What is the longest proven forced win (including 50 & 75 move rules)? What is the longest (currently discovered) number of moves for a forced mate position where players will use both the 50-move draw rule and the 3-fold repetition rule if it will help them avoid losing?
By this, I mean an a game where the losing player attempts to make the game last as long as possible (or if possible, draw) and the winning player attempts to checkmate as fast as possible. Both players playing perfectly.
For those interested this question covers
"What is the longest forced win with 3 to 6 pieces (ignoring 50 & 75 move rules)?"

Otto Blathy is famous for his long mate problems. There are different records depending on whether you allow an illegal starting position, or promoted pieces, or minor duals in the solution, so your answer might be anywhere between 257 and 292 moves.
This answer on Puzzling.SE shows a construction in 271 moves that is not Blathy, but by Nenad Petrovic.
[Title "Nenad Petrovic, Zagreb 1969, Mate In 271"]
[FEN "8/Bk3p1p/1P3p2/KP2n2p/1P1p4/1Pp2p2/B1P5/7B w - - 0 1"]

1. Bb1 h4 2. Ka4 Ka8 3. Ka3 Kb7 4. Ka2 Ka8 5. Ka1 Kb7 6. Ba2 Ka8 7. Kb1 Kb7 8. Kc1 Ka8 9. Kd1 Kb710. Ke1 Ka8 11. Bb1 Kb7 12. Kf1 Ka8 13. Kf2 Kb7 14. Ke1 Ka8 15. Kd1 Kb7 16. Kc1 Ka8 17. Ba2 Kb7 18. Kb1 Ka8 19. Ka1 Kb7 20. Bb1 Ka8 21. Ka2 Kb7 22. Ka3 Ka8 23. Ka4 Kb7 24. Ka5 f5 25. Ka4 Ka8 26. Ka3 Kb7 27. Ka2 Ka8 28. Ka1 Kb7 29. Ba2 Ka8 30. Kb1 Kb7 31. Kc1 Ka8 32. Kd1 Kb7 33. Ke1 Ka8 34. Bb1 Kb7 35. Kf1 Ka8 36. Kf2 Kb7 37. Ke1 Ka8 38. Kd1 Kb7 39. Kc1 Ka8 40. Ba2 Kb7 41. Kb1 Ka8 42. Ka1 Kb7 43. Bb1 Ka8 44. Ka2 Kb7 45. Ka3 Ka8 46. Ka4 Kb7 47. Ka5 f4 48. Ka4 Ka8 49. Ka3 Kb7 50. Ka2 Ka8 51. Ka1 Kb7 52. Ba2 Ka8 53. Kb1 Kb7 54. Kc1 Ka8 55. Kd1 Kb7 56. Bb1 Ka8 57. Ke1 Kb7 58. Kf1 Ka8 59. Kf2 Kb7 60. Ke1 Ka8 61. Kd1 Kb7 62. Kc1 Ka8 63. Ba2 Kb7 64. Kb1 Ka8 65. Ka1 Kb7 66. Bb1 Ka8 67. Ka2 Kb7 68. Ka3 Ka8 69. Ka4 Kb7 70. Ka5 f6 71. Ka4 Ka8 72. Ka3 Kb7 73. Ka2 Ka8 74. Ka1 Kb7 75. Ba2 Ka8 76. Kb1 Kb7 77. Kc1 Ka8 78. Kd1 Kb7 79. Ke1 Ka8 80. Bb1 Kb7 81. Kf1 Ka8 82. Kf2 Kb7 83. Ke1 Ka8 84. Kd1 Kb7 85. Kc1 Ka8 86. Ba2 Kb7 87. Kb1 Ka8 88. Ka1 Kb7 89. Bb1 Ka8 90. Ka2 Kb7 91. Ka3 Ka8 92. Ka4 Kb7 93. Ka5 f5 94. Ka4 Ka8 95. Ka3 Kb7 96. Ka2 Ka8 97. Ka1 Kb7 98. Ba2 Ka8 99. Kb1 Kb7 100. Kc1 Ka8 101. Kd1 Kb7 102. Ke1 Ka8 103. Bb1 Kb7 104. Kf1 Ka8 105. Kf2 Kb7 106. Ke1 Ka8 107. Kd1 Kb7 108. Kc1 Ka8 109. Ba2 Kb7 110. Kb1 Ka8 111. Ka1 Kb7 112. Bb1 Ka8 113. Ka2 Kb7 114. Ka3 Ka8 115. Ka4 Kb7. 116. Ka5 h3 117. Ka4 Ka8 118. Ka3 Kb7 119. Ka2 Ka8 120. Ka1 Kb7 121. Ba2 Ka8 122. Kb1 Kb7 123. Kc1 Ka8 124. Kd1 Kb7 125. Ke1 Ka8 126. Bb1 Kb7 127. Kf1 Ka8 128. Kf2 Kb7 129. Ke1 Ka8 130. Kd1 Kb7 131. Kc1 Ka8 132. Ba2 Kb7 133. Kb1 Ka8 134. Ka1 Kb7 135. Bb1 Ka8 136. Ka2 Kb7 137. Ka3 Ka8 138. Ka4 Kb7 139. Ka5 h2 140. Ka4 Ka8 141. Ka3 Kb7 142. Ka2 Ka8 143. Ka1 Kb7 144. Ba2 Ka8 145. Kb1 Kb7 146. Kc1 Ka8 147. Kd1 Kb7 148. Ke1 Ka8 149. Bb1 Kb7 150. Kf1 Ka8 151. Kf2 Kb7 152. Ke1 Ka8 153. Kd1 Kb7 154. Kc1 Ka8 155. Ba2 Kb7 156. Kb1 Ka8 157. Ka1 Kb7 158. Bb1 Ka8 159. Ka2 Kb7 160. Ka3 Ka8 161. Ka4 Kb7 162. Ka5 h6 163. Ka4 Ka8 164. Ka3 Kb7 165. Ka2 Ka8 166. Ka1 Kb7 167. Ba2 Ka8 168. Kb1 Kb7 169. Kc1 Ka8 170. Kd1 Kb7 171. Ke1 Ka8 172. Bb1 Kb7 173. Kf1 Ka8 174. Kf2 Kb7 175. Ke1 Ka8 176. Kd1 Kb7 177. Kc1 Ka8 178. Ba2 Kb7 179. Kb1 Ka8 180. Ka1 Kb7 181. Bb1 Ka8 182. Ka2 Kb7 183. Ka3 Ka8 184. Ka4 Kb7 185. Ka5 h5 186. Ka4 Ka8 187. Ka3 Kb7 188. Ka2 Ka8 189. Ka1 Kb7 190. Ba2 Ka8 191. Kb1 Kb7 192. Kc1 Ka8 193. Kd1 Kb7 194. Ke1 Ka8 195. Bb1 Kb7 196. Kf1 Ka8 197. Kf2 Kb7 198. Ke1 Ka8 199. Kd1 Kb7 200. Kc1 Ka8 201. Ba2 Kb7 202. Kb1 Ka8 203. Ka1 Kb7 204. Bb1 Ka8 205. Ka2 Kb7 206. Ka3 Ka8 207. Ka4 Kb7 208. Ka5 h4 209. Ka4 Ka8 210. Ka3 Kb7 211. Ka2 Ka8 212. Ka1 Kb7 213. Ba2 Ka8 214. Kb1 Kb7 215. Kc1 Ka8 216. Kd1 Kb7 217. Ke1 Ka8 218. Bb1 Kb7 219. Kf1 Ka8 220. Kf2 Kb7 221. Ke1 Ka8 222. Kd1 Kb7 223. Kc1 Ka8 224. Ba2 Kb7 225. Kb1 Ka8 226. Ka1 Kb7 227. Bb1 Ka8 228. Ka2 Kb7 229. Ka3 Ka8 230. Ka4 Kb7 231. Ka5 h3 232. Ka4 Ka8 233. Ka3 Kb7 234. Ka2 Ka8 235. Ka1 Kb7 236. Ba2 Ka8 237. Kb1 Kb7 238. Kc1 Ka8 239. Kd1 Kb7 240. Ke1 Ka8 241. Bb1 Kb7 242. Kf1 Ka8 243. Kf2 Kb7 244. Ke1 Ka8 245. Kd1 Kb7 246. Kc1 Ka8 247. Ba2 Kb7 248. Kb1 Ka8 249. Ka1 Kb7 250. Bb1 Ka8 251. Ka2 Kb7 252. Ka3 Ka8 253. Ka4 Kb7 254. Ka5 Kc8 255. Ka6 Kd8 256. b7 Nd7 257. Bxf3 h1=Q 258. Bxh1 d3 259. cxd3 f3 260. Bxf3 Ke7 261. b8=Q Nxb8+ 262. Bxb8 c2 263. Bxc2 Ke6 264. b6 Kf6 265. b7 Ke6 266. d4 h2 267. Bxh2 f4 268. b8=Q Kf7 269. Bxf4  Kg7 270. Bh5 Kf6 271. Qe5#

(legal position, with promoted piece, with minor duals in the solution)
Those problems involve regular pawn moves, so the fifty-moves rule doesn't change their validity. On the other hand, all long (500+ moves) tablebase mates (as the first diagram in the answer linked above) show series of more than 50 moves without capture nor pawn moves.
Finally a beautiful problem exploiting the 50-moves rule was composed by Noam Elkies, who comes sometimes on Chess.SE. I will refrain from giving the solution here for people who want to search (but I have already given away the main indication and lazy people can just follow the link).
     [Title "Noam Elkies, 1991 - White to play and draw"]
 [FEN "8/1p6/1p6/kPp2P1K/2P5/N1Pp4/q2P4/1N6 w - - 0 1"]


2. e5 in the Robatsch (Modern) Defence Since the modern defence is a hypermodern opening, it focuses on controlling the center through pieces not pawns. Therefore, I find it an advantage to block these pieces by pawns. So, I defend against the modern defence like this ..

[fen ""]
1. e4 g6 2. e5

The idea is to block the bishop that is coming to g7 with 2...Bg7, and to prevent the knight from going to f6 and thus prevents castling kingside.

Now, if Black tries to attack the pawn, this happens ..

[fen ""]
1. e4 g6 2. e5 f6 3. d4 fxe5 4. dxe5 d6 5. Nf3

If Black takes the pawn, then white is clearly ahead in development. If he doesn't, then he can't deploy his pieces effectively.

Anything wrong with this plan ?

OK, not really an answer as it's looking entirely at what I, a complete Pirc addict, would play, there may well be better lines. But unfortunately you can't stick a pgn in a comment, so here's a few minutes work with Fritz to see what it thinks - after all it's a much better player than I. Numbers are in units of pawns, negative numbers mean advantage to black. Note the numbers appear in the box below the board once the last move of the line is played. Lines quoted are from the top 4 selected by Fritz, biased where appropriate by the comments above, and in each case I left it a few minutes for the evaluation to settle down.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.09.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "????"]
[Black "????"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B06"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 g6 2. e5 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. f4 c5 5. Nf3 (5. dxc5 Qa5+ 6. Qd2 {-0.21}) (5.
c3 dxe5 6. fxe5 cxd4 7. cxd4 {-0.32}) (5. d5 dxe5 6. fxe5 Bxe5 {-0.48}) 5...
cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nh6 (6... Nc6 7. Qd2 {-0.70}) 7. Bb5+ {-0.77} *

So not disastrous for white but according to Fritz at least he has thrown away his first move advantage.

