Nf6 17. Ne2 Ne8 18. c4 f5 19. Ng3 f4 20. Nh1 Nf6 21. Bc3 Rae8 22. Nf2 g5 23. a3 c5 24. dxc6 Qxd3 25. Nxd3 Bxc6 26. Ndxe5 Bxe4 27. Bb4 Bxf3 28. Bxf8 Bxg2 29. Bxg7 Kxg7 30. Kxg2 Rxe5 31. Rfe1 Rf5 32. b4 h5 33. Rac1 g4 34. hxg4 hxg4 35. c5 f3+ 36. Kf2 Nh5 37. c6 g3+ 38. Ke3 f2 39. Rf1 Rf8 40. c7 Rc8 41. Kf3 Kg6 42. Kg2 Kg5 43. Rfd1 Nf4+ 44. Kf3 Nh5 45. Rc4 Kg6 46. Kg2 Kg5 47. Rd5+ Kg6 48. Rc6+ 1-0


Has AI changed opening theory, and if so, how? Pre-AI, it's hard to imagine that opening moves had changed much. Following the birth of computer engines, has AI changed opening theory, and if so, how?

AI has changed theory by allowing theoreticians to grind through variations tirelessly.  Due to the tactical prowess of even common computer programs it's pretty easy to ensure that variations contain no unexpected barbs.


Ruy Lopez 3...a6 & 6...Bc5 setup - a4 vs c3+d4 idea for White? Here's the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

There are 2 main continuations for White: 7.c3 (the most obvious imho) and 7.a4. Actually there's also the modestly looking 7.d3 which is good, no doubt, but I'm not interested in the d3 system at the moment)

What are the pros and cons of the the both moves/lines?

And what does White really achieve (or try to achieve) by attacking the pawn on b5? I understand it cannot be recaptured by the a-pawn, so Black would normally defend it with his rook or go Bb7. Second, I'd also like to understand why 7...b4 is bad from positional point of view.

Also, sometimes White precedes a4 with c3. So, instead of playing a4 right away he waits for 7...d6 and only then plays 8.a4 (again instead of the obvious to me 8.d4). What is the idea here?

      [StartPly "15"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.c3 d6 8.a4

Thank you.

After the logical 7.c3 d6 8.d4, black should play 8....Bb6, with the idea 0-0, Re8, Bb7/g4, building up pressure against white's center. Also after 8.a4 Bg4!, pinning the knight and protecting the rook on a8, black should be fine.

Therefore, the main line is 7.a4, bringing the rook into play with an extra tempo. After 7....b4, white obtains the advantage by 8.Nxe5! Nxe5 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qxd4, attacking the pawn on b4. Note the difference with 7.Nxe5, where black is fine after 7....Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6.

Instead of 7....b4, the main line is 7....Rb8 and the game often continues with 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6. This position can also be reached by 7.c3 d6 8.d4 Bb6 9.a4 Rb8. However, this move order unnecessarily gives black the extra option of 9....Bg4.

Recently, during the international tournament of the Isle Of Man, two top-level games were played that are important for the current theoretical status of the Ruy Lopez Arkhangelsk.

In the game Fabiano Caruana - Gawain Jones, black followed the recommendation given in a video series by Peter Svidler. However, during his home preparation, white found the refutation at move 23(!) and won the game (see reports on Chess.com and ChessBase.com).

Remarkably, the very next round, Magnus Carlsen repeated the same opening against Caruana. He deviated at move 14, but again Caruana had prepared a strong novelty. Nevertheless, Carlsen won (see reports on Chess.com and ChessBase.com).

Edit: In both games, Caruana chose the move order 7.c3 d6 8.a4, allowing 8....Bg4. Although this probably has a reason, I have no idea why this move order would be more precise.

      [StartPly "12"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 (7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6)(7.c3 d6 8.d4 (8.a4 Bg4) Bb6 9.a4 Bg4) Rb8 (7...b4 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qxd4) 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6


Is the Grand Prix Attack a poor response to the Sicilian? The Grand Prix Attack begins 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4. It is an anti-Sicilian for white that is popular among club players because playing it requires memorizing significantly less theory than the open Sicilian. However, I wonder if playing it is a good choice.

According to the 365chess database, after playing 3. f4, white wins 36% of the time, while black wins 40% of the time. That is, by playing 3. f4, the white player seems to give black a slight advantage. Compare this to the open Sicilian or the 2. c3 Sicilian, where white maintains a slight advantage in winning percentage. It is tempting to conclude that white should not play the Grand Prix attack, and instead choose another anti-Sicilian. The large sample size (11,000 games) seems to indicate that playing 3. f4 really does put white at a disadvantage, and that the winning percentages aren't just a statistical anomaly.

It's not hard to come up with an explanation. Moving the f4 pawn seems to give white a slight structural disadvantage. If white can't strike the killing blow and black can close up the game, the weakened kingside allows black counterplay.

Certainly, one can easily think of objections to this analysis. For example, the games in the database are not a random sample, and there is probably a large bias towards 2000+ level play. And it's true that at a club level, especially below 1600, tactical blunders in the middlegame are going to make the opening moves irrelevant. But the sample size is huge, and the effect is significant (a 4% advantage in winning percentage for black, instead of the usual 3% advantage for white in the open Sicilian). Why not play it safe and choose a different anti-Sicilian? I don't think club players should hamstring themselves unnecessarily.

In light of the above, are there any good reasons for club players to play the Grand Prix Attack instead of a different anti-Sicilian? For example (and I don't have the computational skill to do this, otherwise I would), do the winning percentages look different for sub-2000 players?

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but many openings where black has a large plus against white it isn't necessarily because the opening is actually so bad that it gives black a significant advantage, but because the opening is more popular at a lower level (which is normally because it actually is worse than other openings) so the players who play it are on average lower rated than their opponents and would most likely score less than 50% anyway.

Normally the openings with low percentages for white are slightly worse than other openings for white, but not necessarily so bad as to give black the advantage, but then the fact that they're worse than others kicks in and the higher level players play them less often, leading to that opening to score a lot of losses for white, even in a game which is even or with a slight edge for white after the opening.


How can I set up en passant in the Popeye engine? I want to solve a problem with Thomas Maeder's excellent Popeye engine, and to specify that a possible en passant in the diagram is ok. How can I do this please? The documentation seems opaque. Thanks so much!

See https://github.com/thomas-maeder/popeye/releases/tag/v4.81

EDIT: Outside chess, I see stackexchange used widely to ask technical questions about software use (indeed use it myself like this sometimes), and I think this is fair use in chess too.

The github page lists several help files in various languages: English, French and German. These are text files which can be downloaded. English is clearly not Thomas Maeder's mother tongue, I'm guessing German. Perhaps the German help file is clearer than the English.

As far as I can tell from the English file there is a long list of options you can pass to the program to define the problem you want it to solve. For en passant it defines the "EnPassant" option as follows:

  EnPassant  - Must be followed by 3-4 squares which indicate the  pawn
  move just played:

  departure square
  avoided squares
  arrival square


Why did Fischer play 17.c4 here? Why did Fischer play 17...c4 here?

[fen "r4rk1/1q1n1pp1/4b2p/p1pp4/8/Q2NP3/PP2BPPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"]

Doesn’t it make the bishop e6 a lot worse? I would have played rfb8 instead, but I am not Fischer.

Every move has pros and cons. Move a pawn, for example, and you gain space, and control squares; but you also weaken squares. The trick is to accurately determine if you will be able to use your pros better than your opponent can use your new-found weaknesses against you. Always remember that a “weakness” is only a weakness if your opponent can get at it, and use it against you.

In this position, 17…Rfb8 is also a very good move, but Stockfish definitely prefers c4. After 17…c4, Fischer decided that the immediate pressure on b2 was more important than making the bishop worse. In addition, when the Nd3 moved to f4, from there, it really could only trade itself off for that bad bishop in most situations. As in the game, because white did not take immediately on e6, the bishop went to f5, and deprived the white rooks of the b1 square, and thus, a method of defending the pawn on b2.

It was almost inevitable that white would lose a pawn. As it was played, after 21…g5, white felt compelled to give up the piece altogether seeing the variation 22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4 paralyzing white.

I do not know if you are reading “My 60 Memorable Games”, but this is game 34 in that book, and the game was titled, “Hanging pawns unhung”. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Fischer thought that the best move was 19. Nxe6 getting rid of the “bad” bishop, giving the variation: 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bg4 Ra6! 21. b3! cxb3 22. axb3 Qxb3 23. Qe7 Nf8 24. Ra3 Qb4 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Be2 Ra7 27. Rfa1 a4 28. Bd1 “with good drawing chances”, but 21…Qb4! Stopped the queen from taking up the active position deep in the black camp, and threatens cxb3 with a strong passed pawn, since it exposes an attack on the hanging Bg4. Per Stockfish Qxb4 is forced, and is probably close to lost in my opinion due to the incredibly weak white queenside.

 [Event "Interzonal-05"]
 [Site "Stockholm"]
 [Date "1962.03.04"]
 [Round "22"]
 [White "Bertok, Mario"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "D59"]
 [PlyCount "62"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12. O-O c5 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7 15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4 18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 (19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bg4 Ra6 $1 21. b3 $1 {Fischer's !} cxb3 (21... Qb4 $1 {Not letting the Qa3 get active.} 22. Qxb4 axb4 {And white is in huge trouble.}) 22. axb3 Qxb3 23. Qe7 Nf8 24. Ra3 Qb4 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Be2 Ra7 27. Rfa1 a4 28. Bd1 $15) 19... Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5 22. Nxd5 (22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4 {Winning positionally.}) 22... Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? Nxe3! 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7 28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1


What are the basic principles to play chess960? I heard about a popular chess variant called Chess960, which uses randomized home ranks for the pieces. Which are the basic principles we can adapt there in Chess960?

The first is to know it completely. Many people even don't know that it's possible to castle in Chess960 or they don't know how to castle. A good starting point is to get familiar to its rules, read this wiki.

The pieces in Chess960 set randomized so the known opening moves and variants aren't valid anymore. BUT, the opening principles and rules are still valid. Occupying center, controlling more open lines and diagonals, developing pieces rapidly, protecting the king, connecting the rooks... you should learn opening strategies and principles.

In Chess960 memorizing the opening moves like a machine doesn't useful anymore. By playing this kind of chess you're stepping in the unknown and wonder land of openings.

A bad practice is trying to make opening positions as same as known positions and wasting moves for simulating normal chess variants.

