Games of Mikhail Tal under the influence of alcohol It is commonly known that Mikhail Tal was an alcohol addict and also had a morphine addiction for a short time.

Are there any games where he played under the influence of drugs that affected his play, or had any troubles regarding this matter with an arbiter?

I [William Hartson] remember him vying for first place with another Soviet grandmaster in a tournament in Holland. On the night before the final round they began buying each other drinks and lining up the empties on the table. When I left them at around 2am, Tal had the remains of 11 drained brandies, his rival had 11 empty rum-and-cokes. They continued for another two hours. At 8.30 in the morning, Tal trotted downstairs to start the last round looking fresh and relaxed. He won easily to take first prize, while his drinking companion was happy with a quick draw.

Source: The Independent

I'm going to search for this game when I get home this evening.


Why is pawn to c4 opening advantageous? Why is pawn to c4 opening advantageous in the screenshot above?

Because if black takes on c4 it loses Control of the centre and white will generally get that c pawn back sooner or later


Did the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard play chess? The danish existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard lived from 1813 to 1855.

He writes in one of his journals (21st of May 1839):

Original Danish

  Jeg lever i denne Tid omtrent som en Brik i Schakspil maa være
  tilmode, naar Modspilleren siger: den Brik kan ikke røres – som en
  ørkesløs Tilskuer, da min Tid endnu ikke er kommen.

Translation by google:

  I live at this time just like a piece of chess must be, Allowing the opponent to say: that piece cannot be moved - like an idle
  spectator, because my time has not yet come

Alternative translation:

  I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my oppenent says
  of it:That piece cannot be moved! like a useless bystander, since my
  time has not yet come.

Did the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard play chess?

The answer is a resounding maybe.

Firstly, he has no games established in Fritz database. Of course this doesn't mean he didn't play chess, just that there isn't evidence recorded in the database.

However it must be remembered that chess was invented in the 6th century and is one of the most popular and famous board games of all time. It is reasonable to assume that he either played casually at least once or knew enough about the game to inform his writing.


On how to learn Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) or Shogi (Japanese Chess) I learned international chess using the tutorials in Ubisoft's Chessmaster, alongside doing tactical and strategical exercises from books, studying master games, and from playing.
I want to learn how to play Xiangqi or Shogi. What resources would you recommend? I am particularly interested in software like Ubisoft's Chessmaster, i.e. interactive tutorials with the ability to play against a range of computer players at different levels.
P.S. I'm based in the UK, where there aren't any relevant clubs nearby, and English language resources are a must

I learned Shogi from these videos.  It goes from absolute beginner to analysis of grand-master games.


Computers finding computer moves There are positions in chess where the only good move (e.g. only move that preserves equality) is very unnatural for a human player. For instance if this move goes against common principles or if it opens the king to a potential attack, a human might be less likely to play this move.

Have there been attempts to find such positions with a computer?

I am not interested in using this to identify cheaters (=humans using illegally computer help in chess).

I am more interested in whether this could be used to win equal positions against humans. For example with such analysis, one could improve opening preparation, steering towards positions where the opponent has to find a "computer move". Also in endgame studies it could be used for the same reason.

One of the most common "unnatural" moves for a human is an under-developing move. Computers find them easily, as it's just another move to check but human's have invested time and energy developing a piece - why then move it back again?

Computers just crunch and then evaluate. Humans are much more emotive and have certain biases for development so it's very easy as a human to overlook a move that a computer would find in a heartbeat.

(one example might be re-routing a queen from one side of the board to the other, via the home-square - e.g. Qa5-d8-h4)

I realise this is a general answer but might help :)


Frequency of resigning in won positions The most terrible blunder is to resign in a won position.

How can I systematically search for such games ?

How often does this happen if both opponents have, lets say, at least ELO 2400 ?

There is a comprehensive list on Tim Krabbé's page The Ultimate Blunder.


Does anyone know of unusual and fun chess tournaments around the world? I have heard of this tournament in France, where the winners receive prizes in wine.
Now I was wondering if there are any other unusual or funny chess tournaments around the world? If yes, which can you recommend or where could one find a list of them?
Thanks in advance!

The Chess Train tournament is an 11-round rapid tournament that is held on a moving train. In five days it travels from Prague to Prague, visiting different cities each day. This year it goes to Poland, including Warsaw and Krakow.

Each day the train travel is from 10:00 to 14:00, with the two rounds of rapid during that time; the afternoon and evening are then free for sightseeing.


Shortest stalemate in serious tournament game I am looking for the shortest stalemate that has occurred in a serious chess game (there were no agreements between the players). So far, I have found only compositions, but is there a real game where stalemate has happened within the first 30 moves?

Yes, there has been a stalemate in a serious game that is under 30 moves long. According to Tim Krabbe's "Chess Records," the fastest such game happened in 27 moves.
[Title "Sibilio-Mariotti, Ravenna, 1982"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e5 c5 4. b4 cxb4 5. d4 Nh6 6. a3 bxa3 7. c3 Nf5 8. Nxa3 Nc6 9. Nb5 a6 10. g4 Bd7 11. Bg5 Be7 12. gxf5 axb5 13. fxe6 fxe6 14. Rxa8 Qxa8 15. Rg1 Qa3 16. Bxb5 Bxg5 17. Rxg5 Qxc3+ 18. Kf1 O-O 19. Bxc6 Bxc6 20. Kg2 Ba4 21. Qe2 Bc2 22. Ne1 Bxe4+ 23. f3 Rxf3 24. Nxf3 Bxf3 25. Qxf3 Qd2+ 26. Kh3 Qxg5 27. Qf8+ Kxf8


Can a knight jump into a square in both an odd and even number of moves? For example, a knight can go from b1 to d5 in 2 moves and in many other routes by an even number of moves. However, can it go to d5 in an odd number of moves?

I was wondering this because it would give me a little bit of insight into some theory.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

No. There's a fairly simple proof by looking at the square colors: they alternate each move. That means the parity of the move count to travel between two squares is fixed.


Online chess leavers I have encountered a profound number of players that simply leave the game when they realize they are losing/in difficult situation, without pressing "I resign" button. This often leaves me waiting a long time for no reason and, consequently, wasting my time.

Is there a site that prohibits this?

Use lichess.org. When your opponent leaves game you can press button 'Claim draw/loss' there


h6 as a prophylactic move in the opening As a low rated player myself, I often see people play h6 as black before playing Nf6, presumably to stop pins on g5 and things like the Fried Liver. Example:

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6?!

I keep hearing that such moves are an unnecessary waste of time, which would be better spent developing pieces.

Is h6 to allow the Knight to move to f6 justified? Should I be developing it to f6 at all?

The thing with h6 is that, in the opening, the move has one purpose for Black: prevent White from placing a piece on g5.

The drawbacks of the move are that:

It's a tempo investment. Tempos are important not to waste in, for example, open positions, where it is good to get your pieces out to active squares as early as possible.
It potentially weakens your kingside if you decide to castle short. A pawn on h6 can become a target for a piece sacrifice if White decides to launch a kingside attack.

So basically, you shouldn't make the move h6 out of habit. It should be played after carefully considering the consequences of letting an enemy piece reach g5. Does White even want to play a light piece to g5? If not, then why waste the tempo?

This of course applies to the pawn push h3 in the opening for White, and also in some sense the pawn pushes a3 and a6, although the latter two can often have other purposes as well, as in the Sicilian, for example.


Why is King's Gambit said to be refuted? We all known that Bobby Fischer has published the famous "A Bust to The King's Gambit", where the gambit is said to be losing for white. Why is it so? Is there any line that can secure black an advantage in the opening, assuming best play from white from todays point of view?

We all known that Bobby Fischer has published the famous "A Bust to The King's Gambit", where the gambit is said to be losing for white. Why is it so? Is there any line that can secure black an advantage in the opening, assuming best play from white?

It is not refuted but the Modern variation is very "pleasant" for Black at the moment, even though being "equal". The fact is that White barely holds equality here, and if he makes the slightest mistake then chances are high for him to lose the game. I am referring to the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5! 4.exd5.

Other old popular lines are very sharp and unexplored but mainly easier to play with Black. I refer to the lines where Black plays ...g5 with Black's dark squared bishop being posted on d6 or g7. These are simply ultra sharp, inhuman lines where even computers explode!

That is the reason why you will not see King's Gambit being played at the top/master level:

Too much memorization of lines which can be refuted by one computer-like novelty;
Even if White manages to get out of the opening with "equal" position, Black usually has easier time playing the middlegame;

I have checked the evaluations of all the lines in the Chess Informant ECO ( 2006 ) and my claims are supported -> White will always have a move that offers equal / sharp game, but the positions are wild and very hard to play.

This is not something that top GMs want, they do not enter into highly tactical lines.

The reason for this is that in order to play this type of chess, you need to be physically very fit, you need to solve puzzles on a daily basis, you lose a lot of energy over the board when playing like this ( this is very dangerous for tournament play because you will play subsequent games worse ), the amount of stress you suffer is very high, and most of the time the entire line can be refuted by a single novelty found by a computer. Furthermore, the openings like this reduce to "I calculate better than you" type of game, so GM can not defeat markedly weaker player if he prepared his opening and calculates as good as that GM ( I have seen players who "fit this bill" so it is not impossible ).

If you intend to play King's Gambit as White, or you play 1...e5 by all means get John Shaw-King's Gambit ( 2013 ) as it is most up-to-date publication and the coverage is simply exceptional.

I wish I could give you some illustrative lines but the material is so vast that it would not fit in 10 posts or even more! Just get the book and all will be clear!

Best regards.


Is it sportsmanlike to waste opponents' time by giving check at the end of the game? In Blitz games, with very little time left for both players, is it acceptable to keep on checking the opponent and waste their time and win the game on time? Is that true sportsmanship?

That only works in blitz time controls with no increment. If you accept games with no increment you are basically agreeing that flagging is part of the game and sportsmanlike. If you personally find it unsporting then always play with an increment and decline challenges with no increment.


"A better move" recommended by chess.com but almost never played? I played a game starting with

d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 a6 4. a4 Nc6 5. Nf3

Black's next move is 5... Bg4 and it was considered by chess.com as

  Inaccuracy (-0.28) A better move was 5... e5 (5... e5 6. d5 a5 7. e4
  f6 8. e2 b4 9. g5 O-O 10. O-O)

But according to 365chess.com, the move 5... e5 is seldom played while 5... Bg4 is more popular with a high winning percentage for black. Why does chess.com consider 5... Bg4 as an inaccuracy?

Chess.com listed this as an inaccuracy because the engine is running at a limited depth, only looking at each move for a few seconds.

When I put the position after 5...Bg4 into Stockfish, it gave an evaluation of +0.12 at 16 ply. But at 18 ply, the evaluation dropped to -0.38. Most likely if you had run the analysis at "maximum" (which I realize is locked for non-premium members) the engine would have analyzed enough to know that 5...Bg4 was not an inaccuracy.


How do I play against this kind of position with double c pawn? Continuing my question on double c-pawn.I am studying on this topic and I came to this position.