Oh, and the point about the tempo is that by playing e5 before black has played Nf6 is that the knight can wait snuggly at home, thinking about where to go. If you wait until after Nf6 has happened black has to "waste" a move, after which you can further your evil plan. Compare the above with

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.09.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "????"]
[Black "????"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B09"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[TimeControl "1"]
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
d6 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 {+0.07} Ng4 *


Chessbase training annotation I am using the training annotation function of ChessBase quite extensively but have now encountered a problem. I am using ChessBase 11. When I save a game with training annotation as a pgn-file and then reopen it with ChessBase, the training questions are not triggered, but there is now text of the type

  {[%tqu "How should White play?","","",Rg4,"Black has to play non-script moves such as ",10]}

What could be the reason that ChessBase does not recognize the training annotation? Any ideas how I could try to solve this problem?

Thanks and kind regards,
Florian

Thanks for your answers. I have contacted ChessBase and they told me that training annotation is not supported in PGN files but just in their original database format cbh. So, there is nothing to be done about this problem.


Looking for a Gata Kamsky quote - 'you must be playing a different kind of chess' I remember a really interesting moment from the coverage of one of the past US chess championships (probably 2015 or before). Kamsky had just finished his game and was asked by Maurice Ashley for his opinion on one of the games in progress. So Maurice starts with how White has all this advantages, more space... certain squares etc. And Kamsky instantly replied

  you must be playing a different kind of chess. white has no plan at all. black just goes... [some moves] and that's it

(of course I might have black and white mixed up above)

It was a striking illustration of how immediate and accurate the evaluation of an elite grandmaster can be. Does anyone remember this at all? I am trying to find the video clip or failing that, the position that the guys were discussing. I am pretty sure it was in the uschesschamps website at the time, but not anymore.

I remember this - it was an impressive moment. I don't remember who the players were, but the game was probably from the Open section. Vague recollections of proposed kingside maneuvers for Black, involving ...Qg8-h7 or something likewise extravagant. I don't remember the result of the game or if Kamsky's ideas were played. And unfortunately, most of the videos on the CCSCSL livestream channel from before 2014 seem to be gone.


If a tournament advertises G/30, can either player demand G/25 d5? A minor controversy regarding advertised and allowed time controls has broken out on a chess mailing list I subscribe to. A one-day tournament scheduled for tomorrow advertises specifically as five rounds of G/30, and a member of the mailing list has claimed that any player can therefore demand G/30 (as opposed to G/25 d5), regardless of their opponent's wishes. The last time I played in this particular tournament, I asked the organizer if I could insist upon G/25 d5, and he said that it's my right to do so under USCF rules. Is this true, or does the fact that the tournament listing states G/30 (and doesn't mention an alternate time control) mean that I should actually be forfeited if I request a delay and my opponent refuses?

You don't have grounds to demand the time control you like. In practice I suppose that if your opponent agrees, you could get away with using whatever time control you both want as long as the game finishes on time, which is the main point the organizers care about.

One thing that the USCF rules do cover is what to do if the stipulated time control has a delay or increment and the only available clock doesn't support it. In that case the "base time" should be used instead.

However: did the advertisement say just say "G/30", or was it "G/30 d0"? Because according to the USCF, "If the organizer fails to specify an increment or delay time in the time control (which may be zero to indicate no increment or delay), the minimum recommended delay specified in rule 5E shall apply." The minimum recommended delay for 30 minutes is 5 seconds, so the way I read that, if it was advertised only as "G/30", you'd have grounds to demand G/30 d5.


beginner chess terminology: opening is white's and defense is black's? absolute beginning self-learner here, asking trivial terminology:
xyz(placeholder) opening is speaking of white's play and zyx(placeholder) defense is referring to black's play, is that correct?
or
opening schemes are played by white, while defense schemes are played by opponent -- the black.
Is this thinking correct?

I believe that there is not much meaning in these terms and the terminology developed historically. Terms like opening, defense, attack, game,... are often used synonymously.

Opening is the general term which can be used to refer to any sequence of moves at the start of the game.

Also it refers to systems that develop after 1. e4 e5 (e.g. Italian, Spanish openings) which a long time ago were by far the most popular and considered the best because they follow the straightforward plan of occupying the center and developing pieces to active positions.

Later, other openings were developed which do not follow such a natural plan. E.g. in those new openings white is often allowed to create a strong  pawn center which black later attacks. Many of these received the name defense, perhaps to signify that black is not going for active play immediately but lets white get somewhat active. Examples are the French, Sicilian, Caro-Kan, King's Indian,... defense.

However note that in these defenses it is black who determines the structure of the game to a large extend, by deciding e.g. between the French or the Sicilian which result in completely different kind of games. In the Spanish/Italian on the other hand it is white  who makes the major decision on the third move, between 3. Bc4 and 3. Bb5.

Then there are also the attacks (e.g. King's Indian attack) which often refer to color-reversed defenses. In these it is mostly white who decides the structure.

Generally (with a few exceptions, usually called "system" or "set-up" such as the Colle system), black's and white's moves in openings are related. So it does generally not make sense to talk about an opening for one side only. For instance the King's Indian is basically defined by a certain set-up for black: (pawns on d6, e5, g6, bishop on g7, short castle, later play f5 and attack on the king side). But still experience has shown that there is a recommended way for white to play against it and therefore King's Indian means both, the black and the white set-up.

But as mentioned, don't break your head over this. Just take it as a name without much meaning. In the same way there is not much meaning in "open", "semi-open", "closed" openings. For instance you can have very closed positional play in some lines of the Spanish/Ruy-Lopez which would be classified as "open".

If you are a beginner focus on general opening principles and tactics. This will be more useful than learning a specific opening.


The Giuoco Piano after 4.c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5 [FEN ""]
  1. e4             e5
  2. Nf3            Nc6
  3. Bc4            Bc5
  4. c3             Nf6
  5. d4             exd4
  6. e5

I've faced this line as black a couple of times. Unfortunately all I know about this line comes from Burgess's The Mammoth Book of Chess, where he treats this in a couple of sentences: he says it can be highly effective at club level, and that black needs to find the counter-thrust 6...d5 to get a satisfactory position.

My question is, what does black do after 6...d5 7. Bb3? One of my opponents confidently played that against me. I was out of book, played 7...Ng4, and he developed a strong initiative. Now that I check the position with an engine, the engine suggests 7...Ne4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Nxd2 10.Nbxd2 Bg4 and evaluates as a very small advantage to black. However engine analysis is just a bunch of lines, not very human-comprehensible.

Can anyone familiar with this line give me some pointers on how to treat this position?

(Answering my own question since I got some help from an expert)

Bb3 is a weak move, since the game will soon be focused around the d4-square. White should have played 7. Bb5, pinning the knight. Playing Bb3 instead yields an inferior version of what happens next.

e4 is the best post for the knight - it's a central square, and it's defended as well. Now white has to play 8. cxd4 or he'll be down a pawn. Black responds with Bb4+. The aim of this move is to force a minor piece to d2, which interferes with the queen defending d4. After 8...Bb4+ 9. Bd2 Nxd2 10. Nbxd2, black plays Bg4 pinning the knight and making it very difficult for white to defend the d4-pawn. If white plays 9. Nbd2 instead black can just continue with Bg4 and leave the c1-bishop to stew.

Now white's position starts to get unpleasant. In addition to Nxd4, black threatens 11...Bxf3, ruining white's pawn structure (11. a3? Bxf3 12. Qxf3? Bxd2+ 13. Kxd2 Nxd4 wins a pawn since 14. Qxd5?? Nxb3+ wins the queen). White has to play 11. Ba4, which shows why 7. Bb5 occupying the diagonal sooner was the correct move. Black's position is still preferable: white's knights are pinned, and after 11...O-O 12. Bxc6 (forced) bxc6, black is ready to play ...c5 contesting the center. In the final analysis position below, black has more space, the initiative, and the bishop pair.

[FEN ""]
     1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5 d5 7. Bb3?! Ne4 8. cxd4 Bb4+ 9. Bd2 (9. Nbd2? Bg4) Nxd2 10. Nbxd2 Bg4 11. Ba4 (11. a3? Bxf3 12. gxf3 Ba5) O-O 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. O-O c5

As to what happens after 7. Bb5 ... that's another question entirely =)


Does chess help develop moral virtues or correct practical attitudes? Benjamin Franklin wrote a famous essay on the virtues of chess, claiming that it teaches foresight, circumspection, caution among others.

Kasparov Chess Foundation's mission is to bring the many educational benefits of chess to children worldwide by providing a complete chess curriculum and enrichment programs. The Foundation promotes the study of chess as a cognitive learning tool in curricular classes and after-school programs for elementary, middle and high schools, both in the public and private school sectors.

This mission statement presupposes that there actually are educational benefits of chess.

Is there any argument to support the claim that chess can help develop moral virtues or practical skills? Or is it perhaps just the wishful thinking of chess playing philosophers and philanthropists?

Chess definitely helps with intellectual development and education. Math is the most obvious area where chess definitely helps. There is a lot of research to back this up. If you think about it, chess develops general mental abilities including: strategic competency; the ability to analyze variations; spatial relationships and interdependencies; self-confidence in the face of complex problems. All of those abilities are generally useful in solving all kinds of problems in school and life.

Here are links to some web resources where you can read more about the well-documented benefits of chess in education.

http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/thinking-skills/chess/

http://www.psmcd.net/otherfiles/BenefitsOfChessInEdScreen2.pdf

These are just two examples. There are a lot more articles out there on the Internet, and they mostly arrive at the same basic conclusion.

Moral virtues are another story.

Chess doesn't directly help with moral values. Bobby Fischer was a great example of this. He was a brilliant chess player, but widely regarded as the worst kind of person. He had very clever and elaborate arguments to support his negative and self-destructive points of view. There are many examples of top level chess players who are wonderful people, but also quite a few examples of immoral behavior among grandmasters.


Why does my ability/rating against bots vary? I've recently started playing chess again and am training against the chess.com bots.
I've been able to blaze through the lower rated bots and started to get stuck around the 1100s with having to take time with my games to get past them and recently beat a 1500 bot.
However, I've found an old page open with a 550 bot (Oliver) and, although rushing the openings, I haven't been able to consistently beat him.
Is this variance in being able to beat 1500, but still have challenge with much lower ratings normal?

The bots do have a lot of variance, especially the weaker ones. I just tried playing Oliver and he hung his queen on move 3. If that happens you're obviously going to have an easy game.

and started to get stuck around the 1100s with having to take time with my games to get past them

although rushing the openings, I haven't been able to consistently beat him.

