5D Chess - Why is white king not in check in this position? Why cannot black rook on c5 in the bottom timeline capture the king on c5 in the top timeline? Why is the king not in check?

The rook on the center board in the present is blocking the check. Even if it goes to the past, a copy stays on the board where it moved from. The rook on the center board isn't checking the king because it already moved to the past.


Longest path for knight Suppose the knight is on square X and he wants to get to square Y, and in order to do that he has to move N moves. how big could N be?

Could that be solved using a mathematical equation? Say Nf3 should capture Bg8, could that be solved mathematically without having to take a look and analyze it step by step? is there an equation?

The furthest distance is from one corner to the opposite one.  You can get from a1 to h8 in six moves, for example a1,c2,d4,f3,e5,g6,h8.  There are few pairs of squares that take more than four moves.


Websites for online all-vs-all tournaments We have a small chess club with about 15 people, whereof about 6 - 10 people comes every week.
We play a blitz tournament where everyone meets everyone.

During corona, we do not meet physically, and the problem being that we don't know how to host the tournament where everyone meets everyone exactly once. Technical knowledge is very limited for some players, so managing the scoring manually is not an option.

Is there any website that offers this type of tournament? All we can see is where tourneys has x rounds and swiss pairing system.

Sadly I don't know of any such site, but I also manually conduct tournament in my small group( 12 members) via Lichess.

Just manually draw a Swiss tournament and setup a Discord for your club. announce the pairings and format and the players can decide the time of play with their opponents. collect the results and repeat the same for the next round.

Edit : Lichess is adding a Swiss tournament feature (source)


Does a non-copyrighted scoresheeet exist that I can print out instead of purchasing pre-printed sheets? Please provide a download link for a scoresheet for recording moves during match-play. I could format my own but why reinvent the wheel? I am happy to provide a sample as an illustration.

I have a scoresheet I created for my own use here:

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B4uNw3C8V0SDZjZneGVUVTVaNlU/edit?usp=sharing

I have pdf versions in various colors and the MS Publisher file I used to create it.  So if you have MS Publisher you can modify it.

The readme.txt file in that folder has descriptions of the files.


Can you improve a supercomputer evaluation on your own move? While watching the Chess World Championship, a few news outlets provide updates on how supercomputers are evaluating the board position. The example I'm looking at is using the Sesse Supercomputer, which evaluates the strength of one side over the other measured in pawns. For example, though I don't remember the exact numbers, at one point in game 8, Caruana had an advantage of roughly +2, however after the ill-advised move h3, the computer reevaluated their position to be roughly equal.

That made me wonder: Can you improve your evaluated position on your own turn, or do you only stand to weaken it?

It seems to me that if you had a move available which strengthened your position, that would be included in the evaluation. My assumption (of which I'm not certain), is that the computer expects you to take the best possible move, so doing so would simply maintain the advantage you already have. Taking any move aside from the strongest would weaken it.

Is this the case?

The point of an evaluation is to rate one sides chances of winning and to select the best chance of winning for that side. All the engine can do is calculate up to a certain point and then rate the position.
So yes you can definitely improve your evaluation because the engine may have missed something past its search depth.

If an engine had infinite depth there would be no point of an evaluation.


Who is the youngest player to defeat a reigning World Chess Champion in a classical chess game? A simple web search doesn't seem to readily give the answer to this question. Who is the youngest player to defeat a reigning World Chess Champion in a classical chess game?

I'll start an answer just to get going as kmartin suggested.
I'm sure it'll be superseded by other findings.

Carlsen beat Anand in Linares 2009 when he was 18 years and 3 month old.

(Other games that came to mind but narrowly miss out: Carlsen beating Topalov, 2007, Radjabov beating Kasparov, 2003)


R+3P vs B+N+3P ending. Win or draw, and plans for both players In a recent game I reach this position (white to play). I was playing white and eventually lost the game.

[fen "1R6/5pkp/4n1p1/8/3b1P2/6P1/7P/7K w - - 1 51"]

1.Kg2 h5 2.h3?! h4! 3.f5 gxf5 4.gxh4 Bf6 5.Rb4 f4 6.h5 Kh6 7.Rb5?! Bg5 8.Rf5 f6 9.Ra5 Kxh5 10.Ra8 Nd4 11.Rd8 Nf5 12.Kf3 Nh4+ 13.Kf2 Ng6 14.Kg2 Ne5 15.Rh8+ Bh6 16.Kf2 Ng6 17.Rh7 Kg5 18.Kf3 Bf8 19.Rb7 Ne5+ 20.Kg2 Bc5 21.Rb3 Be3 22.Kf1 Kh4 23.Kg2 f3+ 24.Kh2 Bf4+ 25.Kg1 Kxh3 26.Rb7 Kg3 27.Kf1 Ng4 28.Rg7 Bd2 29.Rg8 Bg5 30.Kg1 f2+ 31.Kf1 Kf3 32.Rxg5 Nh2#

My question is: has white any chance to draw this game? which would be the plans for players, both white and black, to draw/win the game?

Edited: I've added the rest of the game. "Evaluations" (?! and !) are mine, maybe they're not correct.

Here's what my sources say about this endgame.

Müller, Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings:

  With three against three on one wing the defender is usually able to hold on.

 [Title "Mueller vs Yusupov, Hamburg SKA (1991), after 66... Ba5"]
 [fen "8/5p2/6p1/b1n4p/2k2P1P/4K1P1/1R6/8 w - - 0 0"]

1. f5 Bc3 2. Rg2 gxf5 3. Kf4 Kd5 4. Kxf5 Ne4 5. g4 Nd6+ 6. Kf4 Be5+ 7. Kf3 hxg4+ 8. Rxg4 Ke6 9. h5 Nf5 10. Rg1 Kf6 11. Rg8 Nh6 12. Rg1 Kf5 13. Rg2 Bf4 14. Rg1 Bg5 15. Rg2 Bf4 16. Rg1 f6 17. Rg7 Bg5 18. Kg3 Ng4 19. Rg8 Ne5 20. Rg7 Bh6 21. Rg8 Nd3 22. Kh4 Nf4 23. Rh8 Bg5+ 24. Kg3 Ne6 25. Rg8 Bh6 26. Rg6 Bf4+ 27. Kf2 Bg5 28. Rg8 Nf4 29. Rh8 Kg4 30. h6 Kh5 31. h7 Kh6 32. Kf3 Ng6 33. Ra8 Kxh7 34. Kg4 Ne7 35. Kh5 Kg7 36. Ra5 Bf4 37. Ra6 Be5 38. Rb6 Kf7 39. Ra6 Nc8 40. Rc6 Nd6 41. Ra6 Ne4 42. Kg4 Kg6 43. Rc6 Bd6 44. Ra6 f5+ 45. Kf3 Kf6 46. Ke3 Kg5 47. Kf3 Nd2+ 48. Ke2 Bf4 49. Ra4 Kg4

  White should just sit and wait in his fortress. However, he decided to start some misguided activity.

Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual:

  If both sides have three pawns placed on the same wing, then the defender may hope for a draw (only if, of course, the pawn structure is devoid of grave flaws).

  [He then analyses the endgames in Capablanca vs Lasker, St Petersburg (1914) and Timman vs Karpov, Bugojno (1980).]

Flear, Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics:

  The case where all pawns are on the same flank is interesting as the result isn't always evident. However, a general rule could be that the bishop and knight require a target in order to convert their superiority.