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Qe7 9.Re1 Nd8 10.d4 Ne6 11.Bc1 c5 12.Bf1 Rd8 13.d5 Nf8 14.c4

In my opinion, black's position is better here due to the double knights. However, I couldn't find any concrete continuation in this position for black.

Ng6-Nh4-Nf4 seems intuitive but then, I don't want to give up knights easily.
It's hard to exploit the double c-pawns.
Bg4 swapping the knight for bishop seems appealing but I don't know if this is good as this gives white double bishop advantage in endgame.

My question is that

Is my analysis true?
Is 11. ...c5,the pawn break good (or are there any mistakes in the previous move)?
Are there any other ways to break this position?
Who stands better here?

ad 1: Partially, yes. Ng6 is a good move but it will get surely met by white's g3. That's natural. Still u want to move your knight from f8, this square is for your rook.

ad 2: Of course c5 was a good move. You played the opening correctly!

ad 3: Yes, the natural plan is to prepare f5 break. Something like Ng6, Rf8, Nh7, f5

ad 4: I would say rather equals. White has pair of bishops but c-pawns might be an issue later on. Good position to evaluate players' strength. Good luck!


Draws by game number in championship matches Some commentators have expressed surprise at the two relatively bland draws to open out the most recent (Carlsen-Karjakin) World Championships.  I'm wondering whether there's been any study as to whether 'feeling-out' is a real phenomenon: are draws more likely to happen at the start of a championship match, in the middle, or towards the end?  Has any objective research (whether specifically WCC or any high-level chess match play) been done on this?

I am not aware of a study of this kind, but why not make our own? Let us parse some WCC PGNs!

To me, this does not seem to have any definite regularities for when a draw is more likely (also note, that at the very high number of rounds, only a few games are available - there have been only a few very long WCC matches).

EDIT

Recent events only. Looks like more draws overall and slight tendency for more draws towards the end of a match.


Website to practise thematic games [blitz]? As stated in the title, are there any websites out there to play thematic games in Blitz (or quick time control) ? The idea is to practise a specific opening, starting from a precise position (arising after the exchange Grünfeld for example). I know a french website where it's possible but for corresponding games only.
Thanks in advance.

Lichess has what you are looking for:

But you may have to check out when a specific opening theme may be scheduled in their tournament table. Also Lichess has a feature to start your own thematic tournament at any time of the day, but attracting players to the custom tournaments typically does not work.


Unusual replies to Scandinavian Defense Are there any tricky, unusual replies by White against the Scandinavian Defense? I mean, avoiding 1. e4 d5 2. exd5, since, especially after 2... Nf6, for what I know, most of the tricks are on Black's side.

How about 1. e4 d5 2. e5!? or other unusual things like this one... a gambit maybe?

I am not asking for theoretical soundness but for surprise effect, especially for blitz or rapid games.

Is there any reasonably detailed analysis of a few of these lines on the Net or in published books, DVDs, etc.

Spielmann Gambit

[Event "?"]
[ECO "B02"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]

[Setup "1"]

1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 (2...d4 {Probably the best move} 3. Nce2 {And probably the only reasonable retreat. White is losing the advantage of playing as White side here, that's true. That's why this is an 'unusual' reply. Both sides gonna fight for e5 square in this position. White can go for f2f4 and Ng1-f3.}) Nf6 3. e5 Nfd7 ( 3... d4 {Black dodges the gambit, resulting and open, even game with even material} 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg7 cxd2+ ) 4. e6 {Spielmann Gambit! White gives up a pawn to disorganize Blacks pieces, and will try to keep Black disorganized as long as possible. White has also good attacking possibilities on king side.} fxe6
5. d4 g6 (5... e5? { Trying to free up immediately, but... } 6.dxe5 e6 (6... Nxe5? 7. Qxd5 {Black has no material advantage and white has better position}) { Black gave up his extra pawn for reaching this defensive position. Worthy? I don't think so. White has a good play without giving up material.} ) {I think this is the best move for Black here. Fianchettoing bishop would give black a nice control over black squares in the center. Also ...g6 move closes e8-h5 diagonal, which will be used by white queen in some variations}

This is my favorite and totally awesome for a white player who wants to get initiative and attack.

After 5.d4, white plays to maintain control of central black squares, avoiding blacks freeing move ...e5, not letting black to develop, and attack from king-side using f7.


Euwe-Aljechin Amsterdam 1935 problem I came across this puzzle that I couldn't solve and after looking at the solution I am still not sure what is going on here.

[FEN "5k2/p5pp/r7/2pB2p1/b1P5/6P1/4PP1P/R5K1 w - - 0 1"]

The best move apparently is Ra2.

The problem says "white to play and win". The situation after Ra2 seems quite balanced to me and Stockfish is not detecting a clear advantage for white.

Any views on this?

After 1.Ra2, black's rook and bishop are both stuck; 1...Bb5, defending the rook on a6 while attacking the rook on a2 is no longer effective since 2.cxb5 defends the rook on a2. After this, black's play is completely shut down due to the pin on the bishop, while white is able to make improvements in his position. In particular, white can get a very strong passed pawn on the e-file which black can do nothing about.

This is why the position is so-called strategically winning for white after 1.Ra2. Unlike other types of winning advantages, this one is of quite a long-term nature, and white would still need to show good general understanding and endgame technique to win the game in the end. Let's look at a couple of sample lines:

 [FEN "5k2/p5pp/r7/2pB2p1/b1P5/6P1/4PP1P/R5K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1.Ra2! (1.Ra3? Bb5! {and black escapes the pin in an elegant manner; the bishop on b5 is temporarily immune due to the hanging rook on a3.}) {Paralyzing black's bishop and rook.} 1...g4 {Might as well try to stop white's pawns from advancing.} (1...Bb5?? {This is a terrible blunder now.} 2.cxb5 Rxa2 3.Bxa2 {and white is just a piece up.}) 2.e4 {Push the pawn! A strong and far-advanced passed pawn makes black's movements even more awkward than before.} 2...g5!? {Other defensive tries are available as well, but black wants to keep white down, and doesn't want to allow white's king access into black's position via f4.} 3.e5 h6 4.h4! {Black is given the chance to pick his poison} 4...Kg7 {The most resilient path.} (4...gxh4 5.gxh4 {and white's king is given access to black's camp via f4.} 5...Kg7 6.Kh2 Kf8 7.Kg3 h5 8.Kf4 Kg7 {What now? How does white proceed?} 9.Ke3! {White uses triangulation to put black on the move, thus gaining ground} 9...Kf8 10.Ke4 Kg7 11.Kf4 Kg6 {Black needs to stop white's king, but this allows a tactical trick:}   (11...Kf8 12.e6 Ke7 13.Kg5 {and black is getting squeezed to death.}) 12.Bb7! Rb6 13.Be4+ {and white wins the bishop on a4.}) (4...gxh3  5.f4! {and white creates two strong connected passed pawns. These are unstoppable, and will decide the game.}) 5.Kf1 Kf8 6.Ke1 Kg7 7.Kd2 Kf8 8.Ke3 Kg7 9.h5 {Finishing preparations before liquidation into a winning rook ending by placing king and pawns optimally.} 9...Kf8 10.Bb7! {The way to make progress!} 10...Rb6 11.Rxa4 Rxb7 12.Ra6 {Black's position is starting to crumble, and there is no way to defend all weak points anymore.}

So in conclusion, yes white is winning after 1.Ra2! but the win isn't trivial, and precision is still required afterwards to win the game.


No longer feel like playing chess? Is it normal to no longer want to play chess? Or lose interest is probably a better way to put it. Is it temporary?

Sure, that's normal.

Can you identify why you lost interest? Are you losing too much or not showing improvement? re-evaluate your studies.

If you are winning too much (boredom), find better opposition.

“A bad day of Chess is better than any good day at work” - Anonymous


What is the fastest way to reach stalemate? It is known that the minimum number of moves required for checkmate is 2 moves (4 half moves) resulting in a victory for Black. However, what is the minimum number of moves required for stalemate? Clearly, this would take a lot more moves since no piece from one party must be able to move, thus it must either be captured, pinned or completely blocked.

Sam Loyd, a famous puzzle composer, created this 10 move, 19 ply, stalemate game over 100 years ago. I found it via Google, in this post by AndersElborg on chess.com. Most black pieces are blocked, which saves some moves because those pieces don't need to be captured.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "19"]

1.e3 a5 2.Qh5 Ra6 3.Qxa5 h5 4.h4 Rah6 5.Qxc7 f6 6.Qxd7+ Kf7 7.Qxb7 Qd3 8.Qxb8 Qh7 9.Qxc8 Kg6 10.Qe6


What should be the next move in this position? [FEN "2r1r1k1/pb5p/1pp1qb2/3p1p2/3Pn1p1/1Q2P1P1/PP2NPBP/2RRB1K1 b - - 0 1"]

What is the best move for Black in this position. Everything seems defended here.
What method is applicable in such situations? Method of imbalances?

All black pieces are currently defended but that does not mean there is nothing to do as if you play aimlessly white will eventually gain an advantage.
On analyzing the game the first thing you can notice is that the kingside is completely locked down by pawns so our attack needs to be on the queenside. Ba6 and Be7 are good moves to start gaining control on the queenside. Double rooks on c- file with a c5 pawn break is one option (but it sacrifices the d5 pawn).
Exploiting White's cramped position is essential for any strategy you employ on the queenside side. White will probably outpost his knight on the f4 square so BxN eventually will open up the e-file. Even though this is a drawish game it is far from over and inaccurate play from either player might lose the game.


Engine evaluation in endgame not increasing, what it means? I have plenty of endgames that engine evaluates like +1, even +2, not changing much for like 50-100 halfmoves, repeating, playing without plan. Defending side seems to be always just in time on right corresponding squares to hold. The evaluations are from 2m+2s engine blitz games, starting from low material endgame position, plenty of time to make good calculations in bishop/rook/knight endgame I think. How certain can I be such positions are really draws? Is it possible that engines would miss winning line with so much time more than exceptionally? Not in study type positions but in normal practical endgames. Is for example sightseeing tour with king from g4 to g8 through a4 in opposite colored bishop 3 vs. 1 still beyond horizon of engines? They often don't use easy plan I would try to win the game and I wonder if they see all the corresponding drawing setups all over the board or if they are still living in a box in technical endgames.

In the endgame engines will give one of three kinds of evaluation according to what they "see".

1) #31 - mate in 31. Material balance is irrelevant.

2) 0.0 - they see a forced draw. Material balance is irrelevant.

3) +2 or -1 or whatever - they don't see mate and they don't see a forced draw. They do see a material imbalance. Any concrete result is outside their move threshold and realistically any one of three results is possible. If the evaluation doesn't change much over a prolonged number of moves it shows that one side has a material advantage but can't use it to win as far as the computer can "see".

Remember computers don't have judgement. They are just calculating machines. They can only tell you what they calculate.


How do UCI chess engines handle the 50-move or threefold repetition rules when playing against other engines? I'm working on an engine that implements the UCI protocol that is intended to play against other engines. Since the UCI protocol has no commands for offering or accepting draws, how does this work when games run into the 50-move or threefold repetition rules? Do engines just never offer a draw?  Then, would it not be possible for the game to just never end because there is no way to force a mate and neither engine will offer a draw?