  “Chess960 is healthy and good for your chess. If you get into it and not just move the pieces to achieve known positions it really improves your chess vision.” -- GM Levon Aronian.


Is the 6.h4 Najdorf that bad? I see that a few strong GMs are playing 6.h4 vs the Najdorf Sicilian. And I have also seen this move given a dubious (?!) value. Apart from its surprise value (always important in chess), I see it as a rather logical move if you want to play aggressively vs the Najdorf. What is, in your opinion, the main idea behind this variation?

I play the Najdorf with Black and would say that on move six White has tried almost everything: almost every legal move is a move and so are attempts like 6.h4, 6.a4 or the like.

That said, there are nevertheless basic principles and ideas that make some lines more sound (and played) than others. Historically the sharpest try to refute the Najdorf has been 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4, described in hundreds of chess monographs: however, the so-called Poisoned Pawn variation with 7...Qb6 8.Qd2 followed by either 8...Qxb2 or 8...Nc6 has somehow refuted the 6.Bg5 line as it has been worked out to a draw with correct play where White cannot really force the win.

Nowadays the current trends and sharpest tests go in the direction of the English attack (6.Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8.f3) or fianchetto lines (6.g3 or 6.h3, the Adam's attack) followed by a quick g4. Here the underlying idea is, no matter what line you choose, to long castle and play g4-g5 supported by the f or h pawns (in f3 or h3); meanwhile, Black is reacting with b5-b4-Rc8 almost all the times. This means that in order to play g4 White must support its pawn with either f3 or h3 (that are currently played as main lines, almost) to avoid any chance of tactics against the g4 pawn: in this respect h4 does not defend the g-pawn, nor does it attack any of Black's pieces, nor does it develop any (like 6.Be3 or 6.Be2 would, for instance). Nevertheless it is at the moment being tried at the GM level, the basic idea still being a pawn storm against the King side, but it is not yet a main line due to the fact that it does not pose any direct threat and gives Black the initiative with b5-b4 without the possibility of a quick g4-g5 (because White has wasted one move with 6.h4).


How to gain material by trading pieces? So, I am learning the basics on trading pieces, but can someone please give me tips on the "Art of trading pieces with material gain".

I know a concept called overloading, but are there any other tactical concepts?

Substitution would be another. With a trade/capture, you can set up another tactical motive like a skewer or a fork.

In the position below (taken from the ChessTactics link above), Black wins an exchange with the following combination:

[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/p1p1qp1p/1p2n1pb/8/n7/1PB1PBN1/P2Q1PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 33"]

1... Nxc3 2. Qxc3 Bg7


How is chess viewed in USSR vs Post-USSR? I was reading the following wikipedia article on Mark Taimanov and I was very shocked (I guess I shoudn't be knowing how the Soviets took chess so seriously) that when Taimanov lost to Fischer 6-0 , the Soviet Government was embarrassed and found it "unthinkable" that he could lose a match so badly to an American, so they ended up taking away his salary and did not let him travel overseas.  Later, they "forgave" saying the reason for punishment was that he brought a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn into the country, but from the article, I guess many speculate that Fischer's defeat of Bent Larsen 6-0 probably had more to do with the Soviet government "forgiving" Taimanov.  So in a nutshell, do these things types of things still happen, not just with the countries that used to be a part of the USSR, but in other parts of the world?  This maybe difficult to answer, because I guess if it did happen, it would be kept very secretive?

Authoritarian governments will punish its representatives who do not live up to the standards they set.

Iraq - Saddam later appointed Uday head of the Iraqi Olympic committee and soccer federation, and ... tortured athletes who failed to win.

China - Players that towed the party line and upheld Marxist values were rewarded. Those that didn’t were punished.

Bear in mind, these standards are not necessarily reasonable or attainable.


Why is my tactics spidey-sense not working? I have done over 5000 puzzles on chesstempo but still can't sense any tactics. So for the past few days I've been making a mental note each time a signal appears (loose pieces, exposed king, potential for double attack, etc.) and try to think of a way to exploit it but to my surprise, I can't find any. What I envisioned when I started doing tactics was that I would reach a point where the tactics would come automatically to me whenever I play a game but that point never came. Although I started doing the mental note thing a few days ago, is there anything I can do to improve it?

Developing tactical ability is a long process. At first you expose yourself to new patterns, try to understand how they work when they are already on the board. You will still not spot it every time it appears in your games. But sometimes you will. And sometimes you will see that you or your opponent cannot play a move because it fails due to a tactical motif you know.
The next step is seeing the potential motif long before it appears and setting it up. It is good that you note weaknesses in your opponent's position. This is the first step towards setting up tactics. You see a loose piece, you position your pieces so that eventually you can exploit that.
It takes a very long time from knowing a pattern to setting it up yourself. Be patient. Sometimes I see a tactic by GMs and I can barely solve it with all the pieces already in position, and then I realise they saw it 10 moves ago and played towards it and all I can do is hold my head.
It may be the case that your training method is not suited for you. Studying random puzzles, not sorted by patterns or some overarching theme, may not be good for you. It is good for pure calculation, but not when you are trying to develop your pattern database.


A position with the only legal move resulting in checkmate Theoretically, is it possible that for some position, the only legal move for a side leads to a checkmate (that is, the opposite king gets checkmated)? If so, has this ever occurred in a real game?

I want to offer a semi-realistic example. I think I have seen something like this in a game by masters in some book, but of course I cannot recall where. But this is something that at least can be realistically missed in calculations from far away.
[FEN "6k1/5ppp/6r1/3b4/4r3/8/1Q5P/1R5K w - - 0 1"]

White just gives a back rank mate, right? :)
Update: actually, I found a real game with a very similar motive, though not quite self-mate in one:
[FEN ""]
[Event "Simul"]
[Site "Copenhagen DEN"]
[Date "1924.03.15"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Black "Paulsen"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Source "Skjoldager and Nielsen pp.399-400"]
[PlyCount "43"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 Be7 8. c5 O-O 9. Bd3 a6 10. O-O Qc7 11. b4 e5 12. dxe5
Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Bb2 Ng4 15. f4 Qd4+ 16. Kh1 Nf2+
17. Rxf2 Qxf2 18. Nxd5 Qxb2 19. Bxh7+ Kh8 20. Qh5 Qxa1+ (20...Bg4!)
21. Bb1+ Kg8 22. Nxe7# 1-0

An old Russian book by Judovich also lists the following position in a game between two amateurs "whitnessed by J. Krejcik in a local club":
 [Fen "8/4N1p1/7k/4B2P/5KP1/3q4/8/7R b - - 0 1"]

The story goes that after 1...g5, both players resigned, because white forgot about the en passant rule, and black only remembered it after they made the move. I think we can safely assume it's made up, though.


Chess traps without positional loss Most of the common chess traps are ill advised (at least in standard games), as you sacrifice better moves.

Traps that I have tried out with some success are the fishing pole, and the blackbourne shilling gambit. But common for these common trap plays, is that if spotted, I am left in a bad position.

In fishing pole, black often play black bishop and forces me to pin my knight.
In blackbourne gambit, the opponent often simply take the knight rather than the poisoned pawn.

Are there any common chess traps, without a positional loss, that are worth studying?

The following traps do not lead to any positional loss for the side setting the trap. It's obviously not an exhaustive list-

A common trap in the Sicilian

  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. Be2 Nxe4?? 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxe4

Queen's Gambit Elephant Trap

  [FEN ""]
  1. d4. d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Nxd5?? Nxd5 7. Bxd8 Bb4+ 8. Qd2 Kxd8 9. e4 Bxd2+

Trap in the Alapin Sicilian

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 e6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nxd4?? 8. Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Qxd4

Cambridge Springs Trap

  [FEN ""]
  1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 7. Bd3?! dxc4 8. Bxc4 Ne4 9. Qc2?? Nxg5 10. Nxg5 Qxg5

Trap in Sveshnikov Sicilian

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Nd5 Nxd5 8. exd5 Ne7 9. c4 a6? 10. Qa4 axb5 11. Qxa8 (10...Qd7 11. Nxd6+)

Trap in the Philidor defense

  [FEN ""]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4 Be7? (4... Ngf6? 5. dxe5 Nxe5 6. Nxe5 dxe5 7.
    Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4+ 9. Qd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2) 5. dxe5! dxe5?? (5... Nxe5 6. Nxe5
    dxe5 7. Qh5 g6 8. Qxe5) 6. Qd5 Nh6 (6...Nf6?? 7.Qxf7#) 7. Bxh6 O-O 8. Be3

Ruy Lopez Noah's Ark Trap

   [FEN ""]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 (4... d6 5. d4 b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4
    exd4 8. Qxd4?? c5) 5. Bb3 d6 6. d4 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?? c5 9. Qd5 Be6 10.
    Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5 c4

Siberian Trap in the Smith-Morra Gambit

    [FEN ""]

    1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 Qc7 7. O-O Nf6 8.
    Qe2 Ng4 9. h3?? Nd4! 10. Nxd4 (10. hxg4 Nxe2+) (10. Qd1 Nxf3+ 11. Qxf3 Qh2#) 10...
    Qh2# 0-1

Trap in the Rauzer Sicilian

    [FEN ""]

    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. f4
    h6 9. Bh4? Nxe4! 10. Nxe4 (10. Bxd8 Nxd2 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Bc7 Nxf1) 10... Qxh4+
    11. g3 Qd8


Why does Stockfish give "score mate -7" for this position? I'm running Stockfish with MultiPV=7:

script: setoption name MultiPV value 7
script: ucinewgame
script: position startpos moves d2d4 g8f6 c2c4 g7g6 b1c3 d7d5 c1f4 f8g7 f4e5 d5c4 e2e3 b8c6 d1a4 e8g8 e5f6 g7f6 f1c4 a7a6 c4d5 b7b5 a4d1 c8b7 a2a3 e7e6 d5f3 c6a5 f3b7 a5b7 b2b4 c7c5 b4c5
script: isready
engine: readyok
script: go movetime 600000.0