  [He then uses Ponomariov vs Sasikiran, Biel (2004) and the aforementioned Timman vs Karpov, Bugojno (1980) as examples.]


How do players "see" several moves ahead? How can you predict what your opponent will play in the next 5 turns, 7 turns, 10 turns?

If the game is like a tree, then the more the turns the more it will branch out.

How can a player accurately predict what their oppoent will play several moves into the future when the number of possible combinations of moves to get ten moves ahead can be ridiculously large?

Please give a detailed explanation.

How do I learn/acquire this skill?

The answer is that you only consider the most sensible and most critical options. This prunes the tree down to manageable proportions.

One easy example would be the fact that retreats are usually not threatening and therefore less likely to be critical. (Of course the downside is that actually dangerous retreats are often overlooked.)

To learn how to recognise potentially critical moves you have to play through master games, solve puzzles and play games. Over time your brain will store typical moves and manoeuvres in certain position. This ability is called pattern recognition. The more patterns your brain stores the stronger its intuitive move suggestions will be, you will be able to prune the tree more.

Another aspect is called "forcing moves". A forcing move is a move that requires a certain response, i.e. severely restricts the opponent's choices. For example checks, threats of checkmate and other kinds of strong threats. If your moves are very forcing the tree will resemble a path, because every step from this path is either illegal or results quickly in very bad things. If GMs calculate very long variations, these usually contain very forcing moves. In positions without forcing moves even the best players don't look very far ahead.

There is also a non-intuitve conscious part to "seeing ahead". Even if your brain provides you with only the most likely good moves, you still have to visualise the outcome of every variation in your head. That requires training as well, for example solving studies or tactical puzzles with long variations.


If you ask only about the R+2p vs R endgame then no, it was drawn. In serious engine tournaments the stronger engines usually have access to 6-men tablebases, so they play these endgames perfectly.

If you ask about the whole rook endgame, then 45.Kh3 looks like a good winning attempt, as black has no easy way to transpose to the game, e.g. 45...g2 46.Ra1 Rc3+ 47.Kxg2 Rc2+ 48.Kg1 and there is no counterplay which was possible in the game.


How is a player rated who has similar results against a wide range of players? There is a player I know, whom I would guess to be somewhere between 1600-1800 in strength (call it 1700) who has an unusual profile.

He's a defensive player who's good enough to beat players 1500 and under most of the time. But he stops beating players as they approach the 1600 level, even though he seldom loses to them. Against players in the 1600-1800 range, he wins 10%-15% of the time, loses 10%-15% of the time, and draws the remaining 70% Against players in the 1800-2000 level his stats are slightly worse, about 15% wins, 25% losses, and 60% draws. His loss rate rises as he plays opponents above 2000. But basically, he gets similar results against people in a (wide) range of 1600-2000.

What are the dynamics of this player's rating? Will he get points for beating 1500 players more often than other 1700 players? Will his ability to draw against players up to 2000 also pull up his rating above 1700? Or will his lack of wins hold down his rating?

The Elo system treats every player as if his expected score against for example -200 -100 0 100 200 points stronger players would be 24 36 50 64 76 percent. If your real expected score deviates from this assumed distribution it just means that the Elo rating doesn't describe your strength very well.

In a way that is actually the norm and the culprit is the huge drawing range in chess. Stronger players on average slightly underperform against weaker opposition afaik, because drawing with white is just a little too easy.

In your special case the players rating would fluctuate depending on his opposition without his actual strength changing all that much. If he manages to get a steady diet of 1800-2000 opponents his rating would rise above 1800, if his opponents are between 1600 and 1700, his rating would stay in that range.

This doesn't actually mean much and it isn't particularly unusual. It's only relevant in team matches or if you need to maximise your rating to be eligible for titles or something.


Why is d5 the best move in this position? What is the thought process behind playing d5 in this position?

I'm not sure if it's the best one but...
First of all, it breaks black's pawn structure. Look at black pieces: Bf8, Nh7, rooks haven't moved, King is in the center. If you have safe king, developed pieces and your oponent is miles behind you, you want to open files. d5 is a move that I would do without much thinking. Such move just must be good!

After 1. ... - exd5 2. N4c3 and pawn on d5 falls. Be6 doesn't work due to simple f5. This position is much much better for White. Look at this structure. Pawn on d6, black pieces. Argh, I don't like it soo much from black's perspective. And keep in mind, pawn on g5 is hanging because of 1. Bh7 - Rh7 2. fg5 - hg5 3. Bg5.


What can I learn from my "80 average centipawn loss" game, which I thought I played well? In a LiChess game (Vakeesh vs. becky82), during the game I thought I played well, and won as black without and real complications.  Here's the game:

[fen ""]
[Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Date "2019.01.23"]
[White "Vakeesh"]
[Black "becky82"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2019.01.23"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. b3 cxd4 9. cxd4 Bb4+ 10. Nd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Qxd4 12. Nf3 Bxd2+ 13. Nxd2 Ne7 14. Bb5+ Nc6 15. Rc1 O-O 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Rxc6 Qxf4 18. Qe2 Rfc8 19. g3 Qd4 20. Rxc8+ Rxc8 21. Kf1 Bd3 22. Qxd3 0-1

However, the post-game computer analysis gives me a "80 average centipawn loss", which implies that for my average move I blundered the equivalent of 4/5-ths of a pawn.  (My opponent had "123 average centipawn loss", outblundering me.)  I'm not sure what to think of this.

Question: What can I learn from my "80 average centipawn loss" game, which I thought I played well?

It seems I repeatedly played "a good move" rather than "the best move" (as there were often multiple winning moves).

Edit: I'm after humanly understandable "take home" lessons from the game, which I can apply to other games in general (when using an engine is considered cheating).  I'm also after an evaluation of the applicability of the engine analysis (available from the linked game) to a human player trying to improve.

I'm not seeking "this move is better because the computer says so", I'm seeking how I can find the best moves as a human in a tournament game.

You are asking two very different question: How to interpret the number 80, and how to make that number go down :-) I'll focus on the first one.

80 means that on average, you overlooked many better moves. What this says about your playing strength depends on how hard those better moves were to discover. In complicated tactical positions higher values are normal. You may miss many opportunities that the computer can see because it looks, say, 10 moves ahead. So the bar is high.

In calm positions the centipawn loss is lower because there are no tactics (as by the definition of "calm"), so as long as you don't blunder your move cannot be a lot worse than the computer's optimal move.

I've had games with a centipawn loss below 20 and above 100 even though, I'd argue, my playing strength was the same. (My) Chess960 games tend to get into complicated tactical positions quickly, for example, so my centipawn loss in those is higher.

Finally, it's an arithmetic mean so it is susceptible to outliers. Many good moves and one blunder will give the same result as just mediocre moves.

You are probably aware that Lichess offers a tool to evaluate your games based on centipawn loss ("Chess Insights", on your profile page).


How to propose a new game variant? My daughter and I have devised a chess variant which we feel works very well: it preserves the basic moves and strategies of chess, yet adds new strategies and considerations. It is a form of "3-D chess", yet not gimicky as the current forms are, possibly because this variant did not start off with the intention to do another "3-D" idea. In fact, the 'stacking' of boards is a late addition to the game and not necessary for the rules to hold. It does help spatially-oriented human minds to relate to the game, though!

In our variant, a transparent (glass) chess board is suspended about 30 cm above another board. Standard gameplay occurs on the top board, with the bottom board initially empty. Whenever a piece is captured on the top board, it is moved to the same position on the bottom board. When the capturing piece later moves off the square, the piece below it (if still there) returns 'up' to the top board. Thus, pieces are 'buried' instead of 'captured'.