Your engine doesn't need to offer a draw. This is the responsibility for GUI. A good GUI should stop the game for 50 moves or three-repetition.

If you want to run game matches, try: https://github.com/cutechess/cutechess


How often can I castle? I am learning to play chess on my computer. I have learned approximately all the rules but one rule stays vague for me thus far.

My questions are clear, though. I am putting them separated below with some little additions.

This is simple. How often can I castle? One time, two times, x
times or till the end? I know that it can be executed if a rook and
king are at their original places.
If I am allowed to castle one time, does that imply that I can make it two times because number of rooks for each player is 2?

FIDE Laws of Chess:

  3.8.b.1. The right to castle has been lost: a) if the king has already moved, or b) with a rook that has already moved.

Emphasis mine.


Opening the e-file in King's Indian Defense? I'm reading about KID in "The Complete Book of Chess Strategy" by Jeremy Silman, and I don't understand one of his points. He gives the following moves (which is the "Averbackh Variation"):

1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 g6
3.Nc3 Bg7
4.e4 d6
5.Be2 0-0
6.Bg5 c5
7.d5 Qa5
8.Bd2 e6

Which he says (of Black's plan) "...opening the e-file for his Rooks". But I don't see that. There's no way white would go 9.exd6 when 9.exf6 is there, unless we are talking a Knight sacrifice with 9.exf6 exf6. But even then, the e-file is not totally open with a Bishop at e2.

So I guess my question is if I'm reading that right, or if there is maybe some typo/error here. Black sacrifices his Knight for a partially open e-file?

I am not sure if you are leaving something out, but what he means is that depending on what white does, assuming it does not lose, black may play e6xd5 and then Re8 to get play either against e4 if white recaptures with c4xd5, or possibly other play down the open file should white respond to e6xd5 with e4xd5.

I also think you may be misreading the notation since there is not going to be exd6 or exf6.


Could two kings force checkmate against a lone king? I was looking at minimal combinations of material needed to force checkmate (K+R, Q+B, R+N+N, etc). You end up with a sort of threshold of how much material is needed, and that sort of assigns a strength to the king. But that made me wonder if K+K is sufficient material to force checkmate. Obviously this is normally impossible, but in the hypothetical endgame where white has two kings and black has one (and make the obvious loosenings of the restrictions on moving into check), could the two kings force checkmate against the one king?

Alternatively, one could think of it as white having a king and a fairy chess piece that moves exactly like a king. Is this enough material to force checkmate?

If these are two real kings, it is not possible. This is because one requirement of checkmate is that the black king is in check which cannot be achieved with any of the white kings, since it would put the white king in check.

If you say that white has only one king and a nonstandard chess piece that moves exactly like a king (i.e. this piece can be put next to the enemy king), then yes, it seems possible and quite easy to mate the black king.

For example, put the king and “king” for on c3 and f3, and the black king on d5. As you can see the two kings almost cover the whole 4th rank. Pushing the black king to the side of the board and into the corner is quite easy, e.g. if black starts with 1... Ke5, 2. Kc4 Kd6 3. Kf4 Ke6 4. Kc5. Once you have the black king around the corner you put white's real king on c6 and give checkmate with the "king", the piece that moves like a king but really isn’t one, on g7.

Here is a demonstration of said strategy in the replayer. Remember, white’s standard king is on b2 and their other “king” is on f3!

[FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/5K2/1K6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc3 Ke5 2. Kc4 Kd6 3. Kf4 Ke6 4. Kc5 Kd7 5. Kf5 Ke7 6. Kc6 Ke8 7. Kf6 Kd8 8. Kf7 Kc8 9. Ke8 Kb8 10. Kd8 Ka8 11. Kb6 Kb8 12. Kdc7+ Ka8 13. Kcb7#


Are there any lines in the Lopez Opening / MacLeod Attack that are actually good for White? In an event I played in this past weekend, I was surprised when (playing Black) I encountered:  1. e4 e5  2. c3.

I'd never seen this opening before - later web searching told me that it is the Lopez Opening a/k/a MacLeod Attack (ECO code C20, which seems to cover several miscellaneous double king pawn openings).  When I saw White's second move, I couldn't imagine what the purpose of it was, and was worried that I was missing some sort of obvious trap.  But I didn't see one.  The only thing I could think at the time was that my opponent was trying to get me "out of book", but at my level that's sort of pointless - I don't have much of a book to begin with...  So I just fell back to general opening principles and played 2. ... Nf6.  My opponent's continuation was the (possibly even more dubious) 3. d3.  This all led to a fairly easy game for me, that I won in less than 20 moves.

Thinking about it afterwards, the most confusing thing was that this was played by a player with about 4 years of tournament experience rated about 150 points higher than me.  So this wasn't someone who's just learning the game.  So I'm just mystified as to why someone would play this opening.  I tried to do some research to see if there are any lines that are good for White, but found that MCO and FCO don't even cover this opening.  The opening explorer on 365Chess (which I admittedly don't know how big its database is, or where it gets its games) seems to indicate that the best continuations for Black are 2. ... Nf6 or 2. ... d5, with around a 75% winning percentage, or 2. ... Nc6, with more than an 80% winning percentage (but with a much smaller sample size than the other two).

Are there any reasonably rational plans for White with this opening that I haven't been able to find, other than just playing it for the "surprise factor"?  Am I missing something obvious here?

The reason to play 1.e4 e5 2.c3 is probably to go for a slow manoeuvring/strategic game without much theory.

After the natural 2...d5, white can go for 3.d3 and in case of 3... dxe4 4.dxe4 Qxd1 5.Kxd1. This transposes into a familiar position with one tempo up and reversed colors compared with 1.e4 d6 2.d4 d5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8.

Note that in the line 1.e4 e5 2.c3 d5 3.d3 dxe4 4.dxe4 Qxd1 5.Kxd1 the move c3 is useful because it gives the King the square c2 to hide and a good control on d4.


When you are winning, is it ethical to not go for a checkmate right away? If you are leading a game, is it ethical to capture your opponent's pieces one by one or go straight for checkmate?

There is no rule or law that says that you have to try and checkmate in as few moves as possible and so there is no ethical requirement either.
In fact, if there are just a few pieces left on the board and you are very short of time it makes a lot of sense to take all the opponent's pieces as quickly as possible and only then worry about how you are going to checkmate.
Otherwise if you run out of time while your opponent still has some material left then you are going to lose on time. If your flag falls after you have taken all their pieces then you still get a draw.


What are some of the main ideas in the Grand Prix attack? I was looking at ways to improve my game by making it more sharp and be able to attack the kingside as quickly as possible, and I found a move that looks interesting called the Grand Prix Attack in Sicilian.

From what I've seen it looks something like this:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. f4

But I wanted to get some feedback of people who actually used it, to me it seems the Black can easily get around it by playing ...e6 and ...d5, right?

Any thoughts?

You are correct in that Black's goal is to play ...e6 and ...d5, especially if White has played Bc4.

Some players will only play into the Grand Prix if Black has committed to an early ...d6, in that case, Black loses a tempo if he then plays for ...e6 and ...d5.


Software for tournaments, leaderboards and result tracking guys,

What kind of software/apps do you use to track your results of games with friends or in clubs?

How do you track your wins/losses and progress while casually playing chess?

I recommend SCID. It's free and works on any operating system, and there are even mobile versions available.

As far as recording your games during casual play, I would just use regular score sheets and enter them in the computer later. If you play online, sites like Chess.com let you download your games in PGN format, which can be imported into SCID or other database software.

Most people who use databases prefer to only include their tournament games, since casual games are going to show patterns that might not apply when you're playing serious chess. You could keep them in a separate database if you really want to record everything.

For fun, see how much of a casual game you can play back from memory after the game is over. You will remember more if:

You are consistent with the openings you play.
Your moves follow a general plan.
You actively concentrate on what is happening on the board, how you got there, and where you're headed. This keeps the sequence of moves fresh and connected, for reconstructing later.


When checkmate is impossible in a position Edit This question is not a duplicate, as mentioned in my comment. The linked supposedly-duplicate question addresses neither my below question #1, nor question #3, nor question #2 except tangentially mentioned in an answer. The linked question is about sufficient mating material whereas my question is about cases where material may be sufficient but nevertheless checkmate is impossible.

The laws of chess say

1.5. If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2.2).
5.2.2. The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

[Articles 3, 4.2-4.7 basically deal with making legal moves.]
This is interesting because it seems possibly non-obvious whether this condition applies (though presumably rare in actual games!). I think this must have been investigated before. I'm wondering:
(1) How computationally difficult is it to determine that no sequence of legal moves ends in checkmate? Is there a better algorithm than brute force?
(2) Do you know of interesting examples of positions where it is hard for a human to tell whether this condition applies?
(3) Are there any examples of historical games where this law was not followed due to players and officials not realizing the condition held? Especially interesting if the game did not end in a draw due to time expiring for one player.
Inspired by https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/8ulfrt/using_fide_rules_if_white_runs_out_of_time_in/
(edit) See also this closely related question where the accepted answer has a couple more examples where there is sufficient material to mate, but it is impossible from that position.

What you're asking goes by the name of "Dead Reckoning" in the domain of problems and retro problems.

(1) There isn't an algorithm I know of except the one mentioned by zaifrun: brute force. The reason is because you can find pretty amazing positions...

(2) Check out many problems relying on Dead Reckoning at Andrew Buchanan's website.
Also there are problem databases (like this one) where you can run a search for 'DR' in the stipulation.

A concrete example I recall is this one, which I reproduce here. By Andrew Buchanan, in StrateGems 2002. White to move; what was the last move in this position? (The position is dead but the last move made must have been from a legal and live position - so it's uniquely determinable.)

Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/1P6/p5P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1

(3) Even grandmasters have technically made moves in a dead position! See François Labelle's page for examples.


What openings should be played in a simul? What openings are usually good for a simul?  I'm assuming that it's an all-comers simul, so there could be strong players mixed in.  Does the answer change if the strength of the opponents is known ahead of time?

I've always heard that person giving a simul should strive for quiet positions, where they can use their superior understanding and not have to calculate much, and his opponents should strive for the opposite: complex, tactical positions. Even GMs can miscalculate while giving a simul, since they have so little time per move, and so many boards to worry about. This makes sense to me, and I think this holds regardless whether strength of participants is known in advance.

Having said that, there are some crazy Morphy and Alekhine tactical wins in simuls, even blindfold simuls.


Are there any official rules for Bughouse? I came across this question - Formal rules for two-player bughouse without a clock - which asks if there is a formal way of breaking deadlock situations where one player on each side doesn't want to move, but nothing about formal or official rules. Do they exist? Has anybody tried to control this chess variant?