So when you play the stronger bots, you take your time, and when you play the weaker ones, you don't? That explains it. It's pretty easy to get into a losing position fast if you aren't taking the game seriously enough, even against a weak opponent. This can happen both against computers and against real players.


Chess Position Trainer on Linux or Minimax on Linux Chess Position Trainer allows you to do leaf node evaluation and then minimax the results after that. Is it possible to install Chess Position Trainer on Linux? (I tried under mine, but couldn't), or is there any other software for Linux that can do minimax nodes?

Sorry, no. Chess Position Trainer only runs on Windows 7, 8, and 10.

See the system requirements here.

You could consider a virtual machine running Windows on a Linux host, but it will not run natively.


Which opening is most defensive as black? I am relatively a new chess player and been improving my strength in the opening for a while and would like to know which opening is the most defensive. 1.e5 seems a little too aggressive.

This is a subjective question, so I'll give a subjective answer. In my opinion, the Hippopotamus Defense is the most defensive opening. Here's a typical Hippopotamus structure -

   [FEN "r2qk2r/pbpnnpbp/1p1pp1p1/8/2PPP3/2N1BN2/PP2BPPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 9"]

Black doesn't even move a pawn to the 4th rank! All of Black's minor pieces are developed on the second rank and Black keeps his pawns on the third rank. Essentially, Black plays a waiting game for a while, and tries to provoke White into doing something concrete and then Black reacts accordingly.

P.S. Since you're a beginner, I would advise NOT to use this opening. Yes, it is the most defensive opening, but if you're afraid of playing 1...e5 then you ought to first correct that instead of trying to play something else! Even with 1...e5, Black can reach defensive setups.


FIDE rating in blitz I played in a blitz tournament. It was an official FIDE tournament, so ratings should be calculated. I wasn't rated before that tournament. It was played over 11 rounds with a rematch so you could earn 22 points. I had 11 points, but after the event I am still not rated in blitz. Everyone else in tournament has changed their ratings. Why didn't I get a FIDE rating? What do. I need to do to get FIDE blitz rating?

If someone can check, this is my result from this tournament

Why didn't I get a FIDE rating?

Probably because you didn't meet the requirements to get a rating.

According to FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 (sorry no link currently because FIDE have munged their site and you have to search withing the site):

  Official FIDE Rating List

  7.1 On the first day of each month, the QC shall prepare a list which incorporates the rated play during the rating period into the previous list. This shall be done using the rating system formula.

  7.11 The rating period (for new players, see 7.14) is the period where a certain rating list is valid.

  7.12 The following data will be kept concerning each player whose rating is at least 1000 as of the current list:
  FIDE title, Federation, Current Rating, ID Number, Number of games rated in the rating period, Date of Birth, Gender and the current value of K for the player.

  7.13 The closing date for tournaments for a list is 3 days before the date of the list; tournaments ending before or on that day may be rated on the list.
  Official FIDE events may be rated on the list even if they end on the last day before the list date.

  7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:

  7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3, a minimum of 5 games.

  7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.

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

  7.14d The rating is at least 1000.

  7.14e The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

Without more information it is not possible to say exactly why you didn't get a rating. If you can give a link to the tournament and your real name it would be possible to have a look and see why.

EDIT: Thank you for giving details of the tournament that you played in.

It was played on 12th October 2019. This will be rated in the list that comes out on 1st November. In the meantime FIDE have recorded that they expect your blitz rating to be 1503. You can see here. They don't know yet for sure because maybe you played in another tournament and they didn't get the tournament report file yet.

  What do I need to do to get FIDE blitz rating?

Basically you need to score at least 0.5 points against at least 5 players who are already FIDE rated at blitz in one or more FIDE rated blitz tournaments over a period of 26 months or less and get a rating of at least 1000.

If you want to calculate your initial rating then FIDE provide an initial rating calculator in a part of their site which has not yet been munged.

If you think you satisfied these requirements and still didn't get a blitz rating you can email the chairman of the Qualification Commission, Nick Faulks (armadillo@northrock.bm) or the secretary, Alex Holoczak (alexholowczak@gmail.com).


Why Black should play Max Lange attack, when its favorable for white only.? In Max Lange attack..when white is giving gambit of d and e pawns and can grab a piece or good attacking favorable position. Then why black should accept it? Is there any solid defense against it?

I hope you are talking about the below line . " 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 "

The Best response to the above line from Black is 6) ..d5! .

7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5 (9...Qxf6?? 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qh5+ followed by 12.Qxc5 is a notorious trap) 10.Nc3 Qf5 (10...dxc3?? 11.Qxd5 wins, since 11...Bxd5 is illegal) 11.Nce4 0-0-0 with complicated play.

True the Theory of max lange extends long but it is refutable from Black side . Black needs to be extra cautious to avert White's Activity . Black should try castling Q-side . One line goes as follows

"1. e4 e5   2. Nf3 Nc6   3. Bc4 Bc5   4. d4 exd4   5. O-O Nf6   6. e5 d5   7. exf6 dxc4   8. Re1+ Be6   9. Ng5 Qd5   10. Nc3 Qf5   11. Nce4 O-O-O   "

If on move no 9)White captures the g7 pawn then advantage goes to Black's side .

" 1. e4 e5   2. Nf3 Nc6   3. Bc4 Bc5   4. d4 exd4   5. O-O Nf6   6. e5 d5   7. exf6 dxc4   8. Re1+ Be6   9. fxg7 Rg8  "

The White Player is the Man with the Plan and he needs to remember each move precisely else one incorrect move and the Tables will turn towards Black side .

The most aggressive line is " 1. e4 e5   2. Nf3 Nc6   3. Bc4 Bc5   4. d4 exd4   5. O-O Nf6   6. e5 d5   7. exf6 dxc4   8. Re1+ Be6   9. Ng5 Qd5   10. Nc3 Qf5   11. Nce4 O-O-O   12. Nxe6 fxe6   13. g4 Qe5   " . Here the Game depends on who is a better player .

If you are still unsure & afraid to play Max Lange then I would suggest that you try Philidor Defense as Black which is safe and does not involve too many gambits line .

In top level Tournaments you can rarely see Max Lange nowdays .


Chess problem - don't understand the solution Black to move:

[fen "4rbk1/pp3pp1/1nq4p/8/1PP5/P3N1P1/Q2BrP1P/3R1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

I've tried to solve this chess problem - black to move, find the best move. I couldn't work it out so I checked the solution, which was R8xe3. I don't understand why this is the best move - could someone explain please?

1...R8xe3 wins a piece (the knight on e3), because either recapture leads to worse things for White, since the d2 bishop is pinned to the white queen, and the f-pawn recapture opens the possibility of mate on g2:

[fen "4rbk1/pp3pp1/1nq4p/8/1PP5/P3N1P1/Q2BrP1P/3R1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...R8xe3 2.Bxe3 (2.fxe3 Qg2#) Rxa2


Positional play: Slav the way to go? I'm working on my positional play. Exclusively playing correspondence chess at the moment.

For white I play D4 and try for C4 after that.

For Black I play Caro Kann against E4 but am not sure what's most positional against D4.

I'm thinking of Slav, Semi Slav, QGD

For solid long term positional play which one is best investing time in learning in depth?

I recommend to play Stonewall Dutch, quite closed, yet quite active.

[Event "Stonewall Dutch"]
[Site ""]
[Date ""]
[Round ""]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Result ""]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O d5 7. Nc3 c6


Could I have some analysis by a player >2000 FIDE on this game? I recently played in a chess tournament and the only game I lost was an extremely tricky battle between myself (USCF 1770ish) and this other guy (USCF 2000ish):

[Event "Bernardo Smith Amateur"]
[Site "Mechanics Institute Chess Club"]
[Date "2015.08.15"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Aaron T (1765)"]
[Black "Other Guy (2031)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO ""]
[PlyCount "106"]
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bf4 g6 4. Nbd2 Bg7 5. e3 a6 6. c4 O-O 7. Rc1 Re8 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O Nh5 10. cxd5 Nxf4 exf4 Qxd5 Be4 Qd6 Bxc6 bxc6 Nb3 Be6 Nc5 Bd5 Ne5 f6 Ned3 Reb8 b3 a5 a4 Rb6 Re1 Rab8 Rb1 Bf7 Qf3 Bxb3 Qe3 Bd5 Rbc1 Kf7 Qd2 Ra8 Re2 Rbb8 Rce1 Re8 Rb1 Bh6 Rbe1 e6 g3 Bg7 Qc3 h5 Re3 h4 R1e2 Bh6 Qe1 hxg3 fxg3 Bc4 Qc3 Bd5 Qe1 Ra7 Rf2 Bg7 Ne5+ Kg8 Nxg6 Raa8 Nh4 Kf7 Qe2 Rh8 Nf3 Rab8 Ne5+ Kg8 Ned3 Rb1+ Rf1 Rxf1 Qxf1 Bc4 Qa1 Rh5 Qc3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Rd5 Rxe6 Qxc5 0-1

A few things to note about the game:

1) All pawn sacrifices I believed had compensation with different positional moves. I won't state the exact positional counterplay because I want to see what type of moves you come up with.
2) I missed Bxc7 early on

3) Around move 40 I was down to 6 minutes, explaining my blunder on move 51.

So my question is this:

I have been wanting a strong player to analyse my game for quite some time now, but all do not have the time to look over it with me. So I would like a SE member >2000 FIDE to analyse it for me. Many thanks.

I'm FIDE rated 2125.

So for your game, yes 10.Bxc7 would have been good for white.

As far as the opening goes, usually Nd2 happens with pawn c3 instead pawn c4.  If you want to do pawn c4 then the knight goes to c3 to put more pressure on d5.

Also, I would not play pawn to a4 like you did in the game.  It only causes b3 to be weak in my opinion.

But even though you eventually lose the pawn on b3, the position is tough to crack for black since there are no good pawn breaks to open the position for the bishops and the white knights have good outpost squares.

Overall, good effort!


French defense: Key ideas on the Winawer I am beginning to study the Winawer variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4), mainly because the only line I actually know against 3.Nc3 is the Rubinstein (3...dxe4), which is very dry and boring to my taste.

I have studied the main line, and I'm beginning to appreciate the key ideas of the Winawer, but still I would like to ask to more experienced French defense players what are the key ideas, notes and/or concepts I should keep in mind while studying (and playing!) this sharp variation? This will make me study with better fundamentals and play with more precision, I hope.

Since the question is posed very generally, I'll only give a rough overview of some of the more typical ideas behind the Winawer for black. I'll mostly focus on positions after 4.e5 as that is the key line allowing white to fight for an advantage out of the opening.

It must be noted that the ideas tend to vary somewhat greatly depending on which specific variation of the Winawer we consider, as there are quite different ways the opening can continue after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5, namely:

The advance variation with 4...c5,
The other advance variation with 4...Ne7,
The Petrosian variation with 4...Qd7, etc.