If a piece already exists in the relevant position on the bottom board, then that piece is then removed from the bottom board and considered 'captured' in the traditional sense. Thus, each position can have only a single 'buried' piece. Furthermore, all pieces on the bottom board must have an associated piece above them.

The twist is that a player can take his turn on the bottom board instead of the top board only if that move results in a capture. This is a traditional capture: the piece never returns to gameplay. Additionally, the rule that all bottom-board pieces have associated pieces above them is preserved.

The fact that each position (square) can have only a single buried piece makes gameplay very interesting. It becomes strategy to not defend pieces as taking an opponent's piece which just took your own piece will mean that your piece is forever captured. Other interesting strategy aspects emerge, such as 'wormholing' through the bottom board or tricking your opponent into capturing pieces that you prefer to have on the bottom board. Gameplay is much longer, but mistakes are more forgiving. To make it easier to find relative positions on the top and bottom board, the following squares have a small dot in the center of the square:

How might we present this variant for others to consider and enjoy?

The canonical site for publishing a new chess variant is https://www.chessvariants.com. Read some of the descriptions there to get a feeling of the format of presentation, register (it's free) and submit your chess variant. They have an intuitive form that helps you in the write-up.


Chess pairing program for double round robin We have regular friendly matches in our chess club. So far we have used an older version of swiss manager for swiss and round robin; but today when we had to pair using double round robin format, I was so puzzled.

Is there a chess pairing system that can be used for double round robin system?

Just use the "Berger" Pairings/Tables. If there are an odd number of players, then a "dummy" player is added. When creating the pairings each round, whoever is playing the "dummy" player is simply receiving a bye. Then you run it again with colors reversed. If your program has no major issues, you should be able to manually enter people into your program, and the program should allow for people to be paired again with reversed colors.


Why have more than one time control per game? Why is it so common to have time controls like 2 hours for 40 moves plus 30 minutes for the rest of the game, as opposed to something simpler like 2.5 hours for the game? Is this just to "force" players to ration their time? Can't players be trusted to manage their own time? :-)

Disclaimer: I've never played under such time controls.

I think these partitioned time controls evolved naturally during the history of tournament chess for two reasons.

To limit psychological warfare. Some chess players are.. let's say difficult. I can vividly imagine the first time when a participant of an important  match refused to make his next move (or even look at the board) because he was so angered that he blundered away a piece in the 10th move but also refused to forfeit and although it was very obvious that he would just let his time run out, there was no rule yet to stop the game right there and everyone had to wait for hours. Or people started to try and abuse the lack of such rule by simply waiting for an entire hour before making the first move simply to unnerve their opponents (who were pondering over which opening they would see etc.)
To make matches more exciting for the spectators. Remember, in private everyone can set their own time control however they like. But for tournament hosts it makes sense to split it into smaller pieces to create more tension. Also, especially casual or even first time spectators might be more at ease with this because it stresses that not every game lasts this long.. you don't have to wait for full 5 hours every time. The time after move 40 looks more like the overtime from other sports rather than "regular" time.


How to Verbally Describe Chess Moves? This may sound incredibly naive, but all the time on T.V, movies, books, etc. People can be heard saying things like "Queen to Rook 5" or like "Knight to King 3" and things like this.
What is this? I found some "notation" stuff on Wikipedia but it was all about writing down the moves for like tournaments.
Basically, I just ask because a friend and I occasionally play together and we've more than once expressed an interest in learning this verbal chess description bit so we could play on Vent (he lives 8 hours from here).
Thanks in advance.

Your examples are using Descriptive notation. For example, "Queen to Rook 5" (Q-R5) means "move the queen to the fifth row of the board (viewed from my perspective), and to the same column that had a rook in the starting position". You may notice that "Rook 5" could refer to two different squares, one on the leftmost column of the board and one on the rightmost. If you needed to distinguish between the two because the queen could move to either square, you'd say something like "Queen to King's Rook 5" (Q-KR5).

Descriptive notation was popular in English-speaking countries for most of the 20th century, and if you buy a chess book written before 1980 the moves will likely be in this format, but it is now basically obsolete.

Everyone has now pretty much moved over to Algebraic notation, which is much simpler. The rows of the chessboard are numbered from 1 to 8 moving away from White, and the columns are lettered from a to h from left to right from White's point of view. So White's move "Queen to King's Rook 5" in descriptive would be "Queen h5" (Qh5) in algebraic, and Black's move "Queen to King's Rook 5" would be "Queen h4" (Qh4).

Algebraic notation is much simpler than descriptive and is also the overwhelmingly more popular method of describing chess moves today, so I recommend that you use it.


Leningrad Dutch against Reti I like playing the King's Indian Attack against just about any black setup, except for when black plays the Leningrad Dutch style setup.

I had a look at how white is dealing with this situation and it seems that the double fianchetto with white pawns on b3, c4, d4 and g3 is not bad.

My question is about the different move orders that can lead there.

After 1. Nf3, black can reach his setup via either 1. ... f5 or 1...d6.

Is there any difference between these for the white player?

In which order shall I go for the double fianchetto setup described above?

After 1...d6 you could consider playing 2.e4. One of the biggest advantages of 1.Nf3 is it's flexibility and if you are looking for a quiet(ish) game then perhaps a Be2 (Classical) Pirc is your answer.

Against 1...f5 2.d3 has an excellent reputation I believe. (Idea is 2...Nf6 3.e4 and black is advised not to take the gambit pawn).
Worth noting is that 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6!? I think the best move is 3.d4! Chess is a funny game.

If you are dead set on a double fianchetto, I guess fianchettoing the kings bishop makes sense first as you get to castle sooner (you can also consider playing b4 instead of b3 after you have castled).


King's Indian defense follows to strange pawn wall I found myself in this position as a Black, and it is Black's move. I was thinking to somehow engage on the king's side in the end due to a stopped attack on the queenside. However, I checked few scenarios with the pawn exchange on f4/e5, or moving knight to h5 (?) to open f7 pawn, or pushing my g6 pawn to attack, so the light-squared bishop can escape. After that, I was thinking of what would happen if White would attack or push with his pawn on f4. All the scenarios I found were bad.
Also, after my plan of pushing on the queenside ended with this pawn wall, I thought about some attack on the kingside with Bgh3 followed by the queen, but this attack can end with White just moving to f5.
Does this position seem stable? How can I recreate a strong attack?
[FEN "r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1"]

Having the kings indian as my main opening in response for 1.d4 I see nothing immediately loosing (I might be wrong) and would personally be happy to play this position. The variations I have considered are hopefully inline with my argument that black is doing fine and If I have missed something obvious or have misrepresented white please let me know.
Variation 1.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. h3 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 Qe7 5.hxg4 Qh4+

From here you will at least get a rook for two minor pieces after white blocks and knight g3+. More importantly we can note that white has not done anything in the last 4 moves that could be considered active, so I would think the tempo gained for the bishop is worth it.
Well, white took black's bishop with the h-pawn... perhaps another move is possible, say going after the monster bishop on d4. (note in the following that giving up the rook on a1 i.e moving the knight on c3 to attack d4 is horrible for white);
Variation 2.
    r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. h3 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 Qe7 5.Nb3 Qh4 6. Nxd4 cxd4

Here black is looking to be an exchange up with Ng3+ which is made possible by the knight on c3 being under attack. I would say white was better in variation 1 then here.
A major flaw in the above variations have been kh1 as it has set up the main Ng3+ ending for black which have reduced material inequality. So what about kh2:
Variation 3.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. h3 Bd4+ 4. Kh2 Nxf4 5. Rxf4 Be5 6. hxg4 Bxf4+ 7. Kg1 Qxg4

Here black is up a rook and two pawns and some tempo for two minor pieces. A drawback is of course having only two active pieces, so f5 must probably be played soon if black is to win/draw.
Now the question arises if 2. gxf4 is any good for white... perhaps instead 2. Rxf4:
Variation 4.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. Rxf4 Nh5 3. Rf1 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 f5 5.exf5? Bxf5

exf5 seems way to dubious for white as it just improves the bishop for black and the two open files are easier occupied by black's rooks.