When I look at the "multipv 7" lines, I see a strange evaluation at the end of the analysis:

engine: info depth 1 seldepth 1 score cp -74 nodes 463 nps 66142 time 7 multipv 7 pv e6e5 g1e2 e5d4 e3d4
engine: info depth 2 seldepth 2 score cp -74 nodes 1314 nps 187714 time 7 multipv 7 pv e6e5 g1e2 e5d4 e3d4
engine: info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp -79 nodes 3193 nps 399125 time 8 multipv 7 pv d8c7 c3e4 c7a5 d1d2
engine: info depth 4 seldepth 6 score cp -106 nodes 6224 nps 622400 time 10 multipv 7 pv d8c7 g1e2 c7a5 d1d2
[268 lines omitted]
engine: info depth 31 seldepth 52 score cp -70 nodes 3472890690 nps 6622358 time 524419 multipv 7 pv e6e5 c5c6 a8c8 d4d5 d8a5 g1e2 e5e4 a1c1 b7c5 e1g1 f6e5 d5d6 f8d8 c3e4 c5e4 d6d7 c8c7 d1d5 e4c3 e2c3 e5c3 d5d6 c3b2
engine: info depth 31 seldepth 52 score mate 0 upperbound nodes 3666345467 nps 6585523 time 556728 multipv 7 pv d8e7 a1c1 a8c8 c3e4 e6e5 d4d5 b7c5 d5d6 c5d3 d1d3 c8c1 e1d2
engine: info depth 32 seldepth 52 score mate -7 lowerbound nodes 3696286819 nps 6601691 time 559900 multipv 7 pv d8e7 a1c1 a8c8 c3e4 e6e5 d4d5 b7c5 d5d6 c5d3 d1d3 c8c1 e1d2 e7e6
engine: info depth 32 seldepth 52 score mate -7 nodes 3992249349 nps 6653549 time 600018 multipv 7 pv d8e7 a1c1 a8c8 c3e4 e6e5 d4d5 b7c5 d5d6 c5d3 d1d3 c8c1 e1d2 e7e6
engine: info nodes 3992249349 time 600018
engine: bestmove d8a5 ponder g1e2

Why does the 3rd-to-last line give "score mate -7"?
I believe this is a lower bound due to pruning (as in my previous question), but the line does not say "lowerbound".
How can I extract the correct evaluation? I doubt the position is a mate in 7.

Full output is here.

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. Be5 dxc4 6. e3 Nc6 7. Qa4 O-O 8.
Bxf6 Bxf6 9. Bxc4 a6 10. Bd5 b5 11. Qd1 Bb7 12. a3 e6 13. Bf3 Na5 14. Bxb7
Nxb7 15. b4 c5 16. bxc5

Fist things first, I put the position into another chess program (Chessmaster, because I find it has the most reliable mate-search function) and told it to brute-force search for a mate. This is what it found:

So to answer one part of your question, no, there isn't a mate in 7 here.

That leaves the question of why you are getting the lines:

engine: info depth 32 seldepth 52 score mate -7 lowerbound nodes 3696286819 nps 6601691 time 559900 multipv 7 pv d8e7 a1c1 a8c8 c3e4 e6e5 d4d5 b7c5 d5d6 c5d3 d1d3 c8c1 e1d2 e7e6
engine: info depth 32 seldepth 52 score mate -7 nodes 3992249349 nps 6653549 time 600018 multipv 7 pv d8e7 a1c1 a8c8 c3e4 e6e5 d4d5 b7c5 d5d6 c5d3 d1d3 c8c1 e1d2 e7e6

I would suggest that the first of these is stating that as far as the engine has calculated, there is no mate in 7, hence the term lowerbound. The next line indicates that the engine is initiating a PV-search for a mate in 7.


Clarification on changed rules of getting rating from FIDE As of July 2014 FIDE states

7.14c
The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive rating periods totalling not more than 26 months, are pooled to obtain the initial rating.

Before July 2014, 12 months period of play for minimum of 9 games was pooled together to calculate the rating, and if minimum of 9 games are not played within 12 months then you are supposed to play 9 more games again starting as a new unrated player.

Well i had played 8 rated games before June 2014 (in April and I'm still unrated because i did not play the the 9th one) and now as 12 months has passed as per the old rule but not 26 months as per new one, if i play a FIDE rated tournament now, will the performance of my last tournament be considered for my rating performance or do i have to play freshly at least 5 games and get 0.5 points to get a new rating.

If at least 4 of your opponents in that April 2014 FIDE rated tournament had FIDE ratings before the tournament and if you play another FIDE rated player in another FIDE rated tournament within 26 months of the April 2014 tournament and if you scored at least half a point out of all the games you played against FIDE rated opponents (so minimum of 0.5 / 5) then you should get a FIDE rating.

The key points are that you have to play at least 5 FIDE rated opponents (some of your opponents in April 2014 may have been unrated like you) and you have to get at least one draw against your FIDE rated opponents. They can't calculate a rating if you lose all your games.


How is Kasparov vs Shirov 1992 a victory? There is no check.
Was it a victory on time? Or did Shirov resign?
In all the discussion over this game it's just accepted that Kasparov won, without anyone mentioning the reason for his victory.
And it is so often called a great game, whereas I don't see any great brilliance. Just 2 guys trading blows.
There's hardly a significant difference in material in the final position.

Shirov resigned: the thinking was that despite both sides left with pawns and a knight, the advantage went to Black.

Black has an extra pawn and Black's pawn chain is mutually supporting. White is down a pawn and they are split. White's king is buried too deeply in the corner to either prevent a black pawn advance to promotion or to save White's pawns.

True, White does have a pawn that is more advanced, but Black's king is already central, pretty much attacking the pawn and knight.  The white knight is insufficient to protect that pawn.  That pawn is pretty much gone, so really Black's advantage effectively becomes two pawns.

With White's advanced pawn gone, advantage becomes three black pawns and a knight against White's single king-side pawn and a knight, except even here Black's knight is already attacking that pawn so it, too, is effectively gone.

Kasparov would truly have to make some blunders to fail to promote a pawn, so pawn promotion was seen to be unavoidable given the position.  Hence White resigns.


Traps in the Owen's opening I recently heard about Owen's opening. 1. e4 b6 is the starting move which can transform into various lines. I am just curious about the traps (for both black and white) involved in this opening. I tried surfing on the internet but couldn't get any traps on this opening. So, are there any traps involved or not?

PS- Although I've accepted an answer, feel free to add any relevant comment or answer !

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

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 f5 4. exf5 Bxg2 5. Qh5+ g6 6. fxg6 Nf6 7. gxh7+ Nxh5 8. Bg6++

One possible trap for black is in the Matinovsky gambit which starts with ... 3.f5.


Touch move rule when the opponent is not present on the board According to the rules, if a player touches a piece, he/she has to move that piece (if it's possible), and so on...

Imagine this situation, the opponent is not present on the board (far away), you touch a piece and the opponent (or somebody else) claims that you have to move that piece, can you deny it?

Of course, you can claim that I've said j'adoube or I adjust, and the opponent weren't here to hear it.

My idea is, while the opponent is not present on the board, it is OK to touch the pieces, but does the rule have anticipated this situation?

Article 4.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess (the touch-move rule) also applies if the opponent is not present. But let's split your question up a bit:

  Imagine this situation, the opponent is not present on the board (far
  away), you touch a piece and the opponent (or somebody else) claims
  that you have to move that piece, can you deny it?

In dubio pro reo. (When in doubt, for the accused.)

Unless there is any other evidence (e. g. the arbiter or a spectator observing you), if you deny having touched a piece, the arbiter should declare that there is not enough evidence to support your opponent's claim (the burden of proof is on the claimant).

Not admitting that you touched a piece when you have in fact touched it, however, is one of the most immoral things you can do in a game - exactly because of this issue.

  My idea is, while the opponent is not present on the board, it is OK to touch the pieces, but does the rule have anticipated this situation?

I would suggest a different approach that avoids all confusion: Call the arbiter to your board and tell him you intend to correct the position of some pieces - that's what the arbiter is there for. If no arbiter is in sight, a more practical approach would be to say "I adjust" clearly while e. g. making eye contact with a neutral bystander to make sure you can prove you did not intend to move a piece.


Fischer vs Sherwin Game - 1957 In this game Move # 32 Sherwin play Rxh7 and this move makes him lose the game, so why he didn't play Rxf6? is this mistake from him? or something I didn't get.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[White "White - Fischer Robert J (USA)"]
[Black "Black - Sherwin James T (USA)"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d3 Nc6 4.g3 Nf6 5.Bg2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nbd2 Rb8 8.Re1 d6 9.c3 b6 10.d4 Qc7 11.e5 Nd5 12.exd6 Bxd6 13.Ne4 c4 14.Nxd6 Qxd6 15.Ng5 Nce7 16.Qc2 Ng6 17.h4 Nf6 18.Nxh7 Nxh7 19.h5 Nh4 20.Bf4 Qd8 21.gxh4 Rb7 22.h6 Qxh4 23.hxg7 Kxg7 24.Re4 Qh5 25.Re3 f5 26.Rh3 Qe8 27.Be5+ Nf6 28.Qd2 Kf7 29.Qg5 Qe7 30.Bxf6 Qxf6 31.Rh7+ Ke8 32.Qxf6 Rxh7 33.Bc6+  1-0

Because the rook on b7 is en prise. It is attacked twice (by the rook on h7 and the bishop on g2) and only defended once (by the bishop on c8). Either way the game is lost.


What's the difference between "White is winning" and "White is better"? Many times in literature there are statements like "White/Black is winning" or "White/Black is better". How does one differentiate between the two? How could it be possible for White to be better and not be winning, or be winning and not better? Is there really a difference between the two or are they the same thing?

In the late stages of the game, an advantage can be easily recognized to be enough to win or not. In the earlier stages (the end of the opening, typically), it's a lot harder to tell.

If White is better, and if he manages to obtain something sizeable out of this avantage, then he will win. If Black fights well, he'll still manage to draw, or turn the tables and win.


Longest pondering in a standard-time control game Inspired by the LiChess "French leave" question:
In a standard time-control you can think almost two hours about your move, and even two-and-a half or three if you blitzed beyond the 40 move control. Personally, I recall the one or other opponent of mine thinking a whopping hour about a tempting sacrifice I allowed them to make - bad idea, they regularly lost when I produced even more chaos on the board and they wished they had more time to analyze :P
Thus, my question: What is the longest reported time for a single move under 2h+X/40? (Including Fischer bonus, what argueably makes this even easier. Non-OTB is allowed too, which has the advantage of the data being explicitely recorded.) Tal's "Hippo incident" comes to mind, and Sämisch was an expert for this in almost every game. Still, I lack concrete values.