Let's start with 4...c5, and consider the following typical position of the Winawer, arising after 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3:

Strategic assessment:

First of, black has willingly decided to give up their dark-squared bishop, so white has the bishop pair.
In turn, this has allowed black to damage white's pawn structure.
In particular, the pawn structure favours black in the endgame thanks to white's isolated a-pawn and the doubled c-pawns.
Although black is clearly behind in space control, the central pawn structure makes it very difficult for white to actually open up the position. The position remaining closed favours black as white has the bishop pair and is getting their pieces more effectively developed than black is able to.
Black's main two weaknesses are: the c8 bishop having no simple prospect of getting effectively developed, and the highly weakened kingside caused by giving up the f8 bishop and the inability to establish the kingside knight on the ideal f6 square, which is prevented by white's early e5.
The two aforementioned aspects are what makes the advance variation with 4.e5 favourable for white, as these weaknesses offer white a tangible and concrete edge to play with.
From black's perspective, these difficulties in parrying a kingside attack or finishing development effectively means, on the one hand, black has to be ready to opt for dynamic remedies to solve their problems, such as the poisoned g7-pawn continuation to answer white's early Qg4. On the other hand, black has to know and recognise a lot of positional combinations in order to defend against white's various attacking options. These combinations are typically in the form of very subtle manoeuvres that at first glance appear to completely undermine all opening principles.

With that, let's have a look at some of these subtleties you need to be definitely aware of when playing the Winawer. To understand their necessity, we must first develop a feel for where white's best attacking chances lie. Consider again the following typical structure, but this time after black's best move 6th move, 6...Ne7:

White has three main active continuations here:

7.a4: with the idea to develop the c1 bishop to a3 and quickly exert pressure on black's dark-square weaknesses.
7.h4: a quick advance on the kingside to either play h5 (often followed by g4) to boot black's e7  knight from the key light-square posts g6-f5. Additionally, advancing the pawn to h6 is also possible, to either damage black's pawn structure after gxh6 or to further weaken the dark-squares after g6.
7.Qg4: immediately exploiting black's weakened kingside and in particular the undefended g7 pawn.

Important typical manoeuvres for black:

To prevent an early 7.a4, black has the option to play 6...Qa5 (instead of 6...Ne7) with tempo as c3 is attacked, with the idea to block next the a-pawn with Qa4! Indeed this looks dubious at first as the queen is being used as a blockader, but in fact on top of the blockade, the black queen is also well-established for creating counter-attacks on the queenside and in the center.

After 6...Ne7, in reply to white's 7.Qg4, as opposed to the more risky lines with 7...O-O, black has the option of playing the Poisoned Pawn variation, which after 7...Nbc6 entails: Sacrificing the g7 pawn for a quicker development, queenside castling, and dynamic play:

A typical continuation is:

 [title "Poisoned Pawn Variation:"]
 [fen ""]
 [startply "13"]

 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Nbc6 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Qc7 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Bd7 15. Rg1 Nf5 16. Qf2 {black is a pawn down but has decent positional compensation thanks to white's compromised king position, the well-established knight on f5 and the white's g2 pawn against which black can continue to mount pressure with Qc6-Qd5-Bc6.}

The Petrosian variation starting from 4...Qd7 (instead of 4...c5) looks really dubious at first since: we're developing our queen by blocking our own bishop, and even before having developped our minor pieces. But in fact, Qd7 is a really useful multi-purpose move: it prevents Bb5+ and prepared to trade the light-square bishops with b6-Ba6 and it indirectly defends the g7 pawn against Qg4. Since with the queen on d7, Qg4 can be replied with f5, a discovered defense if you will :)

And the list goes on... But you see the pattern behind these subtleties: they are all backed by highly concrete ideas and thus, far from a mere application of opening principles. These are things you need to take into account if you really want to adopt playing the Winawer, these systems are not everyone's cup of tea.

Summarised notes

Again, this was simply a rough overview, attempting to bring to your attention the kinds of positions and manoeuvres you need to get yourself accustomed to if you want to start playing the Winawer. Let's finish by summarising mostly black's trumps in the Winawer:

Black ensures the center remains closed with early trade on c3 leading to the typical pawn structure of c2-c3-d4-e5 for white and (c5)-d5-e6 for black. White has the lead in space and has the bishop pair, so it's vital to keep the position closed, unless a liquidation is possible.
The early trade on c3 gives black, statically, the better pawn structure and it leaves white with an isolated a-pawn and doubled c-pawns. Thus, typically, early liquidations towards an endgame are better for black, but of course white should not allow that.
With all of white's central pawns fixed on dark-squares, black can undermine the pawn chain with c5 and can easily mount further pressure on c3 and d4 pawns (moves such as Nbc6, Ne7-Nf5, Qb6, Qa5).
However, dark-squares can also easily be black's undoing in the Winawer, specially, if black is unable to create a clear counter-play and white manages to force further dark-square weaknesses on the kingside, then white's queen and dark-squared bishop coordination can become dominant and decisive. See e.g. Hou Yifan's instructive win against Kramnik in the Winawer, an absolute dark-square domination.
As for instance advertised in the Poisoned pawn variation, black commonly has the option of also castling queenside to finish development, and play actively.
Black's main worries in the Winawer are: how to parry the induced dark-square weaknesses, and how to complete development, in particular, the king position and the locked out c8 bishop. If white plays passively early on, and allows you to comfortably resolve these, then you'll have equalised, if not even a bit better because of the pawn structure.
Exploit white's exposed queenside in order to create counter-play by targeting white's pawns, in particular the a4 square, which if occupied by either the c8 (Bd7-Ba4) bishop or queen (Qa5-Qa4), c2 can be targeted and more importantly black prevents the a4-Ba3 setup for white as discussed earlier.
Also note that lines where white sacrifices their e4 pawn do not really work, and you need to be ready to refute them. For instance, after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3, (instead of e5), black stands even slightly better after: 4...Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8. Similarly for 4.Ne2, which allows black to comfortably equalise: 4. Ne2 dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4 Nf6.
As a whole, the Winawer can be a very dynamic weapon to play for a win as it can lead to highly imbalanced positions and still bears some hanging fruits to be discovered.
As a general recommendation for learning about ideas underlying a specific opening, make sure to spend a lot of time studying games of experts of the opening you're interested in. Look into the games of for example, D. Bronstein, Y. Seirawan, T.V. Petrosian, V. Smyslov, F. Caruana and N. Zhukova.


Undetectable semi-cheating? I bet I would play already 200 ELO better if I'd only check if my move isn't a complete tactical blunder. This obviously begs the question if engine cheating can be as easily detected if

I'd only use an engine that way
I'd constantly play only the second- or third-best move (of course there are forced moves, but it is probably unsuspicious to recapture the queen just traded...)
I only test critical decisions

After all, detection methods are meanwhile far more advanced than "plays the engine move". (I once managed to play the tablebase move for 10 or so moves in an endgame, but then, I'm very good at endgames...)
By the way, the questions would also be interesting for normal computer chess.
Disclaimer: You can tell me, as I'll never played online chess in my life and never will, especially due to the cheating possibilities. :-)

Yes. You will still be detected just that the site is going to need more games. You are more likely to stay under the radar, but that doesn't mean you won't be caught. Cheat detection has never been just comparing your moves against the computer.
To understand, online cheat detection is an application of anomaly detection in data science (google "Anomaly Detection" if you need help). Chess.com calculates dozen of metrics such as the probability of beating a higher rated opponent due to luck, and many other metrics that they will never tell you. They are also going to do it for everybody in the database. Once they do it, they will then have a distribution of the metrics for each rating group.
If you are a smart cheater, you will win games slower than a dumb cheater but still more statistically significant than everybody else not cheating. Chess.com will create a mathematical model such as hypothesis testing to derive a p-value probability of you cheating given a null hypothesis that you aren't a cheater. As you win more and more games, the standard errors of your profile will get smaller and smaller, your p-value will also get smaller. It will just be a matter of time until chess.com bans your account.
Even if you don't end up winning, your in-game performance such as your ability to stay consistent with the top-three computer moves or your ability to play time-pressure high complexity positions while not blundering will be statistically different from everybody else in your rating group. Chess.com will be able to detect you even if your moves don't match with the computers.
That's exactly how you see why cheaters like Dewa Kipas were able to cheat for a few weeks until his match with IM Levy Rozman. (https://www.chess.com/news/view/most-watched-chess-stream-in-history-dewa-kipas). Chess.com needed time and data to build up Dewa Kipas's cheating portfolio.
You will be caught given a high enough number of games, but a single game won't be enough.


What are the pairing regulations for round-robin tournaments? I am writing a pairing program for round-robin/double round-robin/swiss tournaments. I am looking for the rules to follow while generating the pairings. There seem to be no rules in the FIDE handbook. The only rule I know is that in tournaments like the FIDE Candidates players of the same federation are paired together as early as possible. Do there exist any other restrictions, or do I just pair the players randomly such that each player plays every other player in the tournament?

I am looking for the rules to follow while generating the pairings.
  There seem to be no rules in the FIDE handbook.

The pairings are the responsibility of the arbiter and the FIDE Arbiters Commission produces a handbook which it maintains for the guidance of arbiters in the commission of their duties.

This handbook collects together various documents some of which appear in other places on the FIDE website. These include -

An annotated copy of the FIDE Laws of Chess
Guidelines for Organisers
FIDE Competition (Tournament) Rules
General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments
International Title Regulations
FIDE Rating Regulations
Regulations for the Titles of Arbiters
Anti Cheating Guidelines
The Role of the Arbiters and their Duties

  Do there exist any other restrictions, or do I just pair the players
  randomly such that each player plays every other player in the
  tournament?

For your question the important section is section 7. Pairings in the FIDE Competition (Tournament) Rules. There it says -

  7.5 The pairings for a round robin should be made in accordance with the Berger tables (Annex 1), adjusted where necessary for double-round
  events.

So, no you do not pair the players randomly. You pair using the Berger tables. The allocation of players to start numbers is governed by the other articles in that section -

  7.1 Responsibility for the drawing of lots and the actual pairings rests with the CA.
  7.2 The drawing of lots for the first round of a round-robin competition shall be arranged by the CO, to be open to the players.
  7.3 In L1, L2: round robin competitions and preferable Swisses, the drawing of lots shall take place at least 12 hours before the start of
  the first round. In L1 all participants shall attend the ceremony of
  drawing of lots. A player who has not arrived on time for the drawing
  of lots may be included at the discretion of the CA. The first-round
  pairings shall be announced as soon as possible thereafter.
  7.4 If a player withdraws or is excluded from a competition after the drawing of lots but before the beginning of the first round, or there
  are additional entries, the announced pairings shall remain unaltered.
  Additional pairings or changes may be made at the discretion of the CA
  in consultation with the players directly involved, but only if these
  minimise amendments to pairings that have already been announced.

In response to -

  The only rule I know is that in tournaments like the FIDE Candidates
  players of the same federation are paired together as early as
  possible.

This is covered in articles 7.6 and 7.7 which specify that the Varma tables may be used in conjunction with the Berger tables to provide a way of restricting the drawing of lots to ensure this.