Variation 5.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. Rxf4 Nh5 3. Rf1 Bd4+ 4. Kh1 f5 5.h3 f4 6. hxg4 Nxg3+

As @John Coleman points out in the comments I have been partial to h3. Therefore I am adding some more variations in which Nf3 is played to which I believe the key response is Bxf3;
Variation 6.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. Nf3 Bxf3 4. Bxf3 Qh3 5. Be3 f5

Variation 7.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. Nf3 Bxf3 4. Qxf3 Nxc4

Variation 8.
r4rk1/1p1q1pb1/1n1p1npp/pPpPp3/P1P1PPb1/2NQ2P1/3N2BP/R1B2RK1 b Qq - 0 1

1... exf4 2. gxf4 Nh5 3. Nf3 Bxf3 4. Rxf3 f5

Each of these variations need analysis in themselves. Variation 7 does not look appetizing at all for white and can probably be disregarded. In variation 6 it looks like black has trapped their own queen after say 1... Bg2 however 1..  Qxe3 2. Qxe3 Bd4! pins the queen to the king and all is good. Variation 6 and 8 looks decent for black with the clear goal of bringing the rook from a8 to e8. While white also has a decent position in those variations, there are some concerns with defending c4 with some piece other than the queen and getting the a1 rook into the game.


Is there a rule for anti noise earpieces? Few days ago, one of my opponent wore Bose anti noise earpieces. Of course, I didn't call the referee cause I knew that it wasn't a cheat technique. But I was wondering what is the rules for that kind of object. I think that some players could confuse with earphones and call referee for cheat attempt.
Thank you for your answers :)

But I was wondering what is the rules for that kind of object.

Strictly speaking they are not allowed without the arbiter's permission.

This is what the latest FIDE Laws of Chess state:

  11.3.2.1 During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue.

  However, the regulations of an event may allow such devices to be
  stored in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched
  off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players
  are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter.

  11.3.2.2 If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The
  opponent shall win. The regulations of an event may specify a
  different, less severe, penalty.


Does 40/100, SD/30 d10 mean that the delay is applied to both time controls? I am going to be going to my first tournament soon (the southern class championship),  and am slightly confused about the time control.  Most tournament listings have something along the lines of 40/100, SD/30, d10 which makes it obvious that the 10 second delay applies to both time controls.   However, the listing for the tournament says 40/100, SD/30 d10.  The lack of comma makes me think that possibly this delay only applies to the second time control.  Is this something I should ask the director about, or is this just another way to write a delay that applies to both time controls?

It looks like the tournament is run by the Continental Chess Association. From my experience playing in many CCA tournaments, the d10 is applied to both time controls.


Distracted by opponent's habit of spinning captured pieces Many players have the habit of spinning and flipping captured pieces, e.g. Nakamura, Gelfand, Van Foreest, etc... However, when it is in my field of view, it distracts me and it brings me out of my concentration. Therefore, when playing a rated game and it's me to move, I would kindly ask my opponent to stop. And so far they always do, as they don't have the intention to distract me, it is just a habit of them.

I wonder, is there any mentioning of this in the FIDE rules?

What if my opponent would continue spinning a captured piece, ignoring my request to stop (which never happened so far)? Can I go to the arbiter?

Top players don't seem bothered, are they not distracted by it? Or is it me who is too easily distracted by it?

Article 11.5 of the FIDE Laws of Chess covers this:

  It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner
  whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of
  a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

If your opponent distracts you in this way and refuses to stop when you ask him then you should definitely call the arbiter. The arbiter will ask your opponent to stop this behaviour and will keep an eye on your game. If your opponent ignores the arbiter's instructions then the arbiter will penalise him.

Note that when top players do these potentially disturbing things they are careful to do so out of sight of the opponent so it does not actually disturb them. Gelfand spins his piece under the table where even he can't see it.


How is this position a draw? I played against a bot as a White and had this position. The computer claimed that it's a draw.

[FEN "2Q/k/3QP/8/3K/8/8/1N - - - 0 1"]

I thought it would be a checkmate because wherever the Black king moves, he will be captured. So, how this position is a draw?

Two conditions must apply for a position to be checkmate:

The player to move has no legal moves.
His king is in check.

The first is true here, but the second isn't, so it's not checkmate.

When a player to move has no legal moves but isn't in check, it's called stalemate, and it's an immediate draw.


CCRL games in Chessbase's reference search : not enough grand master games I downloaded a PGN of CCRL 40/15 games from

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/CCRL-4040-commented.[1138203].pgn.7z

and opened it in ChessBase, and converted it into a cbh. (I can even put this database as reference database but it doesn't change what follows.)

Then in the reference search I chose this database as "reference database", and try for instance to search for games starting with the 1.e4 move by imputing this move on the board. There are plenty of them.

But the reference search tells me "not enough grandmaster games".

Where are the reference search options that I have to tweak to make this obvious thing work? Should I change the games perhaps, so that they could be recognized as grandmasters games?

Maybe the best games filter in reference search window enabled (checkbox).


Blender 3D models for chess pieces and board for blind players (open licence)? I am interested in Blender 3D models for chess pieces that can be used in a 3D printer.I am aware of Blender 3D models for "normal" chess pieces that are available under an open licence, i.e. this chessboard and these pieces (just the pieces?) in the Blender 3D Model Repository (available under a Creative Commons licence).

However, I have an additional requirement: I would like 3D models of chess pieces and a chess board that can be used by blind players.

For the pieces, this means that each piece has a little pin at the bottom that fits into a hole in the squares (so the pieces don't get knocked over when you check where they are). In addition, the pieces need something to distinguish white from black (e.g. an extra pin at the top of the black pieces.
For the board, this means that each square has a little hole where the pins on the fit in, and the black squares are raised compared to the white squares.

You can see some examples on ChessHouse.com and MaxiAids.com.

Are there any Blender models for this? Especially under a Creative Commons licence?

I don't know much about 3d printing, but you could design your own.

Windows has a program called 3D Builder with a built in chess set that you modify, as well as a 4x4 game board that can be modified and built up. 3D Builder is free on the app store.

If you get stuck, I suggest visiting 3D Printing.SE.


Chess Engine Opening book I'm trying to evaluate the differences between Opening books.

For example: Have Fritz 12 Book and Rybka Aquarium (CTG format). For many of the standard openings. I've tried with atleast main lines of
a. QGD
b. QGAcc
c. Nimzo Qc2
d. Caro Capablanca

So far couldn't find differences between these 2 - gone as deep as 17-20 moves in some lines. How do these 2 contrast?

Regards

It's very unlikely you'll be able to compare opening books just by playing against them. Main lines will be approximately same in all books, what you really want to see is how "wide" these books are, do they contain only a few main lines, or plenty of variations as well.