I found two sources. For fans of the USCF they have produced their US CHESS SCHOLASTIC BUGHOUSE RULES but not a grown up version that I can find.
The rather more serious Czech federation holds an annual bughouse championship in conjunction with their regular national championships as part of an annual chess festival. They publish their formal rules here.
These appear more serious and handle more difficult problems like formalizing storage of captured pieces and the way they are handled:

1.6   When a piece is captured, the captured piece is passed to the partner stuff-place immediately after the move is completed, not later than before the player's next turn. A player's "stuff-place" is an area reserved for pieces that the player can drop on the board. The player's stuff-place must be between his opponent's eyes and the player's hands. So the stuff-place is usually between board and player's hands.
Before the game the players and arbiter should agree on the position of the stuff-place
1.7   A player cannot attempt to hide pieces from the opponent. During the whole game the players shall manipulate the pieces in such a way that both opponents are able to see all pieces. Only when captured pieces are transferred to partner's stuff-place or in the moment when player is moving or dropping piece on chessboard, a piece may be partially hidden in a players hand. However it must be clear to his opponents which piece is partially hidden and this moment must be as short as possible.
1.8   a) If a player hides pieces in an improper way (rule 1.7), his opponent (or partner of his opponent) is entitled to warn him to "show pieces".
b) If a player drops a hidden piece, his opponent may restrict its use by the message "invisible", e.g. "invisible bishop". The opponent may then immediately start the player's clock and force him to make another move.
c) A piece restricted in this way may not be used until the opponent allows (by the message "bishop visible now", for example). The opponent should allow it as soon as possible, in good sportsmanship.
d) If a player repeatedly hides his pieces, his opponent (or partner of his opponent) may claim "repeatedly hiding" and the arbiter may impose some sanction. (rule 9.4.)
e) If a piece is hidden through no fault of the player, and this drastically alters the game, the arbiter may order a new game.

Contentious issues around simultaneous checkmate are also handled:

1.9   When player is checkmated after taking any piece then if his partner has the move, he may drop this piece as his last move.
1.10  If both games finish at the same time, the results on both chessboards are counted up; the team which wins on both chessboards wins the bughouse game. Otherwise the bughouse game is draw.

2.2a The bughouse game is draw when player is taking a piece, then (in the next opponent move) is checkmated, his partner's move is in this moment, his partner is by dropping this piece (before his time is out) checkmating opponent or making draw by achievement of 3x repeated position (See 2.2.b).

There is no mention of stalemate for the obvious reason that a player can always put a piece on from the "stuff-place" or wait for a piece from his/her partner.
Also no mention of 50 move draw rule because, let's face it, pieces are always going to get taken and pawns are going to be moved and recycled and very quickly.
There is, though, a 3-fold repetition draw law.


Do the top women players play professionally? By top women players, I mean the players who regularly participate in top women-only invitationals, e.g. the ongoing Women's Grand Prix Lausanne. Some names would be Nana Dzagnidze, Mariya Muzychuk, Ju Wenjun, Aleksandra Goryachkina (Hou Yifan is clearly not playing professionally right now since she is studying at Oxford University). By "professionally" I mean whether they treat chess as a full-time job.

Do the current top women players play professionally, or only as a hobby?

I think there is no doubt that the answer is "yes". The question is whether they are particularly successful at it, or not; and whether they have to supplement tournament winnings with other activities like teaching.

In addition, a common use of the term "professional" in sports is if someone gets paid, and the Grand Prix consists of four events with prizes in each ranging from 3,000 Euros to 20,000 Euros, and the overall prize standings at the end from 2,500 Euros to 15,000 Euros for the standings winner. So they do get paid, and thus, are professionals, at the very least, technically.

That said, I think that most may have their participation in tournaments and income supplemented beyond teaching, most probably by national federations, but organizers may also offer incentives to attract top women players. The Grand Prix pays the women's travel expenses, and lodging (Section 5.2), for example. Some may even pay modest appearance fees, but these would surely be few, and far between.

WGM Natalia Pogonina's manager, Peter Zhdanov, wrote here that "Saratov State Law Academy helps WGM Natalia Pogonina by paying for some of her chess trips". Again, it always seemed like she is, or was, one of the "professionals", but how successful was she? Based on what Peter Svidler told me about men a long time ago, I would guess that it is a rough life financially without some kind of outside sponsorship.

Things have changed for men, but around 20 years ago, Peter Svidler told me on ICC that with the exception of world championships (same for the women today as the recent women's world championship had a prize fund of 500,000 Euros), at that time, even the top 10 men only earned around $50,000 per year. Of course, at that level for men, you really cannot do it part-time, and supplement with lessons since it requires that much dedication. Judit Polgar, clearly, did nothing but chess, and in 2015, Hou Yifan only earned an estimated $265,000.

While it is relative, these women are at the same level as the men, meaning at the very top when competing against their own gender, and I cannot see how they would be doing it part-time any less than a man could in the top 10. Most of the women in the Lausanne Grand Prix are grandmasters, and to be a grandmaster, for most, is a full-time occupation at the "top".

Of course, this is all discussing being a professional primarily from tournament winnings. The Internet today makes it easier for anyone, even weak players, to start a Twitch channel, and develop a following, and earn a living if they are good at attracting an audience.

P.S. I found it very difficult to find hard sources with quotes about how top women chess players sustain their careers, but I did put what I could find, and the rest is just common-sense analysis from reading over the many years.


English/KID loss as white to a 2300+ player [FEN ""]
[Date "6/9/2018"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "Opponent"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1874"]
[BlackElo "2332"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d3 a6 9. f4 Rb8 10. a4 Bd7 11. f5 Ng4 12. h3 Nge5 13. b3 b5 14. axb5 axb5 15. Be3 Nb4 16. d4 cxd4 17. Bxd4 bxc4 18. bxc4 Nbc6 19. Nd5 Nxd4 20. Nxd4 Nxc4 21. Ra7 Rb1 22. Qd3 Rxf1+ 23. Bxf1 Ne5 24. Qa6 e6 25. Nb6 Qg5 26. Qa3 Nc4 27. Bxc4 Bxd4+ 28. Kf1 Bc6 29. Ra6 Bxe4 30. g4 Qf4+ 31. Ke1 Qf2+ 32. Kd1 Bf3+ 33. Kc1 Qe1+ 0-1

My rating: 1874
Opponent's rating: 2332

Feel free to go over the following points or any other important pieces of analysis that I left out:

At move 9, I feel that I could be committing to a faulty plan with f2-f4. After the game I've found something in a book of mine recommending something like 9. h3 Rb8 10. a4 followed by Be3 and d4. This seems like I'm allowing for less potential weaknesses and maintaining better chances, correct?
f5 was quoted by my opponent as very weakening with regards to the e5 square. I have a pattern in my games of playing impatiently and trying to force things too quickly, which is definitely not how I should be thinking while playing an opening like the English.
The d3 square is falling under so much pressure after 12. Nge5.
During the game I felt that 13. b3 was the most stubborn defense against black's central attack but it looks very very wrong to open the long diagonal so much, but was there anything better?
14.axb5 opening the a-file can probably only be good for me.
Was 15.cxb5 more stubborn?
19.Nd5 giving up the bishop doesn't seem right, but what else is there really?
It's hard for me to say precisely where, but perhaps there's a point somewhere around move 20 where I should consider playing Kh1.
25.f6 surely seems better than Nb6 as I played in the game.
After 26...Nc4! I felt lost.

Also, no computer analysis please unless there's something that can hardly be explained or justified without it. Thanks!

Some elements :

9.f4 is not a wrong plan per ipse. I would prefer to finish development with 9.h3 and 10.Be3 first, but 9.f4 is correct.
11.f5 is very prematured. Your pair of pawns e4-f4 is good and controls central squares. You want to break it and attack with e4-e5 or f4-f5 only when it offers you an initiative; with Black very solid and your development unfinished, there is no attack.
The weakness of the long diagonal after 13.b3 is manageable, but the move itself is useless. It seems you are planning d3-d4 that, after f4-f5, doesn't achieve anything but new weaknesses: having relinquished the e5-square, you will never claim a Maroczy-like space advantage. Moreover, having more space on the K-side and a lag in development, you do not want to open the center. 13.Be3, 13.g4, 13.Kh1, 13.Bg5 are all more useful moves.
14.ab5 is no big deal. In the long run, only Black can benefit from the open a-file (the Bg7 is eyeing a1), but you have to play this move sooner or later anyway because otherwise your own a-pawn will become weak after an eventual ...bc4 bc4.
15.cb5 is no better than what you did; You will most probably lose at least two of the three weak pawns b3,d3,b5. After 15...Nb4 15.d4 Ned3 16.Be3 might just hold everything together, but 15...Nd4 looks simpler: 16.Bb2 Nxb5 or 16.Nxd4 cd4 17.Ne2 Bb5 and Black's minor pieces rule the the board. 15.Bf4 avoids immediate material losses: 15...Nb4 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.Ra7, but giving away the dark-squared bishop is very sad.
After move 16 you look just lost, one pawn falls and Black is much more active.

Note that you couldn't play a single attacking move after the pseudo-agressive f4-f5, and that Black won on the Q-side because he took time to develop (Rb8, Bd7 vs Ra1, Bc1) and enjoyed full control of dark squares (open diagonal for Bg7, Ne5, b4, d4 accessible...). The opening is not over once you have castled, the fact the game is closed shouldn't give you a false sensation of security, and you should really consider very carefully pawn moves (a4,f5,b3) when you are not fully developed. Actually, you played 7 seven consecutive pawn moves just after castling and your Rf1 even got exchanged before you could connect rooks !


What is the origin of chess clubs? In the first pages of Philidor's 1777 edition of Analyse du jeu des échecs (Analysis of chess games) there is a list of subscribers, some of whom are "Members of the Chess Club". They include several Lords and Dukes, etc. and also some Messrs.
Now, I wasn't aware there were chess clubs in the 18th century, and I was wondering when the first chess clubs were created and which were their characteristics.

Very interesting indeed. Although French, Philidor was in London for some time and virtually all the listed subscribers are clearly English, and book first edition is 1749 when he was there. It appears he played regularly at the St James Chess Club. The English were fond of clubs for a long time.
Here's a Wikipedia article with useful information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-Andr%C3%A9_Danican_Philidor
And here's a page directly to the point:
https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/clubs/jt_chessclubs.html
As to when the first club started, I have no idea. It's a topic worth researching.


As a coach what is the process to create a repertoire for a child? I started coaching a child (11 yo) part-time.
Has to be said that I am passionate about chess, and I am myself 1992 ELO and am new to coaching, but I like sharing and explaining.

At first I was helping him to prepare before the tournaments and we went through different ideas specially preparation for his opponents. I have noticed this was too much and it's going too broad...
To be also said that his level is good, he understand main strategies, ideas and he's pretty good at tactics as well.

I have proposed him to create an opening repertoire. I was thinking at something very narrow but solid and expandable. I know what type of positions he enjoys playing, so opening will be easy to select, the only problem is I don't know how to start the process of teaching him this.
(Myself I never had a coach so I have learned alone mostly by practicing, and I don't really have a great repertoire, so I cannot use my repertoire creation as experience to help him)

Do I need some tools, some special ways of starting with specific lines, ideas?
How does a professional coach teaches a child a chess repertoire, step by step?