  7.6 If the pairings are to be restricted in any way - for example, players from the same federation shall, if possible, not meet in the
  last three rounds - this shall be communicated to the players as soon
  as possible, but not later than the start of the first round.
  7.7 For round-robin competitions this restricted drawing of lots may be done by using the Varma tables, reproduced in Annex 2, which can be
  used for competitions of 9 to 24 players

The Berger tables and Varma tables appear at the end of the FIDE Competition (Tournament) Rules


How should black develop the dark squared bishop in the advance variation of the French Defense? The following is the French defence, advance variation:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 *

My question is how Black should play his King's Bishop. Any time that Bishop moves the White Queen can go to g4 and force Black to disrupt his King-side castling pawns, e.g. as in the following typical continuation:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Nc6 5. Qg4 g6 *

Should Black King's Bishop be fianchetoed instead? I think not cause targeting the spearhead of the White's pawn chain doesn't not look very promising, esp. from a fiancheto position where advancing a pawn to f6 lacks g-file pawn support. So, how should Black employ his King's Bishop?

The starting position is

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5

White has committed with e4-e5 since the e4-d5 tension is lost. In return, white controls the vital squares d6 and f6 for a future attack as well as stopping black from developing normally. The e5 pawn has its pawn base on d4. The critical line for black in this variation is to build up a pressure against the d4-square. The f7-f6 break will also come into consideration. The variation can go like this

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 a5

Black decides to wait with the Bf8 and focus on building a pressure on d4. After a future f7-f6, the Bf8 can choose between Bf8-e7 and Bf8-d6. In general, the Bf8 already has an important role, because it controls the f8-a3 diagonal and is ready to recapture with Bf8xc5. So there is no need for it to move at all until the situation in the center is more clear.


Rate the difficulty of this computer? I've just been playing for fun online a little bit, and was wondering how hard the computer I've been playing against is.  NOTE: This was made for a javascript competition, and doesn't include castling or en passant capture.

http://js1k.com/2010-first/demo/699

As a programmer, trying to write a chess engine by Javascript which runs on client's browser is very interesting. It has only 1018 bytes!

The engine doesn't obey the rules thoroughly (however we can ignore at this time). On the other hand it plays immediately and doesn't consume time to find better moves. It just trying to avoid obvious and basic blunders and probably it can find mating moves.

I suspect it uses any popular approach such as min-max search trees to evaluate moves. It's a very simple program and most of newbies can defeat it easily.

So, if you're not a programmer and following for a chess engine, don't count it as a real chess program.


Against the Slow Slav, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3, is the 4... a6 Chebanenko still good for Black? Someone told me that:

Against the move order 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 or 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3, the move 4...a6 is averagely effective.
Against the move order 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3, the move 4...a6 is extremely effective, since White has already committed to playing e3, so White has lost many of his options (White now only has two options: 5. Nf3 or 5. Qc2).
Against the move order 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3, the move 4...a6 is not very effective (it's still 'playable' but it doesn't make as much sense as in the usual Chebanenko), because White has not committed his b1 Knight to c3, so the ...b5 push is not as strong since White can manoeuvre his Knight to the c5 square more easily and ...b4 wouldn't gain a tempo on a White Knight.

Is this really true?

I've looked into many games databases (openings explorers), but they don't seem to help in answering this question. Against 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 the move 4...a6 is still played very often, though Black scores very slightly worse than average against 5. Bd3, 5. b3, 5. Nbd2 and 5. Qc2.
 But the fact that it is played often doesn't necessarily reflect if it's good or not, it might simply be due to the fact that many Chebanenko players play 4...a6 against this move order anyways, hoping that White kindly transposes into a usual Chebanenko with 5. Nc3.
And the fact that it scores slightly worse than usual for Black might simply be a statistical fluctuation, or it might just be caused by the fact that Chebanenko players are maybe less prepared against these White options (5. Bd3, 5. b3, 5. Nbd2 and 5. Qc2) because they are rarer than the usual Chebanenko lines.

I would like to know if 4... a6 against the Slow Slav is objectively good or not.

I am by no means an openings expert, but I have played the Slow Slav as White for a long time so I will just make some comments.

In general, lines with an early b7-b5 in Chebanenko positions tend to work better with a Nc3 than a Nd2.  As you have already noted, a Nd2 makes it much more likely that White will be able to find some way to exploit the holes on Black's queenside (particularly c5, a5, and c6, often exploited by a well-timed a2-a4) created by an early b7-b5.  Positions with b7-b5 and Nb1-d2 are not necessarily very good for White, but they do seem to give a better chance of White gaining a small advantage than the main lines, and a small advantage is usually the best that White can hope for against the Chebanenko these days.  Positions with a Nc3 make it much more difficult for White to exploit the holes Black makes on the queenside with b7-b5, and give Black more dynamic compensation for such holes due to the possibility in many lines of a well-timed b5-b4, forcing the Nc3 to an awkward square.

Since an eventual b7-b5 is the general idea behind a7-a6, I always respond to 4...a6 by playing Nb1-d2 (either right away, or more commonly a little later after Bf1-d3). This is probably White's best try for an advantage in these lines. If Black goes ahead and plays b7-b5 anyways, I generally get the kind of position I want, which I would describe as lightly +=.

However, if Black refrains from playing a quick b7-b5 and plays something like an immediate Bc8-g4 (say, after 4...a6 5.Bd3), he still has a very solid Slav position in which the "wasted" move a7-a6 is compensated for by the fact that d2 is not an ideal square for the White N in lines where Black does not play b7-b5 (that is, because it removes some of the pressure from d5 and because in some variations the Nd2 can also get in the way of the Nf3).  Typically, in positions with a strong center like this (pawns at c4/d4/e3), White would prefer his Ns on the most active squares, c3 and f3, where they simultaneously pressure Black's center and support possible pawn advances by White.  So the move Nbd2 after a7-a6 may also be viewed as a kind concession.

I like to look at the exchange as a kind of exercise in prophylaxis: Black plays a7-a6 as prophylaxis against White's ideal set-up in the center with Nc3; White then plays Nb1-d2 (or just refrains for committing the N to c3 for a while) as prophylaxis against Black's idea of b7-b5.  Black, having now discouraged White from playing his ideal set-up with the N on c3 (I use the word "discouraged" very loosely here because positions with Nc3 and b7-b5 are fully playable for White), then plays Bc8-g4 with the idea that this set-up is even better after the exchange of a7-a6 and Nb1-d2, because a7-a6 does not hurt Black and the Nd2 is slightly misplaced.  White is not entirely convinced of this last point, because Nd2 is at least a developing move, while a7-a6 is not.  And so the discussion continues, with White trying to find lines in which his Nbd2 is actually useful.

As far as I know, there is no clear way to an advantage for White in lines with the Nbd2/Bd3 set-up against a7-a6, but the play is different and less forcing that the positions with a Nc3.  Having played many games with this set-up and a number of games with the main line Slow Slav positions (that is, with an immediate Bc8-f5 or Bc8-g4 instead of a7-a6), I would evaluate both set-ups as roughly the same: +=/=.  They are very slightly easier to play for White, but White has no significant advantage if Black knows what he/she is doing.

The upshot of all this is that 4...a7-a6 appears to be fine against the Slow Slav set-up as long as Black refrains from an early b7-b5 before White commits his N to c3.  In such positions, the move a7-a6 once again proves to be a high-class waiting move, with a dollop of added prophylaxis.


Which chess players are/were best at the endgame? Can you refer me to their exemplary games? I need inspiration.  I'm an amateur. One of the areas that I find least likeable and just plain boring, is the endgame.  I sometimes feel like I'm making no improvement there whatsoever.  That's why unless I am significantly up in terms of material and can force a win fast I try to get a draw or just resign.  But anyhow I want to get better and find the motivation to improve my endgame, so I figured one way is look at some examples of masters of endgame.  Maybe that will help me see the exciting aspects.

I've looked at several resources but I was reading a few days ago that high rated grandmasters these days are all good in every aspect of the game, including the endgame (or they would not be up there), and that old grandmasters who were seen as great in endgame, were actually not that positionally sound when their moves are compared with today's chess engines.

So I figured I just ask about that here, as I've got different opinions, someone saying Magnus Carlsen is the best in endgame, while many others go to historical figures like Capablanca, Rubinstein, and Smyslov (couple others also whom I forget).

And if there are particular games/books by a particular master that really brings endgame to life, I would appreciate you mentioning that so I can look and be inspired. Thank you!

Here are a few candidates for great endgame players, where I give a feeling of their playing style and recommended sources:

Capablanca

Capablanca is considered to be a balanced player, but one who excelled particularly in the endgame.

  The game might be divided into three parts, the opening, the middle-game and the end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts.

Recommended sources:

Capablanca's Best Chess Endings: 60 Complete Games by Irving Chernov
Capablanca: Move by Move by Cyrus Lakdawala

Smyslov

Smyslov is best known for the simplicity of his play. He adopted an intuitive approach to most moves.

  [By studying 'simple' endgames,] I was able to gain a deep feeling for what each piece was capable of, to sense their peculiarities, their strength and impotence in various different situations on the board, the limits of their capabilities, what they 'like' and what they 'don't like' and how they behave.

Recommended sources:

Vasily Smyslov: Endgame Virtuoso by Vasily Smyslov
The Legend: Vasily Smyslov - GM Ben Finegold on YouTube

Karpov

Karpov is best known for reducing the options his opponent had, even in the endgame. Zugzwang and prophylaxis was his forte.

  I still remember Botvinnik's reaction to each of my games, right from the opening moves. At first he would express amazement, then annoyance, and, finally irritation.

Recommended sources:

Karpov: Move by Move by Sam Collins
Karpov's Endgame Mastery for Beginners on YouTube


Portisch-Radulov, Moscow 1977. Doesn't 16.c5 lose a pawn? [title "Portisch-Radulov, Moscow 1977"]
[fen "2r2rk1/pb1n1ppp/1ppqp3/8/2PPQ3/1P3NP1/P4PBP/R2R2K1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

Doesn't 16.c5 just lose a pawn?

The short answer is “no” due to the tactics after 16. c5 bxc5 17. dxc5 Nxc5? 18. Qb4 Qe7 19. Rdc1 winning the piece. This is a famous combination from some books I have read.

The position is really a lot deeper than just that tactic, and it is worth mentioning that great move, and why Portisch played it.

First, even though not all of this came to fruition, Portisch probably thought about a lot of this. c5 did the following things:

It deadened the Bb7 on the more important h1-a8 diagonal. It might still have found a home on the f1-a6 diagonal, but there it would not be anywhere near as effective on that diagonal since there was nothing to attack there. It made it a partially bad bishop. Later, on move 25, Portisch also made the great decision to trade on d5, leaving a good N vs. bad B. That affected the game to the end when he finished with a pretty combination.