The easiest way to do that would be to convert the books back to the readable (PGN?) format and see how many different games are included for a particular opening.

Might be easier to do that using some software than comparing by hand. Even better if the software can read the books directly, this way you don't lose any information while converting books to .PGN format, but you'll have to be able to program for that to happen, because I don't know any ready-to-use software for the books comparison.


Has there been much research on rating inflation? Magnus Carlsen's draw in yesterday's round of the 2012 London Chess Classic assured that his rating in the next published FIDE rating list will surpass Kasparov's previous record of 2851. I've seen/heard passionate chess fans debate the relative merits of Carlsen's rating achievement versus Kasparov's versus, say, Fischer's. To be clear, that's not what I'm after here.

One crucial element of such discussions is the notion of whether Elo ratings in general have undergone inflation over time: are there so many more 2700+ grandmasters today than there were 20 years ago because of a general rise in playing strength, or just because of some overall inflationary trend in the numbers? I'm also not trying to solicit bare opinions about whether or not that's so. What I am interested in knowing:

  What serious research attempts have been made to answer the empirical question as to whether FIDE Elo ratings have naturally inflated over time because of something other than a rise in overall strength in the player pool?

The Wikipedia entry on the Elo rating system has a little bit to say about the matter, and also points to an article by Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics. In addition to any pointers to work by others, I, for one, would also welcome an answer that gives a clear, concise summary of Sonas' main points.

I am surprised that the paper "Intrinsic Chess Ratings" by Ken Regan and Guy Haworth hasn't been posted yet. It is exactly what's asked for, serious research into rating inflation. PDF

Basically they got games from three periods (1976-1979, 1991-1994, 2006-2009), in several rating ranges (e.g. both players within 10 points of 2200, within 10 points of 2300, etc), and excluded types of games that might be anomalous, like team matches. Read the paper, it looks quite thorough.

Then they compared the games systematically with Rybka 3.

Some sentences from the conclusion:

  We conclude that there is a smooth relationship between the actual
  players’ Elo ratings and the intrinsic quality of the move choices as
  measured by the chess program and the agent fitting. Moreover, the
  final sfit values obtained are nearly the same for the corresponding
  entries of all three time periods.

In my view, it's quite solid evidence against the existence of rating inflation.


How to find chess students? I was wondering how to find chess students or better said how and where one can advertise himself? I am sure that many chess players are searching for a coach, but they don't know where to find him. Here is my page for example, https://bs.lichess.org/coach/PetarBosnjak, have I mentioned all the needed informations, should I omit something?

In the UK the busiest chess forum is the English Chess Forum. They have an Adverts topic which would be suitable for you to use.

I should stress that despite the presence of the letters "ecf" in the url it is independent of the English Chess Federation which has its own web site, although senior members of the board do from time to time make announcements and answer questions on the English Chess Forum. This independence allows a much broader range of opinions to be expressed.


Is there any chess software that tutors beginners? I am a beginning chess player, and I want to learn more about openings, the middle game, and the endgame.

Can anyone suggest any good chess software that 'tutors' beginners?

The Chessmaster series.

IGN said that the series has always distinguished itself with first-rate chess teaching tools and this is the best selling chess franchise in the world. It virtually has no rival in chess teaching software, at least as far as my research goes. Chessmaster doesn't have the best chess engine though, so if you plan on playing professional chess you'll need a better engine after you reach master level.

I owned a copy of Chessmaster 10k and it featured, from what I can remember:

tutorials from Josh Waitzkin on the basics of chess, openings, endings, tactics, strategy, analysis of his own games
attacking chess by GM Larry Christiansen
chess puzzles by John Nunn
written analysis of 900 famous games
a searchable database of about 500k games


Has SALC-armageddon been seriously discussed? People have been lamenting the draw-death of chess for ages, with various suggestions on how to get past that. SALC-armageddon comes from this website by a computer chess fan who's been playing several NN engines against other NN engines. Note the special rule:

  SALC Armageddon means: White is allowed to castle short, only and Black is allowed to castle long, only (=SALC (Short And Long Castling)). And all draws are counted as a win for Black (=Armageddon), because these castling-rights are a advantage for White. So, there are no draws anymore. And no draw-death of computerchess. Read more and download more Armageddon stuff in the "Armageddon openings"- section of my website.

Amazingly, this seems to lead to 50-50 games where neither side has an advantage:

Games        : 3000 (finished)

White Wins   : 1492 (49.7 %)
Black Wins   : 1508 (50.3 %)
Draws        : 0 (0.0 %)
Unfinished   : 0

White Score  : 49.7 %
Black Score  : 50.3 %

Has this tiebreak rule been seriously discussed and/or tried in human play? If it really is 50-50 for both sides, it could even take over as the main format in classical tournaments.

I think it is clear that it has not been seriously discussed, and it is not likely to.

First, at the highest level, the elite have spent their entire lives getting that good, and draws are just a part of it. There can also be beauty in draws as far as I am concerned. Overall, I doubt that they want to learn to play a different game just because it uses some of the same rules.

Second, Kramnik recently proposed a variant with no castling at all, and the kids they were coaching even played an informal tournament. It has not been heard from since. If Kramnik, and his idea was mostly panned in the comments to the various articles I read, cannot get a variant to be widely accepted, it probably is not going to happen on some very unknown website by someone no one has ever heard of.

Lastly, chess, while not a big industry in the grand scheme of things, still is an industry; and the people with money, who back it, are generally adverse to change for risk of losing any money they may have invested.

At best, and it would take a long time to gain the necessary popularity, if one of the main servers like chess.com were to pick it up as a variant, and it were to gain HUGE popularity there, something might happen...I would not count on it though. I have been around for a long time, and variants are still looked upon with disdain by most.

People do not like change, in general, and they love chess. It is not a problem at the lower levels, so it is not likely to catch on en mass, and work its way up.


How does a Class B chess player become Class A? I'm currently a 1600 chess player. I have managed to increase my rating this year by 200 points. I have trouble winning against Class A chess players. I have really good and close games, yet I still lose. What can I do this year to improve and become stronger. I have read chess books like Amateur's Mind and Silman's Complete Endgame book. These books have helped me increase my rating by 200 points. What other books or training do you recommend?

I recommend simply playing rapid games, or longer, and a post mortem analysis with computers and self analysis. Playing games against stronger players is desired if possible. I recommend starting to learn some opening theory and form a good repertoire. Whatever your opponents play, you should have a response that you enjoy. You say that you are good at playing closed games. I would rub against your wound here and advice you to play open games. Open games also helps on your tactics, which everyone will tell you is important.


Can I host lichess server to my local machine to use the study offline? Lichess is a free, Ad-free and Open-Source chess server. To me, it has the best STUDY option over the internet. I am thinking whether it's possible or not to host a localhost setup using the source code of lichess into my PC. The sole reason is to use it for studying the game.
Since Stockfish.js is available, I am thinking to retain the web layout.
By the way, I have tried Scid Vs PC with the free database, provided by Lichess, but its UI and UX is not at all refined. So, my question is,
"Has anyone tried to host Lichess to their local machine, that ran smoothly offline? If not, is it possible to do so ?"

Yes. I did it a little while ago. It's of course possible. You will need to be technical capable of doing it as it won't be like a one-click installer.


What's the most prestigious chess competition broadcasted on TV? I want to experience the best chess competition is where the most experienced players around the globe participate.