Tal wrote* about this game:

it was here that Uhlmann established his record, thinking over the move 12...exf5 for 1 hour 50 minutes

Judging from other comments by Tal about this game, I think the time control must have been 2 hours and 30 minutes for the first 40 moves.
[Title "Mihail Tal-Uhlmann, Wolfgang, Alekhine Memorial, Moscow Russia, 11/30/1971"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "23"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nc6 5. Bb5 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Bd7 7. Bg5 Qa5+ 8. Nc3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bb4 10. O-O Bxc3 11. bxc3 Qxc3 12. Nf5 exf5 13. Re1+ Be6 14. Qd6 a6 15. Bd2 Qxc2 16. Bb4 axb5 17. Qf8+ Kd7 18. Red1+ Kc7 19. Qxa8 1-0

(*) The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, Everyman Chess (2003), p. 401.


How can we make chess community welcoming to women/girls? How to make chess community and environments more welcoming to women/girls?
Chess is not a sport/game of choice for most women. The following two nice answers discuss why -- one, two. These are answers given to a question stated in an unfortunately intimidating way. There is a related phenomenon of more girl players dropping out from kids who took part in a club/academy.
Irrespective of gender, I do respect people's decision not to choose chess, or move on to something else. Still, I have two questions.
1. How can chess community encourage girls/women to pursue chess?
Women titles may be a good idea in this direction. Anything else?
2. How can a chess club encourage girls/women to pursue chess?
(To give the context that I am interested in: I am talking about a chess club in an institute where many girl students study)
Any nice ideas?
I was thinking about activities with a social side such as human chess where a 'counselor' decides which piece to move but the piece gets to decide what move to make. Admittedly, this is more like a fun event than a chess event; But, that is for better I think. But, would this help to this aim?
PS: I would be happy to get yours answers to questions 1 & 2, rather than diverging to arguments on whether this is needed or not (Even better to explicitly state which question you are answering). I respect your opinion, but if your differ on the assumptions made in the question, it would be better to express them as comments to the question.
Thank you
Note: I am not sure whether women tag is correct here. But gender tag seems to be unused.

Addendum to address the misunderstandings that have become apparent in the comments:

What is being discussed here, is not to encourage women to play chess against their will or to fulfill some other agenda. It's about the fact that there exists an active discouraging attitude towards women in the chess world. Namely, the disrespectful attitude that players have become accustomed to, the dismissal of female players in media coverage and in the literature, the cultural bias against women playing chess (even in the west mind you) where either from childhood girls are told chess is not for them, and similarly in society.

Examples will help: (I'll avoid giving names and titles, the intent here is not to disparage people/clubs/books etc, but to give the reader an idea of the explicit discouragement that exists)

Go to any local club, almost irrespective of where you live, what you will typically witness is:

Players acting in dismay when resigning against a female player, commonly not agreeing to stay for post-mortem analysis (neither of which they have a problem with against male players), their fellow colleagues laughing at their friend for losing to a woman. This attitude is witnessed and passed on to the younger generation: boys constantly mock one another saying "haha you lost to a girl", which means this idea has already been seeded in their heads that boys are supposed to be smarter than girls. Coaches and trainers making comments to (boys) team about them being able to beat anyone in the women's team. Team coaches favoring to select men players to complete their team despite there being stronger female players in the club. Your typical first encounter with your teammates is "oh so you're the exception to the rule, it's nice to see women play chess..."

In the media coverage and literature, often there's a clear disregard towards women, e.g. books starting off in their preface by saying "they will refer to a hypothetical chess player as a he for as long as there hasn't been a female world champion!" In other words, they're saying "I'll start respecting women in chess when they become one day world champion." Or worse, books trying to give analogies for a chess concept and including sexist remarks such as: "For the lady chess player, I would use the comparison with buying clothes corresponding to latest fashion...". And sadly, the list goes on and on... A lot of these things are not just inherent to the chess world.

So as things stand, the scene is not at an equal footing for men and women, instead, female chess players are being constantly disheartened from playing the game they love, or being discouraged from pursuing it. So the discussions here are not about preferential treatment, it's about fighting against the clear bias that exists and how to give boys and girls equal chance and same level of enthusiasm to find out about this beautiful game.

Luckily, not all is lost, nowadays there are many players both men and women who are actively fighting and making a difference in this matter.

End of addendum.

Your first suggestion of separated events already sets the wrong agenda, and here I'll try to focus mostly on this aspect. Not only does the separation create the false assumption in young players' minds that the two genders cannot play at the same level, but it also lowers the number of competitions and the diversity in opponents.This would be a major setback, considering that as is there are currently far less girls getting into chess due to wrongly seeded cultural biases. I strongly recommend reading Judit Polgar's article on the importance of mixed competitions. However, as pointed out in the comments by user Greg Martin (see addendum 3), one shouldn't be completely dismissive towards female-only events either, as they do provide an inclusive safe-space to start competing in.

So first suggestions I'd have are:

Level the playing field: Organize mixed events! There should be no separation between men and women in chess, which is a purely intellectual endeavor, just like fields of mathematics or biology are.
Create a healthy environment: Prevent wrong biases from being perpetuated, as a coach or parent. Don't call a girl being good at chess as being the exception. Be encouraging towards children, and have same level of considerations towards boy and girls playing the game. If you teach or analyse games for a group of people, don't be dismissive towards the games played by your female students, and provide studies and coverage of high level chess from a diversified set of players, irrespective of their gender. This increase the chances of each of your students in finding both a playing style closer to their own and also a character that resonates with them.
To be encouraging and to popularize the game, it is absolutely mandatory to stand up against assumptions against gender bias which can makes themselves apparent in how we talk about chess players (e.g. not assuming a hypothetical chess player is male, see these discussions (1), (2) on the matter), how we write about the game (many famous chess books start outright making sexist remarks in their preface towards a potential female reader), and in our ways and manners when playing the game (related, here).

Instead of being encouraging towards women, often even the high ranking renown players feel entitled to make the utmost ungrounded misogynistic comments about women in the game. I quote below from an article on the Guardian, titled "The World Chess Championship is thrilling. But where are the women?":

  More concerning is the realisation that these unproven arguments are
  not confined to the niche world of online chess communities.
  High-ranking male chess players have a long history of making
  disparaging and misogynistic remarks about women and chess. Bobby
  Fischer, in what would turn out be one of his tamer offensive
  opinions, suggested in a 1963 interview that women were terrible chess
  players because “they’re not so smart”. Half a century later the men
  are still at it, with British grandmaster Nigel Short arguing in 2015
  that women are simply not “hardwired” to play chess.

As J. Polgar argues, a healthier competitive scene is beneficial to raising the level of play, for all players! This is important both for 1. achieving a level of normalcy in people being or becoming passionate about the game of chess irrespective of their gender, similar to how education (in any field) should be pursuable on an equal footing without bias or restraint, and 2. it helps create role models and idols for girls finding out about the game. On the topic of absence of female world champions and idols, I further quote from the previous article:

  The real reason behind the absence of a female world champion,
  however, has less to do with crude biological reductionism than simple
  statistical science. A recent study has argued that the dearth of
  women in top chess tournaments is to be expected, given the gender
  disparity in participation at all levels of the game.

  The authors analysed the population of about 120,000 players active in
  a single country, with a ratio of male to female participants of 16:1.
  Their findings highlighted that 96% of the difference in ability
  between genders could be explained by the fact that extreme values
  from a large sample are likely to be far larger than those from a
  small one. In other words, there have been more men represented at the
  world championship because more men play chess. This, in turn, means
  that a higher number are bound to reach the skill level of Carlsen and
  Caruana.

  If – then – we want to see a woman win the World Chess Championship,
  we first must address the lack of female participation in the game.
  The reasons behind this are complex, and likely manifold, but let us
  focus here on just one: the lack of prominent female chess players.

  There are no real female role models for young girls, even though
  women have been playing chess for a really long time (the first
  official Women’s World Chess Championship, for instance, was held in
  1927). There are, of course, female players who have been recognised
  for their outstanding skill, such as the Polgar sisters and the
  current women’s number one, Hou Yifan. Yet these women aren’t assigned
  the same level of importance within chess’s historical narrative as
  men such as José Capablanca, Garry Kasparov, Fischer and Carlsen. As
  all the “heroes” of chess are men, women are taught from an early age
  to associate good chess with being male.

  If we have any hope of addressing this, we need to raise the public
  profile of female chess players. Alongside the news features on
  Carlsen, we need to run one on Hou. We need to cover the Women’s World
  Chess Championship with the same fervour as the “main” world
  championship – or at the very least we need to, you know, actually
  cover it.

  Some women have already made attempts to address the discrepancy in
  media coverage and to raise the profile of female chess players. Take,
  for instance, the Chilean chess player and musician Juga, who is
  currently releasing music exploring her identity and experiences as a
  woman in chess. By branching out, she is able to both boost her
  reputation within the traditional community as well as drawing
  attention to female players among audiences who have had less exposure
  to the world of chess tournaments. It seems that this may be just the
  time to bring about the endgame of male-dominated chess.

Addendum 2: Parallel with esports

As mentioned earlier, these issues are not inherent to the chess world. On a much larger scale, same issues of toxic behaviour towards female gamers and sexism permeate the online gaming world and its underlying industry.

To read more on the topic, below are a select of articles I recommend reading:

Not one of the Fortnite World Cup's 100 finalists was a woman. Why? - From The Guardian
I Am Not a Unicorn. I Am a Gamer. By AnneMunition
'This industry has a problem with abuse': dealing with gaming's #MeToo moment

Addendum 3: important role of separated events

User Greg Martin makes an important point regarding the adverse effects of taking abrupt measures in abolishing female-only events. I quote the comment here (as comments might not be lasting in SE)

  One point of disagreement (in a sea of things on which we definitely
  agree): Polgar certainly is promoting participation in mixed
  tournaments, but that is not the same as being against participation
  in female-only tournaments, and I would suggest not dismissing them so
  quickly. One of the characteristics of systemic sexism is that it
  creates situations for which there is no great solution. Having
  female-only events is not great, but not having them is also not great
  (you have described many of the reasons why). Feeling included is a
  very powerful aspect of the situation.


What to do in a positionally won situation? In the below position, White is winning because Black cannot do anything. Black's b-pawn is the last fence barring White from checkmating the king rather easily.

k1r4r/1p1nppbp/2b3p1/N7/4PP2/3PB2P/P3B1P1/1RR3K1 w - - 0 1

There are no immediate tactics available for white, but it is clear that white's rook should double up as that is the only thing left to do.

Should the game be played on winning the b-pawn, or is there an easier way to win that I am missing? It is currently White to play. The engine Stockfish 6 doesn't show any captures on b7 happening within the next ten moves, but all play does seem to occur on the queenside.