Although black will get control of d5 with Nf6-d5, with tempo even due to the Qe4, the d6 square looks like a very nice spot for the Nf3-d2-c4-d6. It might take four moves to get there, but it would have been very powerful on that square. It turns out that how the game played out, Portisch preferred to put the Nf3 on e5, where it still was intolerable, and kept black tied to c6. Note that, as Fischer said, you have to give squares to get squares; but I will add that if they are for knight outposts, usually it is a good trade if your knight outpost is much deeper in the opponent’s territory that his is in yours. So, giving up d5, which is not even on your side of the board, in exchange for an outpost on e5 or d6, it is a good trade in most cases. It can really divide the board for your opponent when it is posted that deeply on the other side of the board. As it turned out, black felt forced to weaken his king-side and dark squares further with f6 because the Ne5 was so well-placed.

 [Event "EU Team-ch06 Final"]
 [Site "Moscow"]
 [Date "1977.04.??"]
 [Round "6.1"]
 [White "Portisch, Lajos"]
 [Black "Radulov, Ivan"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "E08"]
 [WhiteElo "2625"]
 [BlackElo "2500"]
 [PlyCount "79"]
 [EventDate "1977.04.13"]
 [EventType "team-tourn"]
 [EventRounds "7"]
 [EventCountry "URS"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 e6 3. Bg2 Be7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d5 6. d4 c6 7. Qc2 b6 8. Rd1 Nbd7 9. b3 Bb7 10. Nc3 Rc8 11. e4 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Qc7 14. Bf4 Bd6 15. Bxd6 Qxd6 16. c5 Qe7 (16... bxc5? 17. dxc5 Nxc5? {This makes it worse} 18. Qb4 Qe7 19. Rdc1 $18) 17. b4 Rfd8 18. Qc2 Nf6 19.Ne5 Nd5 20. a3 b5 21. Be4 g6 22. h4 a5 23. bxa5 Ra8 24. a4 b4 25. Bxd5 Rxd5 26. Rab1 f6 27. Ng4 Rad8 28. Rxb4 Bc8 29. Ne3 R5d7 30. Rb8 e5 31. d5 cxd5 32. c6 Rd6 33. c7 Rf8 34. Rxd5 f5 35. Qc5 Re6 36. Qxe7 Rxe7 37. Rxc8 Rxc8 38. Rd8+ Re8 39. Rxe8+ Rxe8 40. Nd5 1-0


How does an engine choose between two moves of equal evalulation? In many positions, different moves are functionally the same, and an engine should return the same evaluation. For example, in a KR vs. KR endgame, (almost) every move that does not lose the rook should give exactly the same evaluation: 0.00. How does an engine choose between them then?

The answer is simple for traditional engines like Stockfish and the like: if multiple moves have the same evaluation, they pick whichever move was searched first.

All strong alpha-beta engines employ move-ordering heuristics which guess the moves that are likely to be strongest in a position, before actually searching those moves. This is advantageous because the best case for alpha-beta search (especially for PVS) occurs when the strongest move is searched first, allowing beta cutoffs to occur as soon as possible and also avoiding repeated searches.

So when two moves are found to have the same evaluation, the tie is broken by move ordering heuristics.

Evaluation granularity also plays a role. Stockfish evaluates positions to the nearest 1/256th of a pawn, but only reports evaluations in 1/100th of a pawn, so there could be internal differentiation which is not visible to a user. MCTS engines like Lc0 make decisions based on the number of nodes searched in the subtrees of each move. This information wouldn't make sense to report as centipawns, so a conversion function is used. If many nodes have been searched, multiple moves may map to the same centipawn evaluation even if they can be differentiated internally.


FIDE tourney location I have been trying to figure out when a tournament for FIDE will be near but I can't find any in the U.S. Does FIDE not come to the U.S?

Of course FIDE have tournaments in the US.

You can find them on the FIDE website here - https://ratings.fide.com/tournament_list.phtml?moder=ev_code&country=USA


Is 8...c5 good in this position, or does it restrict Black's mobility too much? [fen "rn1qk2r/pbp2ppp/1p1bpn2/8/2P5/5NP1/PB1PPPBP/RN1Q1RK1 b kq - 0 8"]
[White "Villain (2075)"]
[Black "Hero (1950)"]

8... c5

I was Black in this position. To me, it immediately looks like the position calls for 8...c5: I need to prevent White from taking over the center, I need more space for my pieces, and I need to protect my queenside from attack on the long diagonal h1-a8. My plan was to play c5 and Qc7 to target the center with all my pieces.

However, after considering the move, I thought that it does not help me much: after I have played for example c5, Qc7, and Nc6, I didn't see any possible continuations. My bishop is going nowhere on the d6-h2 diagonal, and my knights have no good squares nearby if white protects d4, so I would probably need to continue with 0-0, Nfd7 and f6 to put something on e5 to get any control of the game. I also dreamed of building an attack with something like h7-h5-h4 but decided that it takes way too long and white has too many ways to defend.

So I decided that I really need to keep the c5 square free in order to have the choice to play Nc5 or Bc5 (or even Bb4 at some positions) later.

However, the queenside still is a problem, so I ended up playing 8...c6, which allowed 9.Re1 threatening e2-e4-e5, forcing me to block the e5 square with my pawn, resulting in a loss after 12 moves of misery (apparently 9.e4 would have been even better).

After the game, my opponent said that I should have played c5, but didn't say anything after I mentioned that I thought it restricts my mobility too much. Was it really a good move? Was it the least bad idea in this position? Is there something better? How can I know the answer during the game without calculating every variation?

I think ...c5 is a good move. The c5 square is not available to your pieces (his d2-d4 would kick your pieces) so you may as well occupy it with the pawn.

...c6 is horrible because you block your b7 bishop which is currently your best piece!

Your position is slightly inferior because White has an extra central pawn available (he did well to manage to exchange his b-pawn for your d-pawn, effectively: he now has a half-open b-file to use, and he has better central control).

You can't allow him to play d4 and e4, you will get crushed. ...c5 stops d4 (or at least, means you can exchange that pair of pawns). At this stage I'd be looking to meet e4 with ...e5 , which would shut down both of his bishops (It harms your bishops too, but his bishops are better than yours, so you gain more out of this deal).

You'd then try to find good squares for your knights. He will undoubtedly go for Nd5 so you'd probably have to exchange that off.

I tried to check this position in opening references, but Black has basically never fianchettoed the QB in response to White's system here. We should conclude from this that it's a bad idea. It seems that your QB is strong here -- although you have to watch out for tactics with his knight moving -- , however your other pieces are all uncoordinated.

The most common way to create and support a centre as Black against White's system is ...c6 and ...d5 . I'm guessing that you played ..b6 and ..dxc4 where it would have been much more solid to play ...c6 which is a standard variation against the Reti. It is slightly passive because your bishop is behind its pawns but this is not a serious problem so long as you develop your other pieces smoothly (similar to a reverse Colle System).


The move Bg4 in the Pirc defense I am having trouble understanding a move studied in an opening book. The move is Bg4 in the Pirc defence in this position.

What is the point of aiming to exchange the bishop on f3? The point d4 does not seem to be the reason.

Compare that position with other variations where White does not allow ...Bg4 to be played. Black often struggles with the development of the c8 bishop.

Also, the central dark squares are indeed a target, so ...Bg4 is clearly helping there (what else could he possibly do in a different square?) Pawn breaks with ...e5 or ...c5 are a possibility as well


Losing on time constantly I'm playing lots of online chess. I find one thing in particular really hard: time. I lose on time a lot. Yesterday and today I lost 3 times pure on time - games where I would've destroyed the other if it wasn't for the time - but since I keep on thinking too long about certain situations it takes a lot of time.

I play mostly 10+0 matches. I know I can play longer games; I just want to know how I can improve my time 'problem' so I can also play shorter games.

I know I can play longer games; I just want to know how I can improve my time 'problem' so I can also play shorter games

My advice is not going to address how you can speed up your thinking or improve your clock handling skills. My advice is to play longer games.

I personally cannot think quick enough for bullet or blitz chess. My 'home' is rapid play or slower. The slower time controls also suit my more positional style and a preference for the endgame.

When it comes to time controls, choose the time controls that suit you and your style, otherwise you are going to go against your grain and become frustrated.


Games that are famous because of their underlying story I would like this question to be Community Wiki because I hope to collect several answers.

Can you name famous games where part of the fame comes from the circumstances surrounding the game? I hope it is clear that this is not really a subjective question. Which games are selected will depend on people's preference, but for each answer it will be clear cut whether the game has a famous story or not.

To get the ball rolling, let me mention the following (if this question is liked, I will edit it to list all answers with (if possible) a link to the game:

Tal - Benko, Belgrad 1959: Benko wore sunglasses to "avoid being hypnotized" by Tal.
J. Polgar - W. Browne?: Polgar used to bring a teddy bear to the chess table. In this game, Browne (I think) took a toy cannon, aimed it at the bear, and started the game... which he won.
Steinitz - Bardeleben, Hastings 1895: Steinitz's last move reached a position in which he had a forced mate in 10. Bardeleben left the tournament hall without finishing the game. Legend has it that he did not want to allow Steinitz the pleasure of reaching the mate, but it seems that he left because of noise and did let Steinitz know.

Bobby Fischer's games in the 1965 Capablanca Memorial gained fame because he was denied a visa to travel to Cuba, and was the only player in the tournament who had to play all of his games from New York by telephone.  It was especially grueling because those games typically lasted 8 hours or more due to the communications lag.


Valid claims for a draw in a blitz game The following situation occurred in my last tournament.
It was a 5 min blitz game without time increment. My opponent didn't have any material left. I touched my rook and wanted to place it on the back rank to deliver checkmate on this move. While I am moved my rook, my opponent claimed a draw because my flag on the chess clock has fallen Nevertheless, I moved my rook and announced a checkmate. Then I saw both flags have fallen. Then the arbiter arrived at the board and gave me the point because he said he sees a checkmate.
Is it valid for my opponent to claim a draw, even if it's not his move?
What would be the correct way for my opponent to claim a draw?

Well, let's look at the FIDE rules:

Yes, your opponent may claim a draw even if it's not his move. He should then stop the clock (rule 6.12b):

  A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance

but, of course, it will be his word against yours that he did that before you released your rook, because checkmate immediately ends the game (rule 5.1).

I think it is up to the arbiter to decide which happened first, but as your opponent didn't stop the clock to claim the draw, I'd be inclined to the same decision: to award you the full point.


When can king and pawn win against another king and pawn? Assume such a situation: Both players (Black and White) only have two pieces, that is a King and a Pawn. They have the liberty of placing them according to their wishes on the first row of their side of board (White on row 1, Black on row 8) and then the game starts. (Yes, pawn start from the same row as kings).

Which starting positions guarantee a win to one side? Which will be drawn?

My intention: I wonder if such a chess variant would make sense. Since players have the liberty of placing their king and pawn on any column they please, are there any positions that are clearly best? Or (as I'd hope for) would it reduce to rock-paper-scissors, that is regardless of which position a player starts with their chances to win/lose/draw the game depend on which position their opponent starts with? Or would all games be necessarily drawn, which would make such a variant pointless?

So I guess I need a method of determining if any given position is drawn or won, or rather - general rules that govern this problem, so that I could grasp all possible positions without having to enumerate them.