Thanks

A repertoire is not built overnight, and for most players, having a deep theoretical knowledge is not required. They simply need to understand opening pawn structures.

That said, if this child is showing a great deal of aptitude, it may be worth adding this to your study regime earlier than I would normally recommend. I have seen two prodigies up close, and I will share what I have seen: I have known GM Josh Friedel since he was 6 or 7, and his first coach, who was the first player that I REALLY wanted to beat, has been a close friend for 40 years, so I know that he taught Josh openings even at a very young age.

My second encounter with a prodigy is the amazing 8-year-old Ryan Sun, who is now already rated above 2000 (and plays stronger than that). I faced him in my first game back after 16 years, and again, just this past weekend. I went 0-2, but in our game this weekend, it was especially clear that he was well-versed in the opening. So, for certain kids, who are gaining strength at an incredible pace, they do need a repertoire early since they will soon be facing players, who are booked up.

Unless you are an expert at opening play, you need to do one of two things at a certain point: Pass him off to a stronger coach. In Josh's case, he "graduated" from my friend to a GM coach, I think at around age 11. The other option is to buy repertoire books, that were written by grandmasters.

For kids, who calculate like little computers, you probably want books that focus on aggressive repertoires, typically 1.e4 as white, the Sicilian Defense as black versus 1.e4, and then a GM-suggested repertoire versus 1.d4. There are a lot of such repertoire books out there.

I hope this helps.

Below, the original poster asks about how to prepare to present the material, and how to prepare to present it, and I added a comment. I will that here too.

Usually, those books are pretty complete repertoires, and you need to go through a good portion of the book to make sure you cover everything. So, take each chapter, and they do not have to be in order (for example, if the first chapter is oddball sidelines, that is not the place to start), and read it yourself, and get a feel for the plans and ideas; and then start presenting them chapter by chapter until you are done with the book. He will not have to memorize everything, but this way, he will be exposed to all of it. Just keep building on that.


Why does lichess ban players? Few days ago I was watching a game review on lichess and found out one of the player's account was banned. Any idea why lichess does that?

First of all, lichess rarely bans players. What they usually do is flag their profile (usually for using chess computer assistance), remove their rating, and prevent them from p laying in tournaments and/or rating games. This is not a full ban.

To answer your question:

Lichess flags players for a variety of reasons, but (as mentioned above) they usually flag players for using chess computer assistance. They may also be flagged for sandbagging - artificially increasing or decreasing their rating.

If you want to know why are particular player was flagged, check their profile. There should be a large red banner informing you what has happened.

If you are wondering how the process of reporting/flagging players works, that would be a separate question.


Is there a resource that lists many of the different chess set styles? I know that there's the Staunton, Zagreb, and Dubrovnik style chess pieces which have seemingly been standardized.

It also seems that there's a common generic style of chess piece that I've seen in plastic, glass, and wood.

I just don't know the name of it.

I've searched and searched for a resource that would list the different piece styles (or at least the most common ones) but I only seem to be able to find short lists.

So is there a resource out there or does anyone know off hand what some of the different piece styles are?

The Illustrated Guide to World Chess Sets (Chessmen for Collectors) by Dr Victor Keats

A part from the books webpage:

  Country by country each chapter of Chessmen for Collectors
  systematically charts the development of chess sets in chronological
  order, giving the collector an instant means of identification. The
  accompanying mass of illustrations (50 colour and 273 black and white)
  gives details of the diverse materials used - ivory, wood, porcelain,
  bronze - precise heights of pawns and pieces, their provenance and
  date.

Ivory Indian chessmen, chariots and juggernauts, late eighteenth century

  Ivory Indian chessmen, chariots and juggernauts, late eighteenth
  century The text and illustrations together highlight the variation of
  style in English Staunton sets, Indian ivory sets, Spanish 'pulpit'
  chessmen and delicate French eighteenth-century sets, as well as
  highly unusual, 'one-off' sets from Africa and America. The whole
  amounts to a highly authoritative, wide-ranging reference work for any
  kind of chess collector.

Other minor sources

This page lists some modern designs: http://inspirationfeed.com/inspiration/industrial-inspiration/20-aesthetic-chess-set-designs/

This online store has a lot of differently themed chess sets: https://www.chesshouse.com/collections/themed-chess-pieces


Why has Carlsen's Elo not changed? Just looking up Carlsen's Elo and it is still 2870.

I know his next goal is to reach 2900. Did the 3 wins in the world chess championship simply not give him any rating points, or does FIDE take a long time to update ratings?

Thanks.

It does take awhile for FIDE to update their ratings, which is monthly (see article) compared to the unofficial Live ratings site at Live Ratings. But it is interesting to note that Carlsen is due for a 2 point bump according to the Live rating site.


Is it ethical to tell your opponent how you are going to checkmate them? I play online chess at 3 days per move. I like to tell my opponents how I'm going to checkmate them if they will never win. That way, that I won't waste time continuing the game. I also like to be told if I will be mated for the same reason.
The majority of the users find that insulting. Is it really insulting to tell your opponents how you are going to checkmate them so they can resign fast? I don't play against titled players, so they don't see the checkmate coming unless you tell them. Meanwhile, titled players fight to the end online often, with many games ending in checkmate, unlike real games where you very often resign.

It is not a question of ethics, but more about being courteous.  Chess is a game where it is impossible to separate the joy of the game from the competitiveness/ego aspect so by declaring a forced win in N moves, you are effectively asking your opponent to resign immediately even though he hasn't seen the forced win yet owing to his lesser faculties/skill set.

Try doing that kind of thing at work/real life .. you'll be out of a job in no time (or get punched in the face) :)

Your opponent may be weaker than you and he may not be able to calculate like you do, but give him the chance OR let him play the game out till the bitter end.  You can't just force somebody into resigning by brow-beating them, for God's sake :)

Beyond the probability (however small) that you may be wrong / You may have missed an in-between move or desperado yourself, you are essentially coming off as a jerk. The rare exception is that you are coaching somebody (as part of a mutually agreed session, not one where you suddenly decided to act like a coach! ) where you can afford to point things out to them and not come off as arrogant.


Good Knight Against Bad Bishop Endgame - A More Constructive Plan? I reached the position below in a recent tournament game

[Event "Recent Tournament"]
[Site "Deepest, Darkest Oxfordshire"]
[Date "Feb 2020"]
[White "Ian Bush"]
[Black "A Young Victim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "~1850"]
[BlackELO "~1850"]
[ECO "C55r"]
[StartPly "52"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bxc6
bxc6 9.O-O Bc5 10.f3 Ng5 11.Be3 Qe7 12.f4 Ne4 13.Nd2 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 O-O 15.
Nb3 Bxe3+ 16.Qxe3 f6 17.Nc5 fxe5 18.fxe5 Be6 19.Rae1 Rxf1+ 20.Rxf1 Rf8 21.
Rxf8+ Kxf8 22.Nb3 Bd7 23.Qc5 Ke8 24.Qxe7+ Kxe7 25.Nc5 Bf5 26.c3 h6 27.Kf2 Bc8
28.Ke3 Bf5 29.Kd4 Bb1 30.a3 Bc2 31.Na6 Bb3 32.Nc5 Bc4 33.Ke3 Ba2 34.Kf4 Bb1
35.h4 Bc2 36.g3 Bb1 37.Nb3 g6 38.Nd4 Kd7 39.b4 Bd3 40.a4 Bb1 41.a5 Bd3 42.Nb3
Bc4 43.Nc5+ Ke7 44.h5 gxh5 45.Kf5 Be2 46.Kg6 Bd1 47.Kxh6 Be2 48.Kg5 Bg4
49.Nb3 Bd1 50.Nd4 Kd7 51.Kf6 Ke8 52.Nxc6 a6 53.e6 Bg4 54.e7 Bd7 55.Nd4 Bh3
56.Ne6 Bxe6 57.Kxe6 h4 58.gxh4 d4 59.cxd4 c5 60.d5 1-0

Though I ultimately won I have to admit a good part of it was waiting for my opponent to make a mistake - my opinion was that only black could lose this one so I'd try and slowly improve things waiting for a mistake in a difficult position, and then hopefully pounce. But is there a better plan which does not involve my opponent being cooperative and I can just win whatever he does? Sample variations to illustrate ideas would be appreciated - especially as this is a thematic endgame from the opening I use, and so I would like to learn how to play it better. I should also say I saw at various points how I could win a Q side pawn or two but was worried it was taking my wonderful knight out of play and sometimes saccing the e5 pawn to get 2 Q side pawns, which again I was not convinced was a good bargain - was I being too cautious?

For what it is worth both he and me are about 1850 FIDE (converted from ECF), and my plans to improve the position were

Get everything on black squares so he doesn't have any targets
Edge my pawns forward making them closer to queening when the breakthrough occurs
Plant the king on d4 or f4 again for the breakthrough
Combine varying the angle of attack of the knight against the Q side pawns with threats of e6 to try and win one or more of his Q side pawns

First, the good: You are probably winning this throughout the game, and thus, improving your position gradually was the perfect plan. It also was one of the best examples of Shereshevsky's "Do Not Hurry" principle that I have ever seen. Black could do nothing, so gradually improving, and eventually converting, was perfect since you had all the time in the world. Having this much time is, obviously, not that common in chess, which leads me to the next paragraph.

Now, for the bad, and you even allude to in in your question when you said "was I being too cautious?" I do not know if this is a pattern in all your games, but you showed a lack of calculating when it was just winning, and a lack of action. You need to work on concrete play. In games where you do not have that much time, that might be the difference between winning and drawing, or worse.

I am not trying to be hard on you, but rather, just to point this out. In fact, just yesterday, I read this article, and you might find it helpful.

Here are my notes to the game.