Is there such a contest? Or is it too boring to watch chess tournament because it takes too long to finish? Which TV station broadcasts the most supreme chess contests?

Lastly, is a chess game as fascinating as El Clásico (a soccer game between FC Barçelona and Real Madrid)

I don't think there has been any televised chess tournaments in the English speaking world since the 90s with the Short-Kasparov matches.

From the 1970s through the 1980s there was a show on BBC2 called the Master Game. It seems that some of the episodes have been put on YouTube. See this article as well.

I really think that the major problem with televised chess tournaments in the decade that we live in right now is 3 fold:

There is not enough money in it to attract any but a niche network.
Serious chess coverage has migrated to the Internet and sites like PlayChess.com (from ChessBase), ICC, and Chess.com. Streaming video from these sites can reach a much wider audience than live broadcasts on BBC or ESPN.
The format is not very good for modern TV. The average viewer wants action. It's a sad comment on our society, but we live in the age of reality TV, not in an age where chess is actually appreciated.


Engame Play: Knight Endings Below is my effort from last night in the league.

[Event "My Team v. Their Team"]
[Date "2016.10.20"]
[White "A. Nonymous"]
[Black "Ian Bush"]
[ECO "A31"]
[Result "1/2-1/3"]
[WhiteElo "170"]
[BlackElo "148"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nc2 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.a3 Be6 8.e4
Nb6 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Nc3 N8d7 11.Be2 Nc5 12.O-O Nb3 13.Rd1+ Kc7 14.Rb1 Bc5
15.Be3 Rad8 16.Bxc5 Nxc5 17.b4 Nca4 18.Nxa4 Nxa4 19.Ne3 Nb6 20.Bg4 Bxg4
21.Nxg4 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 f6 23.Ne3 Rd8 24.Rxd8 Kxd8 25.Nf5 Nc4 26.a4 g6 27.
Nh6 Ke7 28.f3 a5 29.bxa5 Nxa5 30.Ng4 Nc4 31.Kf2 Nb2 32.Ke3 Nxa4 33.Kd3 b5
34.Ne3 Kd6 35.g4 Nb6 36.Kc3 Kc5 37.h4 h5 38.gxh5 gxh5 39.Nf5 b4+ 40.Kb3
Nc4 41.Ng3 Nd2+ 42.Kb2 Nxf3 43.Nxh5 Nxh4 44.Nxf6 Kc4 45.Nd7 Nf3 46.Nb6+
Kc5 47.Nd7+ Kd6 48.Nf6 Ke6 49.Nd5 1/2-1/2

I'm currently rated ECF 148, ~1810 FIDE. As you can see my higher rated opponent (ECF 170 which is ~1975 FIDE) pushed too hard after declining a draw offer after 19 ... Nb6, and then dropped a pawn; however I couldn't win the game. As such I was wondering if people could help point out where I went wrong, if indeed I did go wrong, I'm not even sure if the ending is won or not. In retrospect I'm wondering if 37 ... h5 is all that good, all those pawns dropping off I feel can only be good for him, but maybe h5 was a symptom of earlier mistakes - should I be trying to get f5 in? More generally what thoughts should I be having in knight and pawn endings? I was playing pretty much in the dark. And if anybody wants to look at the rest of the game that would be great as well!

First off, let me say I've not put your game through an engine. I'm assuming you can do that yourself and in any case they're not terribly good at endgames.

Now for some appropriate general principles and observations:

1) King, Knight and pawn endgames are very similar to king and pawn endgames. The same kind of principles apply. With enough pawns on the board and an extra, distant passed pawn you should be looking for the win.

2) If the knights come off then it is an easy win for you

3) If too many pawns come off it is an easy draw for your opponent. He seems to have known what he was doing from about move 33 because with pawn advances and good use of his knight that is exactly what he achieved.

4) Two related principles. Pawns can only move forwards. They cannot move back. Patience is often the key to good endgame play. The immediate 33) ... b5 is too impatient.

5) On a4 your knight is badly offside. Your first task, given your opponent's immediate lack of threats, should be to get it over to the kingside where the action is. d4 looks like a wonderful square.

6) By the same token your opponent's knight is also in need of some improvement. d5 looks like the right square. From there it keeps half an eye on your b pawn, stays in touch with the kingside pawns and threatens your f6 pawn. Either your king is going to be tied down to its defence or it is going to have to advance and be swapped off. One small step closer to a draw. You should try and prevent this.

So, what I suggest for your first possible mini-plan is Na4 - c5+ - e6 - d4.

What happens next depends on white's reaction. I think it would be a mistake for him to go for your b pawn with something like Kd3 - c4 - b5 - b6. You would go for his pawns with your knight starting with Nc2 with the threat of Ne1 forking the f3 and g2 pawns. After Nc2 one possible (non-forcing) line might be:

1) g3  h5 2) Nf2 Ne3 (now aiming for f1 forking the h2 and g3 pawns) 3) h3 Nf1 4) g4 h4 and white's pawn structure is badly compromised.

More sensible for white would be a compromise where he plays Kd3 - c4 but then aims for Ng4 - e3 - d5+. Black might counter this by Ne6 - f4 instead of d4 to temporarily prevent Nd5+ and to start harrying white's pawns.

A second possible mini plan for black would be to start with Na4 - b2+. If white plays the tempting Kd3 - c3 than the paradoxical Nb2 - d1+ followed by h5 is going to force the knights off at the cost of a pawn when black's outside passed pawn plus better king position is going to win it for him.

So white can't play Kd3-c3. So white needs to play his king to c2. Then black can play his knight to c4 to prevent white's knight coming to e3 and protect the knight with b5 if attacked by the king.

If white goes after the b5 pawn with Kc3-b4 then black forces the white knight to the more passive f2 with h5. Rather than defend the b5 pawn passively with Nc4-d6 he could go after the white pawns with Ne3. Then I would suggest a (non forcing) sequence something like this:

1) g4 h4 2) Nd3 h3 3) Nf2 Nc2+ 4) Kxb5 Nd4+ 5) Kc4 Nxf3 6) Nf2 Nxh2 and, OK, with just 3 black pawns left it is looking difficult to win.

So, either defend the b5 pawn with Nd6 or go back to the Na4-c5+ plan.

If either of these two plans is black's best I'm not good enough to say, but they do pose white major problems to steer it to a draw. You have to make it as difficult as possible for white to find good moves in these positions.


Do better board representations than the standard one exist? Consider the classical representation of the state of a chess game. I'll draw the board:

R BK BNR
PPPP  PP
  N Q
    PP
    p
  np p
ppp   pp
r bkqbnr

Here is its move list:

d5 d5
c4 c6
Nf3 e6
Qd3 Nf6
...

Here is its FEN notation:

rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/2p1pn2/3p4/2PP4/3Q1N2/PP2PPPP/RNB1KB1R w KQkq -

These three ways to describe the game state are isomorphic and contain exactly the same information represented differently. A computer would have no problem converting from one representation to the other (kind of, the castling flag isn't available in the first representation and the second one encodes all the game states). Computers uses even stranger representations like bit boards which I won't go into here.

In fact, there is an almost endless amount of ways to represent the state of a chess game. For example, here is one I just came up with:

R.BK.BNRPPPP. PP..N.Q.......PP......p.....np.p..ppp...ppr.bkqbnr

But if I asked you to "find the best move for white" the first representation would be much easier for you than the others.