As far as I can tell, in your proposed variant a player could always force a draw by placing the king in a reasonably centralized position, regardless of what the other side chooses. Even if he allows the opponent a seemingly superior king position, it still winds up as a draw with correct play.

Let's say Black chooses the king on the D file and the pawn on the C file. If the pawns start on the same file, Black could allow a position like this and still get a draw:

[FEN "3k4/8/8/2pK4/2P5/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kxc5 Kc7

With the pawns one file apart, it's a similar pattern:

[FEN "3k4/8/8/2p5/2KP4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kxc5 Kc7

With the pawns two files apart, Black can take the diagonal opposition:

[FEN "3k4/8/8/2p5/3KP3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kxc5 Ke7 Kd5 Kd7

Three or more files apart? No problem. White must abandon his pawn to eliminate Black's pawn.

[FEN "3k4/8/8/2p1K3/5P2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.f5 c4 2.Kd4 Ke7

And, of course, Black can and probably will get his king to a better position than that. This is just to demonstrate that even if he doesn't, he can still draw.

As far as when a king and pawn can win against a king and pawn, there's one position that comes to my mind, outside of the obvious pawn race scenarios. This position is a loss for whoever has the move - they must abandon their pawn and will be out of position to block the opponent's pawn:

[FEN "8/8/8/1Kp5/2Pk4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]


Playing stockfish level 3000 on Arena 3.5.1 I downloaded Arena 3.5.1, and then downloaded stockfish from https://stockfishchess.org/ it had 4 files:

stockfish_8_x32.exe
stockfish_8_x64.exe
stockfish_8_x64_bmi2.exe
stockfish_8_x64_popcnt.exe

I loaded the four engines to Arena, but it always says at the top (2000), which means level 2000, how do I make it level 3000+?

Also when I am playing on Arena, it takes 15 seconds and more for each step from the computer to play, is this right?

Thanks, am still new to all these things.

You need only one of the four engine files. The four executables are
compiles of the same source code for different CPUs. They differ in speed only; sorted in descending order these are: stockfish_8_x64_bmi2.exe, stockfish_8_x64_popcnt.exe, stockfish_8_x64.exe, stockfish_8_x32.exe. Keep the fastest which runs on your system and delete the other three.

  I loaded the four engines to Arena, but it always says at the top (2000), which  means level 2000, how do I make it level 3000+?

This number doesn't set the playing strength. It has informative purposes only. You can change it as follows:

Open 'Engine Management' (F11).
Click the 'Details' tab and select Stockfish from the list.
Click the 'Information' tab in the right part and type the desired value into the 'Rating' field. If this field is empty, a default value of 2000 will be used.
Close the dialog and start a new game to display your new setting.

You can't set Stockfish to play at a given Elo level. If you want to weaken it, change the Skill Level in the engine settings (Ctrl+1, if it's loaded as 1st engine). '0' is the weakest setting and the default value '20' means full strength.


General advice for middlegame This is a very basic and general question (and my first on this website), so feel free to tell me if this is inappropriate.

Besides specific strategies and opening sequences, there are some fairly general things about openings that are quite intuitive and, on the whole, not too difficult to follow: try to get out as many pieces as soon as possible and to position them on their most effective squares, try to get control of the center, try to castle when appropriate, put pressure on this square, do not move that pawn and so on. But when all the pieces are out, well placed, and I have castled, I have no idea about what I should do next. It might sound silly, but I feel that everything would compromise the balance I have just created. Are there any general pieces of advice, any general principles that one should try to apply? Or just any standard lines of thought that one could roughly follow? I feel like there is a huge gap between opening and endgame that I have no idea how to fill, and that I usually start out well in the opening and end being in disadvantage in the endgame because I did some silly moves in the middlegame because I did not know what to do.

For instance: I was playing a match against a computer opponent. I managed to get out all my pieces (horses on c3 and f3, pawns on d4 and e4, bishops on the sides, putting pressure on the f7 square and so on, all very classical) and to castle and the opponent had only been moving his horses around aimlessly by that time! He had not even moved a pawn! A good player would be sure to win, starting from such a situation. But in my case, whatever I tried turned out to be a bad idea and the counter actions of the opponent where always effective and in the end he won.

I should mention that I am reading "Logical chess move by move" by Irving Chernev. I haven't got vey far yet, but even the few pages I've read were very illuminating as far as positional play in the opening is concerned. But somehow I did not manage to take away any general advice on how to proceed in the middlegame: as I said, once everything is well placed, whatever I do seems to destroy its balance...

I feel you should choose an opening repertoire so you enter middlegames where you (a) know where the pieces belong ordinarily, and (b) understand the plans in those openings.  At a certain point, you need to do more than "just develop".

If you've ever watched a GM give a video lecture on some opening, you'll see them repeatedly avoid certain lines not because they're "bad", but because there is no clear plan for what to do.  And I can't tell you how many games I've lost simply because I got to a position with my pieces all on their seemingly best squares, but without a plan for how to continue.  I make random moves that don't immediately lose, but it makes things incrementally worse.

For example, a straightforward plan arising from an opening (that works from beginner to super GM level) is the minority attack.  Here's one of many examples:

[FEN ""]
[Date "1994"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Karpov (2780)"]
[Black "Campora (2560)"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Nf3 c6 9. Qc2 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Be6 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. b4 Rc8 14. Na4 Rc7 15. Rac1 Be7 16. Qb1 Bd6 17. b5 Qf6 18. bxc6 bxc6 19. Nh2 Qh4 20. Bf5 Qh5 21. Bxe6 Nxe6 22. Nf3 f5 23. Rc3 Nd8 24. Nc5 Bxc5 25. Rxc5 Ne6 26. Rc3 f4 27. e4 h6 28. Re1 Rce7 29. Rxc6 dxe4 30. Rxe4 Qd5 31. Rc3 Qf5 32. Qe1 Qd5 33. Kh1 Qd6 34. Qd2 Ng5 35. Rxe7 Qxe7 36. Qxf4 Qb4 37. Nxg5 hxg5 38. Qd2 g4 39. hxg4 1-0

In this game, white's plan after development is a minority attack: to push the queenside pawns, and give black a pawn weakness, which should give white an edge in the endgame.  We see on move 18, black ends up with a backwards pawn.  White heads for an endgame by swapping off pieces, while black tries to stir up trouble with the f-pawn push.  On move 28, black gave up defending it (rather than waste a rook defending a pawn), and let white capture it.

The moral of the story: choose openings so that your plan is clear.


How to defend from the crazy knight attack opening at Nf3 ..., Nd4 in Atomic chess? Here's a game of Atomic chess I played with a friend. As you may see, neither of us are very good at Atomic chess and the game ended in under twenty moves.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "Casual game"]
[Site "http://lichess.org/I9pp1BLC"]
[Date "2015.06.17"]
[White "sethdj"]
[Black "Unihedron"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1368"]
[BlackElo "1632"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Variant "Atomic"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. Nf3 f6 2. Nd4 e6 3. e3 g6 4. Bc4 d5 5. Bb5+ c6 6. Qg4 Na6 7. c3 Nc5 8. Bxc6 {C6 capture removes itself and C5 knight.} Qb6 9. Qxe6 {E6 capture removes the queen herself.} Qa6! {Mate threat at Qf2# / Qg1#.} 10. Ne6! {Nuke threat at Nxf8#.} Bxe6 {E6 capture removes the bishop.} 11. d3 Qa4! {Mate threat at Qd1#.} 12. b3 Qg4! {Mate threat at Qd1#.} 13. f3 Qh4+ {Checkmate is now inevitable.} 14. g3 Qh3 15. Kd1 Qg2 16. Ke1 Qe2# { White is checkmated } 0-1

But that's not really the point here. The opening of 1. Nf3 f6 2. Nd4 is a very tricky knight attack, and when playing against a tricky player they may respond with Nb5 or Nf5 after e6 and c6 respectively, where e6 and c6 aims to protect those two grids. What is a good response here?

Black, who defends, should move its Knight to h6. There it protects f5 so if white moves its knight there, black can capture it. Additionally, if white does Kb5 with the intention to attack Black's Queen (and potentially king, if black attempts to defend the queen), Black can go forward (Ng4) and then Black wins: Black can either capture a pawn next to the king, or the queen if White moves this pawn, and white can capture the queen with some other pieces when black does Ng4, but black's king is still safe.

[FEN ""]
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Variant "Atomic"]

1. Nf3 f6 2. Nd4 Nh6 3. Nb5 Ng4 (3. Nf5 Nxf5) 4. f3 Nf2 5. Nxc7 Nxd1# 0-1

It can happen that white does h3 after Nh6 to block a potential Ng4 from black, and then black has to move a pawn to protect his pieces if white would move Nb5:

[FEN ""]
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Variant "Atomic"]

1. Nf3 f6 2. Nd4 Nh6 3. h3 c6


Sicilian, Smith Morra gambit pawn structure I am an aspiring chess player and I just discovered this famous opening a few months back. Currently I am using Stockfish as my go-to reference to find the best move, but unfortunately it does not explain why a move is considered good. The question is why the move c5xd4 is vital for black, and how does it benefit white?

2...cxd4 is the best move because it challenges White for coming up with something. If White just takes the pawn back with 3.Qxd4, Black can easily gain a tempo with 3...Nc6.

The gambit starts with 3.c3. White is sacrificing a pawn for rapid development (4.Nxc3 recaptures the pawn with a developing piece), open bishop diagonals (b3-f7 diagonal) and slightly better central control. Black is unable to move the central pawns two squares immediately (...d5 loses a pawn, ...e5 weaken the d5 square).

White has some compensation for the pawn but probably not enough against a skilled player. Black is still very solid, if Black can stop White's swift attacks, the extra pawn will pay off.


Blindfold chess games Are blindfold chess games playable for  chess world champions and grandmasters? Does the ability to do so show mastery for a player?
Blindfold chess is, without looking at board, the player will just say the move. Is this possible for a human?
For example, the moves 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d6 and so on. The moves will be recorded and played on a board in the background by a computer or human.

Prashant what you describe is called blindfold chess and I've edited your question accordingly.
Humans have been playing blindfold chess for more than a thousand years and there are even blindfold tournaments. From Wikipedia:

Today there are Blindfold Chess Tournaments held throughout the year,
with the highest profile event previously being the Melody Amber
Tournament, held in Monte Carlo until 2011. Of the modern day players,
Vladimir Kramnik, Viswanathan Anand, Alexei Shirov and Alexander
Morozevich have proven themselves to be particularly strong at
blindfold chess, being alternating winners of the Amber Tournaments
between 1996 and 2007. Levon Aronian won Amber 3 times since then and
won the blindfold event at the 2012 SportAccord World Mind Games.

Not only are blindfold games and tournaments commonplace but there is competition to see who can play the most blindfold games at the same time.
In the 20th century the record was held by George Koltanowski who played 34 simultaneous blindfold games on 20 September 1937, in Edinburgh.
The current world record is 48 blindfold games played simultaneously by Timur Gareyev. This was sufficiently big news to make the regular press and was reported in Leonard Barden's chess column ion the Guardian newspaper.