What are some good plans for White?

I don't think that White should expect to increase his (already large) advantage very quickly. You say there are no immediate tactics, and I don't see any either. But simple moves here are very strong.

1. Nxc6 gets the two Bishops in a position where they will dominate. 1..Rxc6 is forced because if ..1..bxc6 then Rc4. 2. Rxc6 bxc6 and now 3.e5 leaves Black just a pawn down with an awful position. Progress has definitely been made. All of Black's pieces are stuck doing even less than they were.

Over the next twenty or thirty moves you will keep Black tied down, bring your King to the queenside, and promote that rook pawn, so be happy.


Chess app with king captures I am in pretty much the situation of this question: I'm trying to teach my four-year-old son the rules of chess, but the concept of "checkmate" is too abstract for a small child, so I want to tell him that the goal is to capture the king instead.
The problem is that I'm using an iPad app rather than a physical board (for a number of reasons, including the fact that the app will show you each piece's legal moves, so we don't have to explain all of the moving rules before we start playing).
Does anyone know of a chess app that both (1) shows legal moves (which most of them do) and (2) allows king captures (the feature I can't find)?

Antichess
Maybe Antichess is what you are looking for. The aim is to be the one to lose all the pieces first. And it's mandatory to eat. And of course kings are eaten. You can play under lichess.org such chess variant selecting a custom variant. You can see details here. But with children it's always better to play in person of course.
Legendary chess

I also recommend you Legendary chess, an application developed in Uruguay aimed for all ages and designed in a didactic way to learn chess basics step by step in a fun way with a storytelling scenario.
I don't remember exactly if there is a specific type of game where kings are eaten, but I bet you it's worth it to check the game and see.
In the site you can download the Spanish or English version. It's a Windows based application but you can always run it using wine if under Linux or Mac.


Need some helps with the tactics in the middle game I sometimes find it very difficult to determine the accurate moves in middle game. When a tough opponent is in front of me I dont let to attack at first. I strengthen my defense. But if I ever try to attack, the opponent destroys my defense and I fail! Sometimes I feel this is the right move and also understand the consequence of the move! But still there remain quirks on my move and the opponent take the advantage! I even find it difficult to calculate moves as there are so many possibilities for an opponent!  So i want to know how to determine the accurate moves as the grandmasters do and also how many moves should I calculate before any move?

[White "NN"]
[Black "user4226"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
     [FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. a3 d6 6. b4 Bb6 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. h3 O-O 9. Bb2 a5 10. O-O Be6 11. Nbd2 Nh5 12. Nxe5 dxe5 13. Qxh5 f6 14. Rad1 axb4 15. axb4 Ra2 16. Rb1 Bd4 17. Bxd4 Qxd4 18. Rfc1 Rb2 19. Rxb2 Qxb2 20. Qd1 Qxb4 21. Rb1 Qe7 22. Rb7 Qd7 23. Nb3 Bxb3 24. Rxb3 f5 25. exf5 Qxf5 26. f3 Rd8

Chess is a skill that requires hard work and dedicated toning, just like learning to play a musical instrument. Unless you are very exceptional, you won't become a master at it within a few weeks, months or years (the good news is that you don't have to be a master to have fun with chess). Some players were lucky enough to be very talented, had the opportunity to start young and maintained an almost obsessive interest in it - they are the ones most likely to become IM's or GM's after 10 to 15 year of dedication. Most of us just play for fun and must maintain a realistic perspective.

I suggest you read Willy Hendriks' book "Move First, Think Later". The book addresses the very essence of your question, which is: How do I improve my chess?

As a warning, the book is controversial, especially since it spends a lot of effort in undermining certain common conceptions about chess improvement. Hendriks is not scared of taking on the establishment of chess training.

From memory, here is a list of things he suggests you focus on:

Tactical puzzles. Nothing improves your chess quicker than doing a lot (as in thousands) of puzzles, as it "programs" your brain to spot good moves and continuations.
Play a lot. Over the board, on the internet, as much as you have an appetite for.
Notate and study your games. Try to understand where you went wrong (I, for example, found I have a weakness in spotting tactics on my king behind the pawn line).
Focus on the things that motivate you. For example, here on chess.SE you will often see the advice "don't study opening theory at beginner level". Well, if you like studying opening theory, then studying opening theory is perfectly fine.

Here is a list of things he suggests you don't waste your time on:

Worrying about general rules and common adages (for example "the bishop pair", "respond to an attack on the flank with an attack in the center", leave your thinking time for the "critical moment")
Approaching chess from some ideological/academic angle (like Silman's "imbalances"). Hendriks argues that chess ability is not a rational skill, and a rational-based approach will not help in improving it greatly (this point probably needs some elaboration - he's not saying chess is irrational, but that taking some kind of reasoned approach won't help you much - you are going to be better off with an intuition toned through practice than over-the-board reasoning).
Worrying about developing some kind of structured thought process (for example: 1. Consider threats. 2. Consider attack points. 3. Consider tactical motifs. 4. Consider alternatives etc etc). Hendriks argues from findings in neuroscience that your brain functions heavily in parallel - don't try to serialize your thinking by adopting a thought process that sub-divides goals - instead, let your brain do its work naturally. Just find the good move!
Trying to calculate every position 10 moves deep. GM's don't generally calculate that deep (unless the tactical situation calls for it, of course).
Following some abstract "plan". Rather, focus on finding good squares for you pieces and making good moves that forces your opponent to counter actively.
Spending 10,000 hours doing it even if you hate it.


Are there attempts at creating practical endgame tablebases? As I understand it, 8-piece endgame tablebases have been in development for many years. The big issue is the sheer number of positions that are possible.

Are there any attempts at making a "practical" endgame tablebase, where the search is only over positions that might matter in actual games? For example, a KQQQ vs KB endgame is a 6-piece position, but it's trivial for the side with three queens to win even without a tablebase, so one should not need to devote actual computing power to solving it. Yes, there might be exceptions, but they would be so rare that focusing on the much more interesting and practically important endgames (e.g. KQP vs KRB) would be more productive.

There is a contradiction in terms in "only" generating practical endgame tablebases. We have to understand how tablebases are generated to see why.

Tablebases are generated by working backwards from the final mating/drawing positions, "retracting" moves rather than playing them forward. First, every possible final position is exhaustively listed. Then from each, we "retract" (take back) moves that could have been played. In doing so, we know a possible outcome of the resulting position (by playing forward to the final position again). Do this for all positions, and we know the ideal outcome of all of them.

Now what is a retraction? Pieces move backwards, so everything moves as in normal chess except pawns. Pieces can uncapture other pieces, leaving an extra piece on the board. Notably, pieces can unpromote into pawns.

Herein lies the problem. If you want to evaluate the "practical" endgames, you need to know all the final positions that could lead to them by retractions. If we agree KPPP v KB is a practical endgame (seems so), then we need to know the outcome of all KQQQ v KB endgames, since it might be the case that the only winning line is to reach a winning KQQQ v KB endgame. It is necessary to do these "trivial" endgames in order to do the practical ones.

(Preemptive counter-counterargument: not all KQQQ v KB positions are winning. Think of stalemates. This is another reason why we cannot handwave and say "all positions with this material balance are winning".)

Furthermore, the absurd KQQQ v KB might be necessary to correctly generate results for KQPP v KQBP or some dramatic pawn race endgame. If you don't check all the possible final positions (even absurd ones), you can never be sure that you didn't miss the only winning/drawing line.

The only possible "optimisation" of this sort you can do is to not generate, say K+6 v K endgames (which I think was the case for the 7-men tables, they skipped K+5 v K until everything else was done.)


What are the general principles for playing hypermodern against hypermodern? I've recently discovered that I really enjoy playing 1... g6 and that it tends to give me better results as black than opening with my d or e pawns.  However, a few times now the computer opponent I play against has opened with something like 1. g3 or 1. Nf3 and proceeded in hypermodern style instead of trying to occupy the center.  I've been playing 1... g6 anyway, but I feel like I don't really know what I'm doing then—I can set up a decently defensive position the same way I would against a classic attack, but I usually end up playing super passively, probably not putting enough pressure on white.

At the level of general principles, what should I look for when playing hypermodern vs. hypermodern?  (Or, as a frame challenge, are there reasons that I should try to occupy the center myself instead?)

If it helps for context, I play what I think is just above beginner level; I can hold my own against the app on my phone when it's set to ELO 1200 (though the app doesn't say if this is calibrated to compare to a FIDE ELO, a USCF ELO or something else).

I am aware of this related question.

Good question. I personally have tried as White to avoid advancing my center pawns and fiancheto one or both my Bishops, and control rather than occupy the center. For example I opened 1.b3. My experience tells me that Black can in fact set up a pawn center and have it solidly reinforced, thus equalizing. You get a center and now you have to be careful and watchful to not miss white's breaks (or even sacrifices) blowing up that center and leaving you with weak pawns.

Choose some key squares that you want to completely control and center your game on that. For instance, let's say you want to have a pawn d5 and you focus on hindering the e4 square, not allowing White to advance his/her pawn to e4 easily. Then you'd like a knight on f6 and maybe a bishop on f5 (or g6). You may also put a rook on e-file. Similarly, you may put a pawn on e5 and control the d4 square with a knight on c6, a well-placed dark squared bishop, etc.

It is usually impossible in practice to have two pawns in the center (say both e5 and d5) and yet protect them completely. So, do not get greedy for central pushes, having one pawn that is solid is better than having two that are shaky.

If you take into account whites c-d-e-f pawn pushes and subsequent exchanges and/or closings of the center, you should be fine. Usually a central control is a big advantage, and your opponent has to do something to free their pieces. If White does not want to advance his/her e and d pawns more than 1 square, how are they going to launch any serious initiative.

So, in summary, if Whit does not want the center, go ahead and occupy it yourself. Build up a solid center with pawns protecting pawns and pieces boosting them. You'll enjoy more space behind your pawns than your opponent will behind theirs!


What are the names of the seconds for Anand vs Gelfand WCC 2012? Who are the seconds for Anand and Gelfand in the WCC 2012?

Anand's seconds are:

Peter Heine Nielsen
Rustam Kasimdzhanov
Surya Shekhar Ganguly
Radosław Wojtaszek

Gelfand's seconds are:

Alexander Huzman
Michael Roiz
Evgeny Tomashevsky
Pavel Eljanov
Maxim Rodshtein
Levon Aronian (to a lesser extent)

Gelfand discussed his preparation and seconds in a post-match interview with chessvibes.com.