Why? Is it just because the classical representation is what most players are used to or does it have some inherent advantage? Could you train your skill at playing chess using only FEN notation and over time come to prefer that? Has any research been done into this area? Maybe there is a better way to represent a chess game than the classical one which gives you a huge advantage when calculating lines deeply but just no one has found it?

Chess is a game in two dimensions. The game is made to be played in two dimensions. Pieces move horizontally, vertically, and diagonally very naturally on a chess board. It's purely visual and the sort of thing our brain does very well. Other depictions of the position sacrifice the two dimensional nature of the game. When this information is lost, we have to calculate to reconstruct the spacial relationships in the game. Consider the difficulty of spotting a pin or discovered check when using FEN.

In the other notations other than the standard diagram, you'll spend a lot of time doing mechanical sorts of math.

The different representations (diagram, moves, and FEN) exist because they fill different needs.


Italian Game: Two Knights Defense, Kloss Gambit (C57) In my recent effort to play as many Evan's Gambit games and an ocassional Lolli Attack, I recently had this game as White:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nb4 6. Nc3 Nbxd5 7. Nxd5 Nxd5
8. Nxf7 Kxf7 9. Qf3+ Ke8 10. Bxd5 Bd6 11. Qf7#

5...Nb4 is the Kloss Gambit and I have never seen this move played against me so was curious how White should proceed?  Now I obviously played 6. Nc3 to add a defender to d5, but according to some databases, White's best move is 6. d6.  I also noticed that there is only one game (although I am not completely sure of this) that has the move 5...Nb4 at chessgames.com found here

First of all I disagree with Andrew.

Why exactly d4 is the best move? There is nothing wrong with it and in fact it is nice, but in my opinion 0-0 better. Other nice moves (d4 is in the list)

6) 0-0
6) d6
6) d4

Depending on what type of play do you prefer you can choose either of them.

0-0 is more aggressive. Idea behind it is that you are already one pawn up and there is no point to save that pawn. So you are developing (hiding your king and preparing to put the rook on e1 attacking the king of the opponent).
If your opponent is eating the pawn
6 ... Nbxd5
7. Re1

Here you are ready for an attack. This type of game if for a strategical opponent who can understand that material is not the most important and opening are for fast developing and getting initiative.

Idea behind d6 is easy. You are trying to maintain this pawn (actually you are forcing to exchange it). The f7 square is under attack and only reasonable way to save it is 6) ... Nbd5 which allows you to capture the pawn

7) dxc7 Qxc7
8) d3

In the end you are one move from castling (and nothing can stop you) and 1 pawn up. Your opponent is two moves and has one piece more developed than you.

With d4, as Andrew said d5 pawn is untouchable, and you are threatening e5 capture with attacking the knight. So if I were black, I would take 6) ... exd4 after which white would castle.

P.S how are you guys adding PNG?


List of openings for poor openings player I'm a poor opening player, I enjoy more tactical positions.

I would like to know a list of openings that :

Leads to tactical positions
Don't require too much work on learning (typically not a sicilian opening)
Allow a quick "out of the theory" position, that would advantage a thinking player over a monster of opening theory.

As you can guess, it doesn't need to be openings that have bests ratio. It just has to meet previous requirements.

If I asked the question to myself, I would go with :
- Evans Gambit
- Morra gambit
- East indian defence

Do you agree with me ? Do you know any other opening that would meet this requirements?

The openings I teach the kids at my club are typically the Kali and the London System, depending on what they answer when I ask whether they favor more the knight or the bishop, respectively. Both are structurally sound, from my experience, and typically do not require much book work.

If you're going for unsound openings that lead to tactical shots, hoping to get out of your opponent's opening knowledge, you might consider the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (the opening I play most often - 1.d4 d5 2.e4?! dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 often leads to a half-open f-file after O-O and a Ne5 post) or the Trompowsky Attack (the opening preferred by the leader of our chess club - 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 and 3.Bxf6 with the idea being to double the f-pawns).

Take suggestions with a grain of salt. It's best to come to your own conclusions about which openings you prefer based on how comfortable you are in the middle-game of those openings. Take a look at each opening you find, try it out, and if it makes you smile unconsciously when you play it, you probably have the answer you're looking for.


Overprotection and prophylaxis My understanding (and I may be wrong there) is that prophylaxis is a wider concept than overprotection, and so there are some prophylactic moves that don't have anything to do with overprotection (like advancing one of the castling pawns to defend against 8-th line mates).

I also think I get the point of overprotection in term of enhanced piece mobility. However when it comes to prophylactic moves not involving overprotection (like the pawn advanced discussed above) is it really just a fancy name for not having the time to find a way to take the initiative?

However when it comes to prophylactic moves not involving overprotection (like the pawn advanced discussed above) is it really just a fancy name for not having the time to find a way to take the initiative?

Not quite! Sometimes, in order to fight for the initiative or even maintain the initiative, you have to make prophylactic moves to minimize your opponents counterplay or initiative. Have you considered that the move 5...a6 in the Sicilian Najdorf is actually a prophylactic move?

 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]

 1...a6!?

The move a6 prevents (prophylaxis) White from giving a check on b5 in the main line of the Najdorf after 6...e5. It also prevents White from playing the dangerous Keres attack with 6. g4, which is normally playable after Black plays 5...e6.

Now let us consider what happens if Black doesn't play a6 and tries to "take the initiative" with 5...e5.

   [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]

   1...e5?! 2. Bb5+! Bd7 (2...Nbd7 3. Nf5!) 3. Bxd7+ Qxd7 4. Nb3

In this final position, White is already slightly better. He has exchanged Black's good light-squared bishop. Black is now left with a bad bishop on f8 and a hole on d5, with only the knight on f6 to cover it and no light squared bishop. Overall, Black's idea to press on with e5 in an attempt to take the initiative backfired because of a lack of prophylaxis.

Compare that position with this position which occurs in a popular line of the Sicilian Najdorf.

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

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Be3
   Nbd7 9. O-O Be7 10. f3 O-O

Here, Black securely guards the d5 square with Bishop and Knight and his bishop on e6 is much stronger than its counterpart on e2. If white attempts to occupy the hole on d5, Black simply exchanges knights, eliminates the hole on d5 and keeps the position in the balance. Note that the presence of the bishop on e6 prevents White from recapturing with the queen and maintaining the hole on d5.

    [FEN "r2q1rk1/1p1nbppp/p2pbn2/4p3/4P3/1NN1BP2/PPP1B1PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 11"]

    1. Nd5 Nxd5 2. exd5 Bf5

The reason why the Najdorf Sicilian is one of the most popular openings is because it allows Black to fight for the initiative instead of simply trying to neutralize White's initiative. That's all made possible by this naive looking prophylactic move 5...a6!


What is the best structured resource for self training? I have been playing and studying chess for quite some time. I have tons of books but it all seems very haphazard. I was looking for some resource or course where things are lined up as sequence of well structured lessons.

My current USCF rating is 1451 and I am unable to break above 1500.

I'm reading the Artur Yusupov training course and I can tell you it's really great! But I don't have so many books.

The series is supposed to be a three years training course (but I think it will take a bit longer to me): Fundamentals (1600-1800 FIDE), Beyond the basics (1800-2000 FIDE) and Mastery (2000-2200). Every year is made of three books: Build Up Your Chess, Boost Your Chess and Chess Evolution.

Every book have several lessons (the first one, 24 lessons), each lesson on one topic (Tactics, Strategy, Positional Play, the Endgame, Calculating Variations, Openings, all of them mixed up), and each lesson ends with 12 short exercises (10' each one at most), and it usually takes to me 1:30 to 2:00 hours to finish each lesson with its exercises.