Do you feel chess masters who can play Blind chess games by winning
shows more mastery over chess game than who can look at chess boards
and win?

Neither Koltanowski nor Gareyev are anywhere near world champion level although Koltanowski was a GM and Gareyev is currently a GM. Giving a blindfold simultaneous display is a party trick. It is impressive and difficult but nowhere near as difficult as beating the world champion.


Can you really learn from playing against computers just like when playing against humans? I am wondering whether or not playing against chess against a computer will help you get better as quickly as playing against humans.

The motivation for this questions come from video gaming. I used to play a certain video game called Rome:Total War a lot, which is a game in which you control 100s of troops in a battle set in ancient times. It also is a tactical and strategical game like chess, but the 2 are not really very similar in any other respect.

In that game, I avoided playing against AI at all costs. That is because they play in a totally different way from humans, and you didn't really learn to play against humans from playing against the AI.

I myself have noticed that if I use some chess programs, the same kind of things happen. If I put it at a very low level, the computer still makes some good moves, however, if you capture something with your Queen, while the captured piece is protected by a pawn; the pawn won't take it, because the computer is trying to play terribly. This is totally not how humans would play, quite the opposite actually.

So, my final question is: If you play x matches against the computer set at a comparable Elo rating, would you learn as much as playing X matches against a human with the same Elo rating?

I read an article in chess life about a man who won an significant open tournament even though he was unrated when he entered. He had practiced only against the computer.

I myself have learned a lot of what I know from computer programs. It is very difficult to find good players here and the computer is always available. From what I have read you learn most when you play against a player who is just a little better than you are. The computer allows you to control the level of play of your opponent. This is most effective when you opponent can tell you afterward what you did wrong and what you did right, so you will want to have the computer analyze the game afterward.

I would recommend also using books of games (or a database of games) where you can go over the analyzed games from players about your own strength. I have one of my grandfathers books which is a collection of games by Capablanca called "The Immortal Games of Cabablanca" the games early in his life helped me a great deal. I couldn't understand his later games enough to get much out of them.

To conclude I you can learn from playing a computer. They will play at the set level of play and can analyze your games, however use other sources to help you advance as well.


How do you hold a draw with a bishop against a rook? Bishop and King versus Rook and King is a draw. Yet it is easy to go wrong and lose. How do you hold a draw?

INTRODUCTORY NOTE:

Examples and instructions are taken from the book:

Y.Averbakh - Comprehensive Chess Endings Volume 2.

RELEVANT POSITIONS FOR PLAYING THIS ENDGAME SUCCESSFULLY:

I will quote the introduction from the above book:

"It is impossible to win against correct defense, even if the defender's king is driven back to the edge of the board. When retreating under the pressure of the opposing pieces, all he must do is to reach the corner of the opposite color to the bishop. We will call this the safe corner".

[Title "Weaker side holds balance"]
[fen "7k/R7/7K/8/8/1b6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ra8+ Bg8=

White can't improve his position, since moving his king or moving rook along the 8th row will lead to stalemate. Black maintains balance by keeping his bishop on a2-g8 diagonal.

Again, quoting the same resource:

"If the defender's king is in a corner of the same color as his bishop, a win is normally possible. We will correspondingly call this the dangerous corner."

The following position demonstrates winning method when weaker side has king in "the dangerous corner":

[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "6k1/5R2/6K1/8/3b4/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Bg1! ( 1...Bc5 2.Rc7 Bf8 3.Rc8+-) 2.Rf1 Bh2! 3.Rf2 Bg3 4.Rg2! Be5 ( 4...Bh4 5.Kh5++- ) ( 4...Bd6 5.Rd2 Be7 6.Rc2!+- ) 5.Re2 Bd6 6.Re8+ Bf8 7.Rd8+-

Black must hide his bishop as in the main line, and we saw how to flush it out and win. The sub-variation shows what happens when he refuses to do so.

Here is another important position, where the result depends on who's turn to move is:

[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[fen "5k2/6R1/5K2/8/8/5b2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

With the kings in opposition mating threats are in the air and if White moves first he is able to win. For the moment bishop is hiding behind the opposing king, but with the above rook maneuver White can flush it out:

[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[fen "5k2/6R1/5K2/8/8/5b2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rg3 Be4 ( 1...Bh5 2.Rh3 Bf7 3.Rh8+ Bg8 4.Kg6+- ) ( 1...Bc6 2.Rc3 Bd7 3.Rb3! Kg8 4.Rb8+ Kh7 5.Rb7+- ) 2.Re3 Bg2 3.Re2! Bf3 4.Rf2+-

But if it is Blacks turn to move he saves the game by running with his king:

[Title "Horwitz & Kling, 1851"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "5k2/6R1/5K2/8/8/5b2/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Ke8! 2.Ke6 Kd8 3.Kd6 Kc8=

Since the c6 square is inaccessible to the White king he is unable to make any mate threats.

These are the basic positions required to know in order to play this endgame well.

In the above book were provided studies which were complex, but can be solved with the knowledge of the above covered positions.

To keep this post clear, concise and useful I will omit them.

Best regards.


CNN autoencoder for feature extraction for a chess position I'm currently building a chess engine in my free time while entering my second year of my master's studies in computer science. For a class we need to perform a litterature survey of a topic and identify a research gap. I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone and research something relevant for the heuristic evaluation function of my chess engine.
What I want to do is to test the idea of using a convolutional neural network autoencoder to extract a feature vector (10-20 features maybe?) from chess boards. My idea is to encode positions in 8x8 arrays with each layer containing zeros or ones for each colour and piece, i.e. one layer for white pawns, one for black knights etc. Possibly it would also be good to have a layer indicating whose turn it is to move, and maybe 12 additional layers for possible squares of attack for the different pieces.
I can find tons of articles using convolutional neural networks for chess state evaluation (when searching scopus and google scholar), but nothing about using autoencoders. My idea is to append custom features (features that might be difficult for a CNN to find) in addition to the autoencoded features, and then feed all features to a new model. Has this been done before? If so, can someone point me in the direction of some attempts at this?
People who are versed in chess and in CNNs, what features for a chess board are difficult for CNNs to automatically detect, that would benefit from some custom feature engineering alongside an autoencoder?
Also, can someone see some obvious weakness with this approach, or does it seem like a sound idea?

I'm very late but I am working on something similar. Here are are a couple of resources that involve using autoencoders.

https://chessvschessproject.wordpress.com/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.09667

https://github.com/oripress/DeepChess
Hope they help! Let me know how it goes.


Verbal description of FIDE/USCF ratings Does anyone know of a reliable source (e.g. a knowledgeable tutor, academic surveys, GM John Doe's autobiography) that verbally describes the ability and study/training material of a variety of chess players along the FIDE/USCF rating ladder? For example

The average X-rated player will see most one- and two-move tactics but is prone to oversight. He may know five or six moves of his "favorite" opening but likely is still gaining experience with what factors make a position "good." He has likely already learned basic endgame mates and KP vs. KP situations, and may go on to learn simple fundamentals like Lucena and Philidor.
The average Y-rated player will rarely ever lose material outright to simple threats or tactics. Lately he has been binging on Reassess Your Chess. He probably has a decent store of experience and theoretical knowledge about his opening repertoire. He may find it useful to study more intermediate-advanced endgame tactics like the Vancura position and memorize which pawns win or draw in which positions.
The average Z-rated player...

and so on. I know that any rigid attempt at proscribing what material is appropriate for which level player is bound to fail, but I still think ballparks and "on average" statements are useful for growth.

Here's a post I found that seems along the lines of what you're asking for. The descriptions seem more or less accurate to me (probably more for USCF as opposed to FIDE ratings), although the corresponding "years experience" it lists alongside the ratings seem to assume continuous, fairly serious tournament play, as opposed to a casual hobby.

As far as being a "reliable source", I'm not sure who the author is, but s/he appears to be quite prolific on that site, having written over 100 articles.


Trying to figure out why the engine suggested this move I don't quite understand this. I like playing chess, and I'm working to improve, but I still am likely very much a novice.

Anyway, I played a game where I won in 9 moves, but I'm curious why the engine suggested the "best move" it did.

My game was as follows (I was playing as white):

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. dxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Bb4+ 5. c3 Bc5 6. Qxe4 O-O 7. Be3 b6 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. Qxh7#

The engine suggested during analysis that a better move than Bd3 (move 8) was Qxa8.

I acknowledge I still have much to learn about the game, strategy, etc. But I'm curious why this is the better move. After Bd3 I'm easily set up for a checkmate if the opponent doesn't do g6.

Does Qxa8 set up something I don't realize? Am I missing a line? What's going on there?

On my quad-core running Stockfish 10, the evals are very close, but Bd3 is preferred, and to me, I agree since you develop a piece with tempo, black defends the mate, and then you still take on a8 winning.

It is really about the same, but Bd3 is slightly better on my engine.

Basically, your intuition is right, and maybe your engine or computer are not as strong...or maybe even mine is not.


How should one take advantage of the "premove" function on chess.com? Chess.com has a function called "premove". When pre-moves are enabled, while it’s the opponent’s turn you can make a move to automatically be played as soon as they make their move. The premove will play automatically even your opponent does something unexpected. If your opponent's move makes your pre-move illegal (such as putting your king in check), then your pre-move will be canceled).
My question is, under what circumstance should I use the premove function? I can think of the following scenarios:

My opponent has only one legal move. In this case, if I can determine my reply to this move, I may consider making a premove.
When I am in a very safe endgame (for example, KR vs KB, where I will not lose even after blunders by my rook) and I am running out of time.
In the early opening stage of a blitz game, when my opponent has only one reasonable move and for most of his "unreasonable" moves, my premove is still a good reply. For example, after 1. e4 c6, 2. d4, as white I can more or less safely assume black will play 2... d5 and (pre)play 3. Nc3 before black makes his second move. Even if black played 2... g6 or 2... d6 or 2... Na6, 3. Nc3 is still a sound reply.

Why is there such a function "premove" in the first place? What is the "best" way to make the most of this function?

I think case 4: Your premove is illegal unless your opponent does something very specific but entirely expected, is the most common case that I've seen. Like you offering a trade, and regardless of what they take with (including if there is only one way they can take), there is only one specific way you want to take back.
As an example, IM and chess streamer Eric Rosen, when he gets to play the Stafford gambit as black (1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nf6, 3. Nxe5), he always plays 3. ...Nc6, then premoves 4. ...dxc6. Because if that capture is legal, it must be because the white knight captured the black one, and in that case he always wants to take back with the d-pawn.
Also notable example of useful premove (and the converse of case 4, more akin to your case 2) was a drawn endgame where Carlsen had the black pieces during this his 2020 online tour (can't remember which game, or the exact piece placemens, sadly, but I believe it was KQP or KQ versus KRP). He had established a fortress and could premove his rook back and forth between two squares on the sixth rank. The only cases where such a move would lose the game were cases where performing that rook move would be illegal. He had only seconds left and no increment, so he couldn't wait and see what move his opponent would make.