What are quick and easy ways to learn, and what should i focus on I've always loved chess, but never was really serieus about it. Lately I've picked up trying to get better and bringing up my game to a new level. I started playing online a lot and currently watching videos on chess on daily base.

Chess.com is providing the needed lessons on all the basic things but as a beginner there is so much stuff to learn.

What should a beginner focus on (think about openings, end games, ways to mate, etc.)

Also I was wondering if anyone an easy way to learn the chess notations, I get how the squares are lined up and everything but I need practice (maybe software or a paper method anyone knows of).

A beginner should focus on playing games, solving tactic puzzles and playing through annotated master games.

If you play through master games with a real board instead of at the computer, you will quickly learn the notation as well.


limit stockfish 9 to a specific range of ELO rating I am using stockfish 9 for our chess game project, and I want to limit the ELO rating of the engine to a range. I saw attributes like movetime and depth are used to limit the engine skill level, but I am not sure about how to match these attributes to a specific ELO rating.

https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish. Check UCI_LimitStrength. One of the UCI options.


Where can I find a list of tournaments to participate in? Where should I look for a list of tournaments in which new players can participate? I know that many players want to play real matches, but don't know how and where.
Also provide list for online tournaments.

For US tournaments, I recommend checking the U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) website:

http://www.uschess.org/tlas/upcoming.php

For non-US tournaments, I would check the FIDE website:

http://www.fide.com/calendar/tournaments.html

http://www.fide.com/calendar.html


Is it possible to know if someone is cheating in correspondence chess? Consider a mobile chess app which allows to play correspondence chess.
Some apps, like this one, state that they'll punish someone (e.g., disable their account) if they discover that the person is cheating.
Is it really possible to reliably know if someone is cheating (e.g., uses a chess engine to decide on the next move)?
Are there any heuristics that can exist in the app that will calculate the probability that a player is cheating?

The answer is, "Yes." See this article:

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12677/763

Does your phone application have this capability? Probably no... yes! So don't do it!


Is there a misuse of the word flanking in My System by Nimzowitch? Has anyone read the new translation of My System by Aaron Nimzowitch published by New in Chess? In it, the word flanking seems to be used to describe both the attack of a piece from the side and from the behind.
Up to this point (page 44) Nimzowitch's use of the word flanking is as the attack from the side. When the queen to the 8th rank check skewers the queen he calls it the flanking maneuver. (Page 34)
However, here is a case where it means from behind (page 44): "For example, a rook on the 7th rank is attacking the b7 pawn. If now b7-b5 then the move Rb7...the flanking maneuver (this is what Rb7 was) is the strongest form of attack (these are in rising order of importance 1. Frontal, 2. From the side, 3 flanking )..."
Am I missing something? Or is this just a problem by the translator?

Also it would be cool if someone could explain how it's better to attack a pawn from the side Rather than from the front. I believe this evaluation is given by Nimzowitch to be true even if the rook isn't on the 7th rank.
I mean I would think it's worse to attack from the side since the defense can put a rook behind the pawn and start pushing it. Whereas you can blockade the pawn If you were in front of it.

The terms flanking and flanking maneuver are distinguishably (by a word) different.

The latter refers to outflanking, i.e. enveloping the target (a square, an opponent's pawn, or an opponent's piece) so it cannot escape from being controlled or captured.

The maneuver is analogous to a policeman trapping a perpetrator in an alleyway.


Beating the King's Indian Defense: strategic ideas? I'm a Queen's Gambit player and quite often I find myself against the King's Indian Defense. Usually all the lines of the Queen's Gambit that lead to a closed center with white playing d5 (King's Indian, Benoni, etc.) result uncomfortable for me; the light-squared bishop is very ugly, I can't seem to exploit my space advantage and black's knights are generally able to exert a great deal of pressure on e4, while I can't really find the precise way to position mines. Perhaps these is because I play badly against the Kings Indian, since I never studied it and I really ignore the general strategic ideas of its main position.

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pppn1pbp/3p1np1/3Pp3/2P1P3/2N2N2/PP2BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 8"]

This would be a very typical game. What are some key strategical ideas I should know about this position? What is white plan, and what are some correct ways to execute it? I usually lose positionally, not by checkmate. Just get a worse position.

You do not say why you lose: Are you being beaten positionally, or are your opponents successfully attacking your king?

This a VERY difficult question to answer since it is such a large opening to cover (the Vassilios Kotronias books on the King's Indian from Quality Chess are 5 volumes!).

Basically, what you are looking to do is play on the queenside, and prepare c5 in most lines of the King's Indian, and open the c-file, and penetrate with your pieces. Black, especially in the classical main line, is looking to attack your king.

If you are being beaten positionally, then you really need to study the ideas behind the opening more closely, and that is way beyond the scope of this question. If you are being beaten by all-out assaults, then you need to either learn a lot more theory, or do what I do sometimes: Play g3 and Bg2 lines, which make it more difficult for direct attacks to succeed.

In the position you gave, it is black to move, and he can plant the N on c5, and fortify it with a5, which stops the immediate b4 since Nc5 gains time by attacking e4. I am going to give a few lines to give you an idea of how play might go, but I also think that you should vary on move 8 with 8.Qc2, which is more flexible (make sure you read the extensive note after 9.d5 explaining why this ends up better). 6...Nbd7 is rare for a reason, and your 8.d5 does nothing to try and punish it.

 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 O-O 6. Be2 Nbd7 {This is very rare, and can lead to an excellent game for black if white just plays by rote. White should vary on move 8.} 7. O-O e5 8. d5 (8. Qc2 $1 c6 9. d5 {And black has a lot of options, but this is a better setup for white to combat them. One of the following happens: The c-file gets opened and white gets better chances to use the queenside; or a Rd1 will pressure the d6 pawn if black does not exchange; or if that pressure on d6 forces c5, then a3, and b4 will be possible (with Rb1), all the time while black is denied the c5 square for the Nd7.} (9. Be3 {Is also good, but you need to know a lot of theory.})) 8... Nc5 9. Qc2 a5 {Eventually, white wants b3, a3, Rb1, and b4, but you must be careful of tactics with the Rb1 and Nxe4 ideas followed by Bf5. For example:} 10. Bg5 (10. Rb1 $4 Nfxe4 11. Nxe4 Nxe4 12. Qxe4 Bf5 $19) (10. a3 $2 {This is why b3, a3, and only later b4. It cripples the white queenside.} a4) 10... h6 11. Be3 b6 12. Nd2 Bg4 (12... Ng4 13. Bxg4 Bxg4 14. a3 $1 {And b4 next since a4 loses a pawn.} a4 15. Bxc5 bxc5 16. Nxa4 {But black does have some compensation after Qg5.} Qg5 17. f3 Bd7 18. Nc3) 13. f3 Bd7 14. b3 Nh5 15. Rfe1 {To prepare Bf1 after nf4, and white will continue with a3 and b4.}

In the end, it is about opening the queenside while not getting mated. You want to defend any kingside threats as economically as possible, while trying to distract black on the queenside. If you penetrate quickly, and actively, any attack is often doomed to fail.


Is a candidate master considered a master? Is an FIDE candidate master (CM) considered a master? For example, if two opponents are each rated 2250 by the FIDE and each is a CM, is their game considered a master game?

In ordinary English, the title candidate master would seem to say, "not yet a master," but I do not know what chess convention thinks of it. This is why I ask.

In the strict realm of FIDE, a 2200 FIDE rated CM is not a master. This is because FIDE's official master title is the FM (2300 FIDE rating).

However, in the US and Canada, a 2200 national rating earns the NM (national master) title. So, if a player had a 2200 FIDE rating but a 2100 national rating, in the strict sense they would not be considered a master. To be a master you must meet the requirements of FIDE or your country's federation.

Most chess players aren't aware of these arbitrary rating thresholds though, and it's likely they would consider anyone with a 2200 rating in whatever system a master (even though this may not be officially true).


What is the optimal way to use Stockfish programmatically? I have Stockfish compiled on my machine. Instead of just running the Stockfish program in the terminal, is it possible to interact with it in a separate program?

For example, some basic things I might want to do:

Create a position object from a FEN.
Get an evaluation from the position object (limiting with depth or time).
Return an array of positions for all the legal moves from the position.

These are just some very basic examples. Can anyone supply some code snippets for these instructions? I'm really struggling to find any helpful documentation.

EDIT: It looks like this really has a two part solution. The first is piping the input/output to some external program. The second is understanding the UCI protocol to perform what I want to do. Does anyone know the UCI protocol for getting all of the possible moves/positions from a given position? Also, it looks like the 'eval' command only gives a static evaluation of a position (i.e. no consideration of the future). Is there anyway to retrieve a time/depth based evaluation as well?

I think you're talking about how to fork a process for the engine and how to use it for the UCI protocol.

What you need to do is:

Fork a new child process for the Stockfish engine
Send and receive UCI commands to/from the engine
Parse the UCI commands yourself

Do you want to study existing source code? Look at:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57770

Download Chess Game Analyzer, it's a simple Python script for automatic annotation.

When you have the source code, look at the the following:

 p = subprocess.Popen(engineName, stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
                     stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                     stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)

This line creates a new process for the engine, where engineName is the path of the engine executive.

p.stdin.write("uci\n")

This line sends the uci command to the engine.

for eline in iter(p.stdout.readline, '')

This line parses a UCI response.


How should I play as White if Black Defends the Tartakover QGD without ...h6? This question is related to another I just posted, but it is actually a different question: if Black Defends the Tartakower QGD without an early ...h6, and I am an Anti-Tartakower–Makogonov–Bondarevsky vartiation player (5... h6 6. Bxf6 Bxf6), should I take an early Bxf6 nonetheless, by my own initiative, or should I keep my Bishop on g5?

It depends on your own tastes, but I'd recommend not taking. Taking after ...h6 is justified because it essentially costs Black a tempo (i.e., playing ...h6). If you take without provocation then no one's losing tempi, you're just making an exchange.

If you really like trading on f6 then go ahead, but objectively you shouldn't have any advantage.


Is a "Strong King" handicap really as powerful as is claimed? Wikipedia quotes an analysis by GM Harry Golombek (from Golombek’s Encyclopedia of Chess, Crown Publishers, 1977, p. 218. I do not have access to the source) where he lists possible handicaps, in order of increasing severity.

The last item in the list is "Strong king", where the king is given the ability to move up to two squares in any direction. It appears further down (that is, a bigger handicap) than "Queenside odds" where the stronger player gives up a queen, rook, knight and bishop.