[Event "Recent Tournament"]
[Site "Deepest, Darkest Oxfordshire"]
[Date "Feb 2020"]
[White "Ian Bush"]
[Black "A Young Victim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "~1850"]
[BlackELO "~1850"]
[ECO "C56"]
[PlyCount "119"]
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O Bc5 10. f3 Ng5 11. Be3 Qe7 12. f4 Ne4 13. Nd2 Nxd2 14. Qxd2 O-O 15. Nb3 Bxe3+ 16. Qxe3 f6 17. Nc5 fxe5 18. fxe5 Be6 19. Rae1 Rxf1+ $2 {This was, indeed, way too cooperative. The Be6 should blockade the pawn, and the rooks should seek counterplay on the queenside.} (19... Rfb8 20. b3 Rb5) 20. Rxf1 Rf8 $2 {I am tempted to give this positional lemon two question marks. } 21. Rxf8+ Kxf8 22. Nb3 (22. b4 {Is typical here, not wasting time, but since there is no good way of avoiding getting the queens off, it is worth it.}) 22... Bd7 23. Qc5 Ke8 24. Qxe7+ Kxe7 25. Nc5 (25. c3 $1 {A little refinement preventing d4 since Ke6 does not help.} Ke6 $2 26. Nc5+ Kxe5 $4 27. Nxd7+) 25... Bf5 (25... d4 26. Kf2 Bf5 {Black is still worse, but finally with some potential for counterplay.}) 26. c3 h6 27. Kf2 Bc8 28. Ke3 Bf5 29. Kd4 $18 {THE perfect initial setup.} Bb1 30. a3 (30. a4 $1 {Concrete play.} g5 31. a5 Bg6 32. Na6 Kd8 33. Nb8 Be8 34. Kc5 {And just wins.}) 30... Bc2 31. Na6 Bb3 32. Nc5 (32. Nb8 $1 {Again, you avoid concrete play.} Ba4 33. Kc5 Ke6 34. Nxc6 a6 35. Nb4 Kxe5 36. Nxa6 c6 37. Nb8 $18) 32... Bc4 33. Ke3 Ba2 34. Kf4 Bb1 35. h4 Bc2 36. g3 Bb1 37. Nb3 g6 38. Nd4 $6 {Although it loses a pawn for black, you allow counterplay, and the one move black has been trying to play the whole game, c5. It still wins, but unless you calculated it all well, it is not a move I would allow here.} Kd7 (38... c5 39. Nb5 c6 40. Nxa7 Kd7 {The computer has no doubt you are winning, but if I got here in my calculations, I would worry about the semi-trapped knight here, and even after e6+, I get it out, will the extra pawn still be winning.} 41. e6+ Kxe6 42. Nxc6) 39. b4 Bd3 40. a4 Bb1 41. a5 Bd3 42. Nb3 Bc4 43. Nc5+ (43. Nd4 Bd3 44. g4 Bb1 45. h5 g5+ 46. Ke3 {And Nf5 or e6 will win.} Be4 47. e6+ Kd6 48. e7 Kxe7 49. Nxc6+ $18 Kd7 50. Nxa7 c6 51. b5 cxb5 52. Nxb5 Kc6 53. Nd4+ Kb7 54. Nf5) 43... Ke7 44. h5 $1 gxh5 45. Kf5 Be2 46. Kg6 Bd1 47. Kxh6 Be2 48. Kg5 Bg4 49. Nb3 Bd1 50. Nd4 Kd7 51. Kf6 Ke8 52. Nxc6 a6 53. e6 Bg4 54. e7 (54. b5 $1 {Again, concrete play.} Be2 55. b6 {And queens.}) 54... Bd7 55. Nd4 Bh3 56. Ne6 Bxe6 57. Kxe6 h4 58. gxh4 d4 59. cxd4 $6 (59. h5 {While not technically a mistake, you should have seen this common mating pattern easily.} dxc3 60. h6 c2 61. h7 c1=Q 62. h8=Q#) 59...c5 60. d5 1-0


What is the strongest reply to Czyzewski Opening? I was exploring hypermodern openings and had found Czyzewski Opening.

[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.b3

How I should react to this type of situation on the board. Is this some kind of trap?

2.b3 is so vanishingly rare after 1.e4 e5 that you really should not bother preparing anything against it unless you have a friend who plays it all the time or something. Emms in Play the Open Games as Black, a repertoire book for Black after 1.e4 e5, does not even mention it.

  How I should react to this type of situation on the board.

Bologan's Black Weapons in the Open Games suggests starting with 2...Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4, which seems as good as anything.

  Is this some kind of trap?

No.


Continuation in the sicilian I played a game today in the Sicilian Defence. I was White. I was surprised to see the move 5. ... e5 ! Is this playable in the Sicilian?

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]
[Title "Is 5. ... e5 playable?"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5

My intuition tells me that this move weakens the d6 square so much and White can develop an attact quite easily. The continuation

 [FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]
[Title "Is 5. ... e5 playable?"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5

is obvious. White seizes control of the b5 square aiming for the weak d6 square.

I believe that Black should answer 5. ... e6 taking away the important d5 square from White. Has anyone seen the ... e5 variation before?

This is the Sveshnikov Variation of the Sicilian. It is a fairly popular line even at the highest level.

You are right, that 6. Ndb5 is the critical move. The game usually continues from there: 6. ... d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5

Black has somewhat weakened d5 and the pawn on d6 is weak, but in exchange he has expanded on the queenside and is threatening a fork on b4.


Problematic lines for black in accelerated dragon What are Difficult lines for black in accelerated dragon?the most problematic line for black in the accelerated dragon

If you play the accelerated through the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 then the most problematic would be the  maroczy bind after 5.c4.

But then through that move order you may not even get it as opponents may instead of 3.d4 play 3.Bb5 (Rossolimo) which is very popular.

If you play it through the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 then by far the most testing line is 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 and both sides have to be very well prepared but black more than white for sure.


Against Alekhine's defense, can White avoid 2. e5? An opponent I have heretofore easily beaten has started playing Alekhine's defense against me.  I am no longer easily beating my opponent, and indeed would be repeatedly losing to him, if only he had more skill and blundered less.

[Title "Alekhine's defense"]
[StartPly "2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 Nf6

Like any chess player who enjoys sharp competition, I am most pleased that my opponent is somehow fighting better than he used!  Apparently however, I do not understand Alekhine's defense.  Alekhine's defense is perplexing me.

One reads that the usual continuation is 2. e5; but, admittedly, the idea of overextending the king's pawn as soon as White's second move does not appeal to me.  On the other hand, alternatives like 2. Nc3 or 2. d3 seem too passive, whereas 2. Nf3 Nxe4 does not look promising.  Maybe the weird-looking 2. f3 is the answer?  But then Black just replies 2... e5, transposing to a kingside open game while sidestepping the Ruy Lopez, the Italian game, Evans' gambit, the king's gambit, etc.; so, no, 2. f3 looks even worse than the other options as far as I can see.

Wikipedia's entry on the topic is pretty good, but does not persuade me.  What does persuade me is that Alekhine's defense is repeatedly giving an otherwise weak Black opponent good chances to beat me.  Of course, I could cravenly avoid the whole problem by opening 1. d4; but still, eventually, one would like to confront the problem rather than avoid it, if one could.

What am I misunderstanding, please?  Is the distasteful 2. e5 really White's only good, active response to Alekhine's defense?

A very correct answer to the Alekhine Defense is 2.d3. Strange looking, but after the Nf3,g3,Bg2,Nbd2,O-O, you get a full KIA setup, a favourite of Bobby Fischer, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Indian_Attack

Not only is this setup easy to learn, but a great answer to almost everything you don't fully know. The transpositions from other openings aren't rare, so it is a good thing to learn. Also, you don't have to learn lines by heart, but rather middlegame plans.

Also one last thing. Since your opponent already has a knight on f6, this makes him go on a mainline in the KIA, so you will find even more examples of games.

Hope this helps.


Why is h4 a good move here? [FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 c5 3. e3 Qb6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. exd4 Qxb2 6. Nb5 Na6 7. a3 Nd5                  8. Bc4 { I'm aware this was a blunder because of Nc3, but fortunately they didn't see it} 8... Nxf4 9. Rb1 Qxb1 10. Qxb1 Nxg2+ 11. Kf1 Nf4 12. Qc1 Ng6 13. Qe3 e6 14. Nf3 b6 15. Qe4 { This was the big mistake.} 15... Rb8 16. Nxa7 Bb7 17. Qe3 Bd6 18. Nb5 Bf4 19. Qc3 { This was another blunder, I had some hopes of creating discoveries against g7, but it ended up walking into a pin next move and the tactics worked against me because of it} 19... Rc8 20. Ne5 O-O 21. Nxd7 Bxh1 22. Nxf8 Nxf8 23. f3 { I had calculated this as trapping his bishop a few moves prior, not realising they had Bxh2... doh} 23... Bxh2 24. Qd3 Ng6 25.Nc3 Nf4 26. Qe4 Bg2+ 27. Kf2 Nc7 28. Bd3 f5 29. Qb7 Rd8 30. Qxb6 Bh3 31. Nb5 Nfd5 32. Qc6 Bf4 33. Nxc7 Nxc7 34. Bc4 Kf7 35. a4 Rxd4 36. Bb3 Rd2+ 37. Ke1 Rh2 38. Qd7+ Kg6 39. Bxe6 Rh1+ 40. Ke2 Rh2+ 41. Ke1 Bg3+ 42. Kd1 Rh1+ 43. Ke2 Bf1+ 44. Ke3 f4+ 45. Ke4 Nxe6 46. Qxe6+ Kh5 47. Qf5+ Kh6 48. Qe6+ g6 49. Qf6 Bh3 50.Qf8+ Kh5 51. Qg7 Bf5+ 52. Ke5 Re1+ 53. Kf6 Bh4+ 54. Kf7 Re7+ 55. Kg8 Be6+ 56.Kxh7 Rxg7+ 57. Kxg7 g5 58. a5 Bd5 59. a6 Bxf3 60. a7 Ba8 61. c4 f3 62. c5 f2 63. c6 Bxc6 64. Kf6 f1=Q+ 65. Ke5 Ba8 0-1

I've been trying to break 1700 on rapid for a while now. I just played this game where I was winning, but threw my advantage away on move 15.
15. Qe4 was the big mistake. I was winning up until then. I played it quickly as it just felt natural, stopping his bishop from fianchettoing. I knew that he had very little moves. He can't move the knight on a6, the knight on g6 can only go to e2, he can only move the dark-squared bishop to e2 and can't move the light-squared bishop. I assumed I could just take the a7 pawn when he moved his rook (I couldn't obviously), but after looking at it I understand why, as it develops his dark-squared. The thing is that the computer gives h4 as the best move here, and I don't really know why. I'm assuming it's to try and creates weaknesses on the kingside, but how are you supposed to know when to do that, and why is it better?

First, I assume that you mean 15.h4 (not h5).

If so, the main reason is that a lot of master-level chess is restricting your opponent's pieces, or in this case, even driving them back. The Ng6 has no good squares, and h5 driving to to a worse square is threatened. If 15...Be7; 16.h5 Nf8, and not only has the Ng6 been driven back, and still has no good squares, but now the Rh8 is doing nothing, and white may get a direct attack against the Ke8, which is stuck in the middle. A specific line is 15.h4 Be7; 16.h5 Nf8; 17.Rg1 g6; 18.Ng5 with the threat of Qf3 hitting f7 and the Ra8. If Bg5 then the dark squares are critically weak.

That leaves only 15.h4 h5, but then 16.Rg1 Bb7; 17.Bd3 already has critical threats since black's king is not going to have anywhere safe to hide, and if the N retreats, we are back to similar ideas as above (Nf7 and the Rh8 problems).

As far as how you know when to do this, there is no hard-and-fast rule, but in this case, you have to realize that the pieces can be restricted, which is pure analytical work.

P.S. Let me also reference chapter 7 from the book "Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov" (beware of this book in that the title in Russian is "Plan and Evaluation", and the book really is not really much about planning). The title of chapter 7 is: "The most important law of chess". That "law" is: "Restricting the mobility of your opponent’s pieces (and in association with this: domination by your own) – is the most important law of chess."

That is the primary thing that is going on with 15.h4. In conjunction with that is the weak K, and the fact that the Ke8, in essence, divides the board k-side and q-side, and prevents pieces from helping out the other side.


What are the most commonly used open digital formats for chess games? I have many of my old games in PGN format and a still quite many in paper format that I want to make digitally available.

I prefer make the digital versions in an open format that is widely used.

What are the most commonly used open digital formats for chess games?

The most used is PGN.

You can arrange them in a database once you have enoguh PGNs to make it worth it. If you have money, ChessBase is great. If you want a free option there is SCID vs. PC (SCID for Linux)

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Game_Notation
http://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/chessbase12_download
http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/
http://scid.sourceforge.net/

Note :

SCID vs PC is better than the Windows version of SCID. My opinion of course.


Is 1. Nf3 good for white in bughouse? I was wondering... When me and my friends play bughouse, a very common opening we play is 1. Nf3 Nf6, 2. Ng5 Ng4, 3. Nxf7 Nxf2, 4. Nxd8 Nxd1

Is this a good choice of opening in bughouse?

For an opening to be good in bughouse, it needs to incorporate both boards.  Timing, material trades, attack/defend all have a huge influence.  On top is predictability. If you know what the ops will try, then you may come up with a counter.

For example, 3 ... KxN is playable by black if there are limited material and a huge flood does not come on board. If the other board can control the flow of pieces then this sac will fail.  Yes, KxN could get hammered if several drops come into play.
But look what the other side gets. A drop knight vs a drop pawn. No immediate easy path to getting more pieces. Most likely a time bulge.  (Typically one player waits for pard to get them stuff to drop on the exposed king.)  With enough of a time lead, the off board can wait and force you to play a few moves without extra stuff.

As part of team opening, the knight sac can be useful, but need to first gain enough drops to make it a threat.  To do this, will need play on other board to be faster, and get 3 or more drops in hand.


What are some common tactics that arise when black has played h6? What are some common tactics or ideas that arise when black has played h6 (or white has played h3) in front of his castled king?

An example I have in mind is, in this position, white can win a pawn with Bxh6, gxh6, Qxf6:

A less concrete but still important idea is, with a bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal (pinning black's pawn on f7), white often plans to sink his king's knight into g6 in a couple of moves:

Two basic ideas:

Put a knight on f5; Black will have a hard time chasing it away with g6 without losing material.
Storm with your g-pawn to g5. Especially with the black knight still on f6, Black cannot avoid the opening of some lines.

Both plans would work in some circumstances with the pawn still on h7, but are a lot more effective with the pawn on h6.


Can Black finish off White? The below position arose from the Queen's Gambit ( Exchange variation ).

[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

I have successfully repelled White's queenside minority attack, but don't know how to capitalize on the kingside. This should be an easy win for Black ( in my opinion ) but I am not top GM so I could use all the help I could get...

All I managed to do was to draw by perpetual:

[Title "My best try ended in perpetual check"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g6 2.Rb6 Ne6 3.R1b2 Ng5 4.Qe2 Kg7 5.Nxg5 Qxg5 6.Kh2 Rce7 7.R6b3 h5 8.Qf3 h4 9.Rb1 f5 10.a5 Qf6 11.Kh1 g5 12.Rf1 Qh6 13.Qd1 g4 14.Bc2 Kh8 15.Rg1 Qe6 16.Qd2 Rg8 17.hxg4 Rxg4 18.Bd1 Rg8 19.Bf3 Qh6 20.Re1 Reg7 21.Rb6 Rg6 22.Qc1 Qg7 23.Rg1 f4 24.exf4 Rf8 25.Qd2 Rgf6 26.Qd1 Rxf4 27.Bxd5 Rxd4 28.Qh5+ Qh7 29.Qe5+ Qg7 30.Qh5+ Qh7 31.Qe5+ Qg7 32.Qh5+ 1/2-1/2

Can Black construct a winning mating attack on the kingside?

EDIT August, 5th 2014:

I was able to defeat StockFish 5 ( with few take-backs ) in blitz, but the machine can't cope with plans so I'm posting the game here in case someone can point out better plan for White. I will analyze this game myself after I play several blitz games. I will post those too, in hope that they will be helpful for those trying to answer to this post. Here is the game:

[StartFlipped "0"]
[White "Stockfish 5"]
[Black "AlwaysLearningNewStuff"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qf6 2.Rb6 Ree7 3.Ne1 h5 4.Qe2 g6 5.Kh2 h4 6.Nf3 Ne6 7.Qa2 Kg7 8.Qc2 Kg8 9.R1b3 Qh8 10.Kg1 Qh5 11.Ne5 Nf8 12.Be2 Qh8 13.Bg4 f5 14.Be2 Qf6 15.Bf3 Qg7 16.Bd1 Nd7 17.Nxd7 Rcxd7 18.Bf3 Rd8 19.Qd1 Rde8 20.Qd3 Rf8 21.Rb2 Rf6 22.Be2 g5 23.Kh1 g4 24.hxg4 fxg4 25.Bf1 Qh6 26.R6b3 g3 27.f4 h3 28.gxh3 Bxh3 29.Kg1 Rh7 30.Rxb7 Rxb7 31.Rxb7 Bxf1 32.Rb8+ Kf7 33.Rb7+ Ke6 34.Qh7 Qxh7 35.Rxh7 Bd3 36.Rc7 Kf5 37.Rg7 Rg6 38.Rxg6 Kxg6 39.Kg2 a5 40.Kxg3 Kf5 41.Kf3 Bc2 42.Kg3 Bxa4 43.Kf2 Ke4 44.Ke2 Bb5+ 45.Kd2 Bd3 46.f5 Kxf5 47.Kxd3 a4 48.Kc3 Ke4 49.Kb4 Kxe3 50.Kxa4 Kxd4 51.Kb4 Kd3 52.Ka5 Kc4 53.Kb6 d4 54.Kxc6 d3 55.Kd6 d2 56.c6 d1=Q+ 57.Ke7 Qe2+ 58.Kd6 Qd3+ 59.Ke7 Qe4+ 60.Kf6 Qxc6+ 61.Ke5 Qf3 62.Ke6 Kc5 63.Ke5 Qe2+ 64.Kf5 Kd5 65.Kf4 Qf2+ 66.Kg5 Ke5 67.Kg6 Qf5+ 68.Kg7 Qf6+ 69.Kh7 Qg5 70.Kh8 Kf6 71.Kh7 Qg7# 0-1

EDIT #2:

I have tried again to beat computer with the same plan ( starting with 1...Qf6 ) and failed. It seems all Black can get is kingside pressure...

It's a very interesting position. From your description I see that you are on the right path of planning. Let's see:

Clearly your queen-side is safe enough (unless you lose a couple of tempos), and although your bishop is in a completely defensive position on the 8th rank, it has still kept its prospect for a possible attack on white's king-side. Furthermore your rooks are in the best positions, each fulfilling a role(not wasted necessarily) and safe from any harassment (Ne5 e.g. has no immediate threat for you). Finally your queen is active enough on e7.

Now that we have summarized in a rather crude manner our position, let's see how's white doing:

No real weakness in his position, his rooks seem to be looking at a wall as b7 is perfectly safe for now, his knight is in a dynamic enough position on f3 (many maneuvers possible) and he has a slight control on h7 but it doesn't really matter since his queen+bishop are being refuted by single knight on f8.

Now that we have a clear picture of what the situation on both sides is, let's see what we can use as leverage:

Your idea with g6 preparing Ne6 to Ng5 was not a bad plan at all, possibly even forced if you ask an engine, but I don't really like it: simple fact that if we're saying that white's heavy pieces are far from any defense and very inactive (queen on c2 not doing much as long as e.g. you keep control on e4 and h7 with your knight), so if we (as black) have any chance of playing actively, it has to have a really quick tempo or else white builds up an opening on e-file with Re1, Nd2 and e4 happens (he will even have rook on the 3rd rank which can be brought into a king-side attack if e4 happens). As your game shows, your idea was good, but white has enough time for a defensive build up.

My suggestion: start off immediately with g5, with the plan to follow up with h5, very crudely, gaining possible tempo on knight harassment on f3 and forcing an exchange on g4 to open up the h-file, again if in any scenario white's knight is either retreated or exchanged, it's good for us as white's pieces are too far off and we're ok with a king-side pawn expansion (whole idea: gain space on his weak side, force line opening), further ideas to notice:

Our bishop is always ready to contribute to the attack whenever needed.
once h5 is played the knight on f8 is freed up as well
kg7 is a likely move for us as white has no dark square control, so rook can swing eventually to h8
we have enough control on e-file, so white cannot really hope for a counter-attack
with g4 played so early, any Ne5 followed by f4 maneuver is avoided
Finally before getting into possible lines, note that our only idea is to take the initiative with any tempo we can find and hope that white under pressure will fall, I say "hope" because if you feed this position to an engine it's possible that it will see boring draws all around or even like white's position better, so since we're not playing against an engine, such approach does work very well. Lets analyse a couple of possible follow-ups:

First line:

[Title "1st variation after g5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g5 2.a5 h5 3.Ne5 Nd7 4.Nxd7 Qxd7 5.Qe2 g4 6.h4 f5 7.g3 f4 8.gxf4 Qd8

With a very nice continuation for black, of course it's no checkmate anytime soon nor an easy win, but it's a position with solid attacking hopes for black.

[Title "2nd variation after g5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g5 2.a5 h5 3.Qe2 g4 4.Ne5 Qg5 5.f4 Qe7 6.Bc2 f6 7.Ng6 Qg7

Again a position with a number of weaknesses in white's position and initiative in black's hands.

[Title "3rd variation after g5"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2b1rnk1/1pr1qppp/p1p5/2Pp4/P2P4/1R1BPN1P/2Q2PP1/1R4K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... g5 2.Nh2 h5 3.Qe2 g4 4.hxg4 hxg4 5.Nxg4 Qh4 6.Ne5 f6 7.Ng6 Nxg6 8.Bxg6 Rg7 9.Bxe8 Rxg2+ 10.Kxg2 Bh3+ 11.Kh1 Bf1+ 12.Kg1 Bxe2

Again shows you how easy it is for white to go completely wrong in his defense. I think these 3 positions make it clear enough for your to see my idea basically, from this point it's more fruitful if we just keep discussing possible variations of any line you want, and don't hesitate asking any question regarding the positions or ideas discussed so far.


Bobby Fischer photos in his NY apartment? Are there any photos of young Bobby Fischer in his NY apartment?

Here are two pictures of Bobby Fischer (Robert James Fischer), in a New York apartment, mainly taken from the movie (documentary) Bobby Fischer Against The World.(I have no rights to this pictures ,but I think I can post them in some networking sites).


Why is the move 4.Nc3 rare in Bird's defence? After:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nc3

it looks like white is leading in development at the moment.

While it is true that at the moment white is leading in development, the move Nc3 interferes directly with white's plans. This is why it is seldom played. From now on I will severely criticize this move, but it is by no means a losing one or one that offers any immediate advantage to black.

In every opening, but this is particularly important in the Ruy-Lopez, the two main goals are to control the center and develop your pieces (remember, a piece is developed when it's doing something useful in the square it is. Sometimes a piece is better left on its starting square if you don't see a good place for it). To do so, a normal plan after Bb5 is to play c3 preparing d4, when white will achieve the perfect center (namely a pawn on d4 and another on e4) even if black captures on d4, as he will be able to recapture with a pawn. So, even if your knight is "developed" (my next point will be that the knight is probably not specially useful here), it prevents the pawn from reaching c3 and interferes with one of the two main goals of an opening.