I can understand that this is powerful because a strong king is harder to mate (AFAIK, even K+Q can't mate a strong king. Not only does he have more escape routes, the normal king can't get too close to the action) and in general is hard to put pressure against.

But seriously, more powerful than Q+R+B+N? Is this a mistake? If not, where can I find an analysis that supports this claim?

Edit: I've played a few games of this with friends. The jury is still out on the exact strength, but my estimation: This is probably on the same ballpark as queen odds, but nowhere near QRBN.

It depends on how we measure the effectiveness of a handicap. Here's what I mean by that:

If we are trying to increase the likelihood that the weaker player wins, queen-side odds are more effective than the strong king, because the weaker player has so much offensive potential in queen-side odds (and the stronger player doesn't have much defense).

If we are trying to decrease the likelihood that the weaker player loses, the strong king is more effective than queen-side odds, because the weaker player has so much more defensive potential in a strong king. Checkmating that king is one heck of a job.


Resource with chess problems in electronic format with solutions I am looking for a database of chess problems in electronic format with solutions. Ideal variant will be a database with something like:

FEN starting position *
description (Mate in 3 moves, Win material, Black to draw)
solution *
strength of the problem

Only * are really needed, other things just nice to have. It does not matter whether the resource is free or paid. Of course I can get some books and extract such positions by myself, but I hope that someone already have done something like this.

If you are looking for tactical puzzles, there is always CT-Art from Convecta. You can also try Tactic Trainer for Android. It has a nifty difficulty rating system.

Also there is an online resource I forgot to add : http://www.yacpdb.org/


Delay clock with delay not set Over the past few years of tournament play, I've seen three games where the delay was not enabled on a digital clock.  In all of these cases, the clock was a Chronos set to display HH:MM until the last 10 minutes, when it would change to MM:SS.

In one game without the delay, I was playing white in a G/105 tournament.  I ran my time down from ~12 minutes to ~6 minutes, and my opponent had ~9 minutes.  On my next move, I noticed that the clock started right away and pointed it out to my opponent (we are actually the two TD's for the club, so we didn't really have anyone else to make the decision).  We agreed to turn on the delay at that point.

Now according to a strict interpretation of the rules, we're stuck without the delay because that's how we started the game.  I usually make sure that the delay is set in the first few moves, but I just didn't notice that the clock moved right from 105 to 104 when he started it at the beginning of the game instead of waiting 5 seconds.  So after that, the only time I could discover the oversight was when we got below 10 minutes.

Is there a reasonable way to deal with this? Am I just out of luck if my opponent tries to pull a fast one in the future? Theoretically he could be penalized for unsportsmanlike behavior, but that seems extreme if it really was just an honest mistake.

There is an article by Geurt Gijssen on Chess Cafe (4th question asked) that touches on the event that the clock's initial time control being incorrectly configured, but only noticed much later in the game.

He quotes the FIDE rules:

  The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they
  regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the
  Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are
  discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement
  and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and
  thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

Geurt responds:

  I especially like the last part of the last sentence: a solution should be “dictated by fairness, logic and special
  factors.” With this in mind, I think it is quite unfair to change the time modus at the moment a player only has
  one second on his clock in such a way that he only has this one second left. Therefore, I see two possible
  solutions: Change the time mode after the first period; Change the time mode at the moment of the claim, but the player should be given a reasonable amount
  of time (at least one minute) for the remaining moves.  I prefer the second option.

In your situation, it sounds like a reasonable action to stop the clock and set the delay correctly.  As for other cases, it looks like it lies to the TD to determine a fair trade-off.


How many two move checkmates exist? I am well aware that Fool's Mate exists. But how many two move checkmates exist in total?

I agree with the previously-given answer from Matthew Liu (please give it the checkmark), but I’ll add the standard notation of the solutions since you ask:

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4#

1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#

1.f4 e5 2.g4 Qh4#

1.f4 e6 2.g4 Qh4#

1.g4 e5 2.f3 Qh4#

1.g4 e6 2.f3 Qh4#

1.g4 e5 2.f4 Qh4#

1.g4 e6 2.f4 Qh4#


How do you checkmate with a queen? How do you checkmate with a King and Queen versus King?

Is there a method that is faster than other methods in terms of moves?

Is there a foolproof method if you are in time trouble?

Grave Danger in King and Queen vs lone King

It's important for the winning side to avoid this common pitfall in this basic endgame.

The winning side should avoid placing their queen on the c2, c7, f2 or f7 squares if the opponent's King is in the nearby corner, because this leads to stalemate.

Below, I include some other types of stalemates that are not as well known.

Basic Idea

The plan is to drive the king to one of the edge ranks or files.

After this is achieved, the checkmating positions are usually like this -

Rectangle Method

This method is the fastest and similar to the rectangle method involving checkmate with a rook. The trick is to confine the opponent's king in the smallest possible rectangle with the queen's first move (if not already confined or can be confined at a later move) and then bring the side's own king closer to the opponent's king.

In the position to the left below, White plays 1. Qc6 as the first move, making the rectangle smaller.

Once this has been achieved, White simply brings the King closer to the Black King to drive it into one of the edge ranks or files. The rook check trick discussed in the rectangle method for the rook applies here with the queen check.

  [FEN "8/8/8/4k3/8/8/8/K6Q w - - 0 1"]

  1. Qc6 Kf5 2. Kb2 Ke5 3. Kc3 Kf5 4. Kd4 Kf4 5. Qf6+ Kg4 6. Ke3 Kh5
  7. Qg7 Kh4 8. Kf4 Kh3 9. Qg3#

Knight's Square Method

This method is mainly for beginners. Normally, experienced players will do better to use the rectangle method even in time trouble. However, it may at times help to use a  combination of this and the rectangle method.

If you're a in time trouble, this a very fast (in terms of how quickly you can make the moves on the board without thinking much) and foolproof (stalemates are always to be watched out for) way to checkmate the opponent's king.

With this method, you can literally finish playing the move before the opponent's hand even reaches the clock (assuming you're not playing online).

Consider this position where the Black King is on e5.

The King can be checked by a White knight from each of the 8 squares d3, c4, c6, d7, f7, g6, g4 and f3. In the Knight's Square Method, the idea is to move the queen to one of these squares (preferably one away from your king to avoid collisions in time trouble!) and then simply "copy" the opposite king's move.
Thus, in the position below, White first moves the queen to a "knight-square" 1. Qc6!

After that, the White Queen can "copy" the Black King's moves and remain in the knight's square, except, I REPEAT!!, except when the king moves to the corner (a1, a8, h1, or h8). For example, king moves right one square, queen moves right one square; king moves diagonally up one square, queen moves diagonally up one square. Once the Black King is driven to one of edge ranks or files, White brings the King to deliver the checkmate. This is demonstrated below.

  [FEN "8/8/8/8/3k4/8/8/K6Q w - - 0 1"]

  1. Qc6 Ke5 (1... Kd3 2. Qc5 Kd2 3. Qc4 Ke3 4. Qd5 Kf4 5. Qe6 Kf3 6. Qe5 Kg4
  7. Qf6 Kg3 8. Qf5 Kg2 9. Qf4 Kg1 10. Qf3 Kh2 11. Qg4 Kh1 12. Kb2 Kh2 13. Kc2 Kh1
  14. Kd2 Kh2 15. Ke2 Kh1 16. Kf2 Kh2 17. Qg2#) 2. Qd7 Kf6 (2... Kf4 3. Qe6 Kf3
  4. Qe5 Kf2 5. Qe4 Kf1 6. Qe3 Kg2 7. Qf4 Kg1 8. Qf3 Kh2 9. Qg4 Kh1 10. Kb2 Kh2
  11. Kc2 Kh1 12. Kd2 Kh2 13. Ke2 Kh1 14. Kf2 Kh2 15. Qg2#) 3. Qe8 Kg5 (3... Kg7
  4. Qe6 Kf8 5. Qd7 Kg8 6. Kb2 Kf8 7. Kc3 Kg8 8. Kd4 Kf8 9. Ke5 Kg8 10. Kf6 Kf8
  11. Qf7#) 4. Qf7 Kg4 5. Qf6 Kg3 6. Qf5 Kg2 7. Qf4 Kg1 8. Qf3 Kh2 9. Qg4 Kh1 10.
  Kb2 Kh2 11. Kc2 Kh1 12. Kd2 Kh2 13. Ke2 Kh1 14. Kf2 Kh2 15. Qg2#

Sometimes, one's own King can get in the way of the Queen in this method, as shown below.

     [FEN "8/8/8/2k5/4K3/5Q2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

     1. Qb3 Kd6 2. Qc4 Ke7 3. Qd5 Kf6

In such cases, the King can simply be moved away and the same method continues.

     [FEN "8/8/5k2/3Q4/4K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 4"]

     1. Kf4 Kg6 2. Qe5 Kh6 3. Qf5 Kg7 4. Qe6 Kh7 5. Qf6 Kg8 6. Qe7 Kh8
     7. Kg5 Kg8 8. Kg6 Kh8 9. Qg7# *

As mentioned before, the one pitfall to be avoided in this method is the stalemate that can occur when mistakenly occupying the knight's square when the king is in the corner.

     [FEN "8/8/8/4Q3/8/8/6k1/K7 w - - 0 9"]

     1. Qf4 Kh1 2. Qg3 $4 (2. Qg4 $1)


Can White win in this game (Q vs R+N+P)? Is there any percent chance for the white to win?
Seems like greed for the opposite queen on behalf of sacrificing his pieces has cost him this game.

The view is from the white player's end.

No, there is no chance for white to draw, let alone win, this game. In fact, if you enter this into an endgame tablebase it will tell you that it is mate in 13 moves with perfect play from both sides. One possible line is:

8/4K3/8/4Q3/8/4nk2/3p4/4r3 w - - 0 1

1. Qh5+ Ng4+ 2. Kd6 d1=Q+ 3. Qd5 Qxd5+ 4. Kxd5 Rd1+ 5. Kc5 Ke4 6. Kc6  Ne5+ 7. Kc5 Rd2 8. Kb5 Kd4 9. Kb6 Rb2+ 10. Kc7 Kd5 11. Kd8 Kd6 12. Kc8 Rb1 13. Kd8 Rb8++

Even if you don't have a tablebase, the position is quite obviously won for black. White's only hope in this position would be if he could capture the black pawn or if there was perpetual check. Neither of this is possible here, basically because all black pieces are working together and can protect each other and (and this is important), black is threatening a discovered check/pin which helps to prevent perpetual checks: basically if white checks with the queen black's knight can block the check, while at the same time giving check himself, thereby gaining a tempo for queening the pawn.