The move has also a number of drawbacks that are conceptually maybe not so important as this one, but that also put people back from playing it. The most common is that after black plays d6, the natural square for his light squared bishop is g4 pinning the knight. If white is able to play Nbd2, he defends the pin and the queen is free to move without compromising the pawn structure, but if his knight is already on c3 the pin can be quite annoying. Another important one is that if the bishop is chased away via a6 and b5, sometimes he can hugely benefit from being placed on c2, defending the e4 pawn and having attacking prospects on the kingside if the pawn ever moves.

Finally, in this particular position, with this move you are giving up the bishop pair. It is true that you gain a temporary initiative, but with so few developed pìeces it is hard to get an attack going, specially when black is only a couple of moves away from castling. I do not think this initiative is something special, whereas the two bishops will bring a lot of pain after c6 and d5 (not necessarily right away, but that is a plan), opening up the position.

Summing up, while you are developing a piece, a considerable number of small concessions are being made, and this adds up to something that you may do not want out of the opening: you have poor coordination from the start, you may have lost the bishop pair and not even have any structural advantages for it (as in the Exchange Ruy-Lopez) and you must look for a new non-standard plan as you have blocked your c pawn.


B50: Sicilian Defense 3. Bc4 First a bit of background:

I really like playing the Sicilian Defense as Black and it is my preferred choice of action against 1. e4. I prefer the Open Sicilian with Dragon and Najdorf being my favourite variations.

Now to the question itself:

At my skill level my opponents often play the following variation:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4!?

Here I find 3. Bc4 to be a sub-optimal move and I usually continue with my plan and go for the Dragon variation, since I don't think a6 achieves much, at this point.

On the other hand he is clearly aiming at f7 and moves like Nf6 and g6 do nothing to counter his threat.

What is your evaluation on this opening position? Can you give me some pointers at what is the best way to exploit White's last move?

Thanks!

This variation is uncommon, but it's certainly not unheard of. I don't know of a particular name for it, and rather than get bogged down in the endlessly-analyzed lines, let's just take a quick, objective look at what this move accomplishes, and what it gives up.

Advantages

3.Bc4 aims, as you said, at the f7 pawn. If allowed to remain on the diagonal, this Bishop could provide pressure against the Black kingside in the midgame.
It develops the Bishop quickly, allowing White to castle kingside immediately if he so chooses.
It may avoid trading away the Bishop for Black's QN or QB like we see in the Canal-Sokolsky Attack (3.Bb5+) or other variations where White's KB lands on b5.
It grants White some additional influence over the light central squares weakened by Black's first two moves (c5 and e6).

Drawbacks

By developing to c4 so early, this move appears to invite Black to play ...e6, immediately limiting the Bishop's scope and possibly requiring a future relocation.
On c4, the Bishop is vulnerable to space-gaining queenside maneuvers via ...a6 and ...b5, or ...Nc6-a5.
This move does not provide any immediate threats, so Black is free to continue to choose a system as he pleases.

Ideas

Looking at these two lists, a picture begins to form of the themes for both sides.

White will likely try to hold onto this Bishop, to assist in his kingside operations. He will likely play 4.d3 to keep the position closed, and to cement his hold on the light central squares.

Meanwhile, Black may use the Bishop's placement as a convenient way to make his thematic land grabs on the queenside. Black is not compelled to respond in any particular way, though my database suggests that a Dragon-like setup with ...Nf6, ...Nc6, ...g6, ...Bg7 is slightly more popular in this line than the ...e6 variants.

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp2ppbp/2np1np1/2p5/4P3/1BPP1N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w - -"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Nc6 5. c3 g6 6. O-O Bg7 7. Bb3 O-O

Conclusion

This third move choice from White, while unusual, does not seem to be downright inferior. It suggests a tense, positional midgame, with each side operating on his better flank. Good luck!


Why 4... Nxb4 is not played in Evans gambit? 4... Nxb4 is never played on chesstempo database for +2200 players games, being Bxb4 the most popular move.

I don't find any significant change after capturing the pawn with the knight unless after 5. c3, black can play Na6 supporting an eventual c5 to block the a3-f8 diagonal.

If 5...Nc6 it looks the same position as 4...Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5

Stockfish evaluates 4... Nxb4 as =:

Why doesn't this move appear on databases is what I am wondering.

It comes down to flexibility. In most cases, Nb4 will end up in the same position, as you said, but Bb4 give you at least two more common alternatives, and a couple less common ones.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Nb4 5. c3 Nc6 (5...Na6?) 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4

Compare this with this line where black can play Ba5, Be7, Bc5, and even Bd6 have been played a fair amount of times. It is, generally, favorable to make your opponent worry about more options.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3


GUI for stockfish that can analyse the full game I am looking for a GUI for stockfish that can analyse the whole chess game and give me the following output: For every move in the game, it should give me a list of N (let it be 3) best moves with a score corresponding to each of these moves.

Here is a good example. As you see, after each move I can see a corresponding best replies and their score. I need this to analyse a few hundred games automatically.

P.S. just to be clear. I do not need a software to do this with few hundred games. If it can analyse one game in the way I want, I can make it analyse all games. I just wanted to show a high level picture what I am planning to do. Sorry, that it was misleading.

Yes, this is possible. But in a slightly crude way. It is possible with Arena Chess GUI 3.5. What you need to do is the following-

1) Open the pgn file in Arena GUI

2) Confiure any engine with Multi-PV enabled to your choice of top "N" moves.

3) Now open Engines > Automatic Analysis

4) In Source tab select "List of EPD/PGN Files" and Click the icon for adding all PGN files for which you need the automatic analysis.

5) Check "WhiteMoves" and "BlackMoves"

6) If the PGN file contains multiple PGNs then select the range of game numbers you want it to process

7) Select range of move numbers if needed

8) Now go to the Output tab and select "Write in protocol file"

9) Now start the analysis and after its done, you can check the protocol file. The last section for each move contains the best "n" moves calculated by the engine. Parsing this protocol file should be really easy if you want to automate it.

Note: The pgn itself can be altered to add the scores, but it does not add multiple moves at one shot.

Example output in the protocol file:

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/25   00:01      3,444,292    2,274,961   -0.04   0-0 Ne5 Nc6 Nd2 Rd8 Qb3 Bd7 0-0 Qc7 Re1 h6 Ndf3 Ne4 Nxd7 Rxd7 Ne5 Bxe5 fxe5 Qb6
16/25   00:01      3,444,292    2,274,961   -0.08   Nc6 Ne5 Bd7 Nd2 0-0 Qb3 Qc7 0-0 Rfc8 Re1 h6 Ndf3 a6 Bd3 Na5 Qc2 Nc4 Bxc4 dxc4
16/25   00:01      3,444,292    2,274,961   -0.08   Bd7 Qb3 Qc7 Ne5 Nc6 Nd2 a6 0-0 0-0 Re1 Rfc8 Bd3 h6 Ndf3 Na5 Qc2 Nc4 Bxc4 dxc4
8/16/2014 12:24:59 PM, Time for this analysis: 00:00:02, Rated time: 00:04

Of course it also has flexibility to tailor what gets dumped into the file as well.


Just where is the list of FIDE approved clocks? I see many sellers selling dozens  of clocks that claim to be FIDE certified/approved.

Reading FIDE info I see what is required ,  and it mentions approved clocks,  but I cannot find an actual list of what clocks FIDE has actually approved and made available for guidance so as to buy approved clocks without taking the word of some seller.

Here is the document that includes that. See section 5.5.

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Standards_of_Chess_Equipment_and_tournament_venue.pdf


B+N worth R + how many pawns? Purely by piece counting, B+N is worth R + 1P. But I've seen lots of time when the exchange favours the side who holds B+N. In one variation of Scotch, white exchanges R+2P for B+N and is still slight in favour.

What are the ideas surrounding this type of exchange?

Only a general answer can be given for this:

Generally the exchange of R+P (sometimes an extra pawn) for a Bishop and Knight favors the player who has the Bishop and Knight afterwards due to the simple fact that the Minor Pieces are much stronger during the middlegame than the Rook. You have two attacking pieces vs. one attacking piece. The side with the Bishop and Knight will have better attacking chances as they will have more open lines (diagonals are much more open than files in the middlegame) and good squares for the Knight. The Rooks will be blocked by the pawns and unable to contribute much to the game.

Of course, it is very position dependent. In various variations of the Sicilian Defense, Black will exchange a Rook for a Knight on c3, sacrificing the exchange. This is extremely important for Black to do as it creates weaknesses and increases the strength of their dark squared Bishop.

In addition to this, there are many attacks that use the Rooks in the middlegame by opening up the h-file. It's very position dependent as to which group of pieces is more important or not.

As a general rule of thumb though, a Bishop + Knight is considered more important and stronger than a Rook + Pawn.


Is there any method to determine if the weaker side in KQPKQ has a perpetual check? Is there any possibility to check, without the use of the tablebases, if a position in the endgame queen+pawn vs queen (KQPKQ) allows a perpetual check for the weaker side?

Whether there is a draw in hand depends on both the rank and file of the pawn in the following analysis.
The following as an analysis quoted in Wikipedia's article, queen and pawn versus queen endgame. All quotes and diagrams are taken from Wikipedia. Wikipedia cites table base analysis by the chess computer Belle from 1985, alongside John Nunn, Reuben Fine, Pal Benko and others.
Key For Diagrams

Black king on white dots: win with White to move, draw with Black to move; on black dots – win with either to move; other squares – draw

Rook Pawn

A rook pawn needs to be on at least the sixth rank to have decent winning chances

Knight Pawn

A knight pawn should be on at least the fifth rank to have good winning chances. A knight pawn on the fifth rank has better winning chances than a rook pawn on the sixth rank. There are two reasons for this:

The king has squares on the adjacent rook file to try to avoid perpetual check
The exchange of queens is less likely to lead to a drawn king and pawn versus king endgame

Bishop Pawn

A bishop pawn offers the best winning chances. One reason is that there is no drawing zone in the opposite corner for the black king if the pawn is on at least the fourth rank. If the pawn is on the fifth rank the defender's chances are small unless the king is in front of the pawn. A pawn on the sixth rank wins unless the defending king is in front of the pawn

Centre Pawn

A central pawn has better chances to win than a rook pawn or knight pawn, but not as good as a bishop pawn. As with the bishop pawn, there is no drawing zone for the defending king in the opposite corner. It is better for the defending king to be on the "short side" of the pawn rather than the "long side"


How many chess players are over 2500 Elo? They say that there are currently about 1500 grandmasters. I was wondering how many chess players currently have "grandmaster strength".

The website 2700chess.com has a database with the FIDE ratings (from May 1st, 2019). Their search form only offers the option to show the top 50 or 100 players satisfying the search results, but it's possible to modify the submit request and ask for the top 5000 instead. When I do that, I get 808 results:

So the other 700 must have ratings lower than 2500 or have stopped playing competitive chess altogether.