If you moved the white king away from this pin, it might very well be draw by perpetual check. For instance the same position with the white king on b8 is a draw.


Famous pawn promotion matches Except for a famous match between Tigran Petrosian and Bobby fischer, I don't know of any famous chess match between top notch players which had some climactic pawn promotions . Could anyone here suggest a few more of matches of that kind?

A game between McDonnell and De La Bourdonnais is very famous. Although no promotion was executed on the board, it is definitely the theme of the game.

      [FEN ""]
      [Event "London m4 ;HCL 18"]
      [Site "16"]
      [Date "1834.??.??"]
      [EventDate "?"]
      [Round "62"]
      [Result "0-1"]
      [White "Alexander McDonnell"]
      [Black "Louis Charles Mahe De La Bourdonnais"]
      [ECO "B32"]
      [WhiteElo "?"]
      [BlackElo "?"]
      [PlyCount "74"]
      [StartPly "74"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bc4 Nf6
7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qe2 d5 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Bb3 O-O 11.O-O a5 12.exd5
cxd5 13.Rd1 d4 14.c4 Qb6 15.Bc2 Bb7 16.Nd2 Rae8 17.Ne4 Bd8
18.c5 Qc6 19.f3 Be7 20.Rac1 f5 21.Qc4+ Kh8 22.Ba4 Qh6 23.Bxe8
fxe4 24.c6 exf3 25.Rc2 Qe3+ 26.Kh1 Bc8 27.Bd7 f2 28.Rf1 d3
29.Rc3 Bxd7 30.cxd7 e4 31.Qc8 Bd8 32.Qc4 Qe1 33.Rc1 d2 34.Qc5
Rg8 35.Rd1 e3 36.Qc3 Qxd1 37.Rxd1 e2 0-1


Batch Solve Tactical Positions What is the best software to take a pgn file of positions and solve them in a one-step operation? I am not referring to chess compositions or "mate in n" problems but tactical positions. Is it possible to just highlight positions from a database of positions and have the software compute the best series of follow-up moves and save them to a file? I can perform the function individually on any number of software but I cannot do a batch on any of them.

I use chessbase personally. I can bulk perform tactical analysis.
Alternatively you can download an engine and learn to program with it to perform bulk analysis / positional analysis calculations.


Exchange sacrifice to dominate black squares in Najdorf My question is a bit ambiguous and not that specific (it wouldn't be if I could remember more details):

I'm looking for a Najdorf game played against Lazaro Bruzon (or against Lenier?) probably around 10 years ago. Black sacrificed a rook for the black-squared bishop and then black dominated all the black squares. I think white played the English attack (Be3) and black replied e5. I also remember that the rook went to c4 and then e4 to capture the bishop in e3, if I'm not wrong. Can someone help me find this game?

Thank you!

I found it! It was Lazaro Bruzon vs Vassily Ivanchuk, 11/2005. Here's the link to the game (totally recommended!):
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1366555

Thank you for the help!


Fen - Check if King is on e1/e8 Is there some easy way to check whether the black king is on e8 or the white king is on e1, when using fen?

Here the black and white king are on d1/8 r2k3r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1QK2RR
Here both are on the right field r3k2r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1Q1K1RR

The problem is that there is really no regularity, to check by indexing whether the King is on e1/e8.

The fen above, could also be rb2k2r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1Q1K1RR and would still be valid.

Checking for the rocks are pretty easy, since they have to be at the beginning or the end of the fen.

Thanks to Henry for the tip. Here is my solution.

var kingOnRightField = function (groundRow, king) {
    var index = 0;

    for (var i = 0; i < groundRow.length; i++) {
        var number = parseInt(groundRow[i]);
        index += isNaN(number) ? 1 : number;

        if (index == 5 && groundRow[i] == king) return true;
    }

    return false;
};

var fen = "r3k2r/3q4/8/8/8/8/8/R1Q1K1RR";

var blackGroundRow = fen.split("/")[0];
var whiteGroundRow = fen.split("/")[7];

var blackKingOnRightField = kingOnRightField(blackGroundRow, 'k');
var whiteKingOnRightField = kingOnRightField(whiteGroundRow, 'K');


A list of chess variants and their popularity How many chess variant are there? (Apparently a lot.) If possible could you include the popularity of each variant and its major event. For example, I know that there's a US bughouse chess championship. The list doesn't have to be comprehensive.

To simply name a few of the variants here would need a huge amount of space, because there are many. However, you have a list of variations in the Wikipedia entry:

Chess variant.

This entry is not comprehensive, and a few variations that cannot be found there appear in the webpage:

Alphabetical Index of Chess variants.

These sites do not come with popularity rankings, and the same way chess itself probably does not have a "major" event (one could consider the World Chess Championship to be it, but as only two players play and the number of games and funds has been so drastically reduced, I'm not sure anymore), probably there is not a single "major" event for these variants too. However, to a certain extent, the length of the Wikipedia article on a certain variation can measure its popularity, so I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia category:

Category: Chess variant


Caro-Kann variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 I would like to play the Modern Variation of the Caro-Kann. What is the best way to deal with Ng5? Best strategy and known tactics (e.g. the Ne6 sacrifice). Maybe you can recommend a book dedicated to this variation?

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5

EDIT ( December, 30 2013 ):

Removed unnecessary book from the list
Added explanation of basic ideas in response to the comment made by member Jonathan Garber

  I would like to play the Modern Variation of the Caro-Kann. What is the best way to deal with Ng5? Best strategy and known tactics (e.g. the Ne6 sacrifice).

You did not specify which side you wish to play, but I have assumed it is Black side you are interested in, judging by the sentence "What is the best way to deal with Ng5?".

The only dangers that I see are the move Bc4 and Bd3 coupled with Ng5, since there is always the possibility of the sacrifice on e6.

When playing Bc4, White hopes for something like this:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Qe2 h6? 8.Nxf7!

This is the place where you play 7. ...Nb6 and White can reply with 8.Bd3 or 8.Bb3.

After 8.Bb3 you play 8. ...h6 and then strike with 9. ...c5. The remaining variations are not that theoretical, and you need to remember some key moves to secure equal chances.

The trap in the above diagram was the only critical position requiring from you to play precise and theoretical move.

The Bd3 continuation is different. Here White has more opportunities for positional sacrifices, since he gets the compensation in view of space advantage, pressure on the Black king stuck in the center and the lead in the development.
This is the place where you must know theory and always take care in first 10 or 13 moves.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3

If you play 6. ...h6?! here White can respond with 7.Ne6! and will just calmly develop, sacrificing the knight since he gets very good compensation in view of the initiative, development lead and Black's cramped, uncoordinated position.

Another dangerous variation with White's same idea is this:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 h6?! 8.Nxe6!

Instead of 7. ...h6?!, Black plays 7. ...Bd6 and from here on, you really must know theory, as I have mentioned before, since things get really messy. Note that it is harder to play this variation with Black, than with White, but the resulting position is unclear and sharp, so you both have equal chances.

  Maybe you can recommend a book dedicated to this variation?

As someone who used to played this defense as Black in tournament games, I can recommend you some books that helped me to learn to play this opening variation with good success:

Joe Gallagher-Starting Out The Caro-Kann
Anatoly Karpov and A.Beliavsky-The Caro-Kann in Black and White
Shandorff Lars-Grandmaster Repertoire 7-The Caro-Kann

Start reading them in order I have presented above.

The first one will help you to grasp basic ideas and concepts of the variation you seek, but will also help you with other variations as well-which is important since generally in Caro-Kann it is White who can steer the game, not Black. You will find the answers you seek in this book. I have just given you the small summary of ideas in the above section.

Once you learn the basics you can move on to the second book, written by a grandmaster who practically reinvented the whole variation for Black. It is Karpov who first used that variation in the candidate matches. That is why he had to do everything almost from scratch, and that is why I believe that this book will be the most useful to you. You will learn from one of the best players in chess history and who can better explain to you the ideas for Black than the one who invented them? This book will show you the annotated games where White or Black played well, and their opponent bad. It is important for you to know what is good for White and what is good for Black in the variation you wish to master.

After you learn the opening moves, and grasp the middle game that arises from it, you will start to improve rapidly, since the opening is very solid and hard to "crack" on the lower levels of skill. Naturally you will want to play for a win. In order to do so, you will need the sharpest and most precise continuations and that is what third book should help you with.

A SMALL ADVICE:

Get a good book on endgames, you will need it.

Hopefully this will help you.

Best regards.


How can I make my chess engine more efficient? First, here's some context. My chess engine uses bitboards and works like this: A single gameboard is created as a 2d array at the start of the program. Like this:
[[-4 -2 -3 -5 -6 -3 -2 -4]
 [-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1]
 [ 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0]
 [ 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0]
 [ 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0]
 [ 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0]
 [ 1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1]
 [ 4  2  3  5  6  3  2  4]]

Where each number represents a piece. This 2d board is then converted to 12 bitboards, each representing a set of white or black pieces for each color. The possible legal moves are then generated using various bitboard techniques.
Now to my question: I've written the engine in Python, and so far, the search and evaluate function (a.k.a the minimax function) can only reach a ply of 4. When I try to start going to a ply of 6, the program takes about a good 45-60 seconds to calculate the best move. Any higher ply would make the computer take too long.
Is my implementation inefficient? If not, then any advice on why my engine is so slow would be appreciated. I imagined that with bitboards I could at least reach a ply of 8-12 in Python, even though it's not a very efficient language.
Edit: Also yes, I'm using alpha-beta pruning.

Generally, I would avoid using Python for chess programming altogether.
Consider converting to Cython or, better yet, use a modern system language such as. Rust, Zig, etc.


What is a “dual” in chess problems, such as the Babson task? I’ve read up on Babson tasks, and they mention that all known tasks are not perfect because there are duals. I’m not sure what this means exactly. What precisely is a “dual” in chess problems?

A dual is an alternate solution, other than the intended one, after the first move of a problem or study. If it happens on the first move, the problem or study is called cooked instead.

  dual

  Ideally, White should have only one move at each juncture that solves a problem. If White has an alternative at any stage other than the first move, this is a dual. A dual is not as serious a flaw as a cook, and in minor lines, duals may be permissible (opinions differ on this point). Some problems make a virtue out of dual avoidance – of two apparently equivalent white moves, only one works.

(source: Wikipedia)