If you want to take a look, at Quality Chess webpage you can find an excerpt with the contents and one complete chapter.


What is the next best move for white? Is there a possibility that white can win this game as long as both players are playing the best of their game?
What should be the next move for white to play if white wants to win the game?

avoid checks to white king/play defensive.

try to capture black queen even if white queen needs to be sacrificed?

protect the white pawn on C file
[FEN "r2Q4/5q1k/2P3pp/p7/4n1P1/2b4P/P7/2KR4 w - - 0 1"]

At this point, I believe white is completely lost, and it seems that the engine agrees. I think the basic idea is that the material deficit is too much and the black king isn't in any real danger as the bishop on c4 can come into g7 and block any checks/mating ideas. While the white king is in the open with active black pieces around it.
Firstly if you take the rook (Qxa8), then Qc4. You can block any checks with the bishop and create a discovery check, which will lead to a checkmate.

You can't really protect the c-pawn well and if you do, it will be too slow as black has very quick ways to infiltrate with the queen. And for similar reasons, it is also not feasible to play defence, as you have too many weaknesses to cover
.

Trading queens also doesn't get you anywhere, although it is recommended by the engine since black's queen is more dangerous than white's. In that case, if you take back with the rook (Rxd7) then Bg7 again and black's rook is always going to keep an eye on the pawn. If pawn takes, then Bf6 and the square is always covered enough times. Not to mention that black can always sack a piece for the pawn and will still be up a minor piece.

Having said all that, although the game is lost for white in all situations, I think your best practical bet would be to take the rook on a8 and sort of hope that black is not able to find the checkmate. As counterplay, you can try to push your past pawn or get your rook on offence with a check.
Hope this helps!


Why is closing the center by White generally considered a concession? Why is closing the center by White generally considered a concession? I mean, pushing e4-e5 when there are Black Pawns on d5 (and e6), or pushing d4-d5 when there are Pawns on e5 (and d6), is often considered "the second best way" to play, and something that White has to do only if necessary. I.e. vs King's Indian is considered generally a stronger opening strategy to keep the d4-e5 tension (by delaying d4-d5) until necessary. Why?

The pawn advance reduces the potential, what is done cannot be undone and Black uses the information to set up accordingly. This is probably the broadest and most general explanation. In the end, however, it may turn out to be a matter of taste or fashion.


Is game analysis based on "squares" instead of "pieces" of any value? Most all analysis I've seen in chess focuses on pieces development, and not the development of unoccupied spaces. Is there any value in analyzing game play in this way, and if so, how is this done?

NOTE: The way I look at it is: there are four types of unoccupied spaces: attackable, under-attack, attackable-AND-under-attack, and attack-free. Beyond that, really have no clue, other than I know people tend to focus on positive space, then negative space, and that the rules for positive space in chess are much more complex than the negative space; in fact, I'm only able to think of one rule that applies to negative space, that being the king may not enter an under-attack space.

I think that this is a good question, but also that the most enlightening way to answer might be to point out what I think is a slight misconception behind it. You say that most analysis you have seen focuses on the development of pieces, rather than the development of unoccupied spaces. But when one focuses on the development of pieces, what does this mean? In particular, what is the overall goal behind the development of one's pieces in the first place?

There are of course many facets to this, but one (very) rough way to put it is to say that a proper development of the pieces is just one that helps the player to gain as much control as possible of the board, or the "unoccupied spaces" as you phrase it in your question. So, long answer short, I think that your proposed two ways of analyzing game play are really just one. But I also think that your question points to a potentially very useful, guiding way of thinking about piece development.

One classic source that could plausibly be seen as particularly emphasizing this line of thought is the work of Aron Nimzowitsch (e.g. My System, Blockade and Chess Praxis), where he stresses in a pretty unified way the importance of restraining an opponent's play by developing one's pieces so as to control the center, overprotect important squares, blockade opposing pawns by plopping pieces down on appropriate unoccupied squares, etc.

Of course, one shouldn't take ideas like overprotection of key squares too far, as illustrated by Hans Kmoch's classic parody game composition Nimzowitsch vs. Systemsson (follow the link for Kmoch's crucial Nimzo-style annotations to the game):

[fen ""]
[Event "Composition"]
[Site "Copenhagen"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Black "Systemsson"]
[ECO "C00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "48"]

1.e4 {AN INGENIOUS EXAMPLE OF MY SYSTEM by Aaron Nimzowitsch -
Anderssen started the sacrificial style, Morphy and Gruenfeld
the pure attacking style, Steinitz the positional style,
Tarrasch the scientific style, Lasker the style of styles,
Capablanca the mechanical style, Alekhine a style as brilliant
as sunlight. But it is a generally known fact that originality
and modernism were introduced by me as my own personal
inventions and enthusiastically imitated (without being fully
understood) by the whole world of chess. For the ridiculously
small sum of ten marks, the reader can confirm all this in my
monumental work, My System, published by B. Kagan. Before my
time, chess was so naive and undistinguished! One or two
brutal opening moves, each one involving a vulgar, obvious
threat, a common, banal sacrifice, a painfully elementary,
bestially raw checkmate - such, more or less, was the course
of chess games before my heyday set in. Then I appeared on the
scene and the chess world paid heed. The hegemony of matter
was shattered at a stroke and the era of the spiritual
began. Under my creative guidance, the chessmen, hitherto
nothing but highwaymen, pirates and butcher boys, became
sensitive artists and subtle instruments of immeasurable
profundity. But why waste words!--accompany me, dear reader to
the dizzy heights of the following game.} e6 2.h4 $1 {My very
oldest and latest thought in this opening. To the chess addict
nurtured on spineless convention, this move comes like a slap
in the face--but calm down, dear reader; after all, you cannot
be expected to understand such moves. (Forgive me - it is not
your fault, until now no one has opened your eyes and ears.)
Wait just a little while, and there will pass before you a
miracle of overprotection of more than earthly beauty. (I
assume that I rightly surmise that you are quite familiar with
my great theory of overprotection.)} 2...d5 { Black of course
has no suspicion of What is coming and continues serenely in
classical style. } 3.e5 $1 {A move of elemental delicacy. (We
detest, as a matter of principle, such words as "power" and
"strength"; in the first place, such banal expressions make us
uncomfortable; and, in the second place, we like even less the
brutalizing tendency which such words imply.) Wherein lies the
beauty of 3.e5? Why is this move so strong? The answer is as
simple as it is astonishing. The move is strong because it is
weak! Weak, that is, only in the traditional sense! In
reality, that is to say, it is not the move but the Pawn on e5
that is weak--a tremendous difference! In former times, it is
true, it was customary to reject any move which created a
weakness. Today, thanks to me, this view is obsolete. For,
look, my dear reader, the fact that the Pawn on e5 is weak
obliges White to protect the Pawn more and more until at last
the state of overprotection arises as it were of itself. But,
as we have seen (cf. My System), overprotection is practically
equivalent to victory. Hence it follows automatically that the
"weak" move, 3.e5, is a certain road to triumph. The rest is
more or less a matter of technique. } 3...c5 { All according
to a famous precedent.} 4.d4 {Here it is quite clear that it
is more profitable for White first to provoke c5 and then play
d4, rather than the other way round, which is the customary
course. For, if White first plays d4, there follows c5 and
White's d-pawn is under attack. But my clever transposition of
moves changes the situation completely. For now Black's c-pawn
is suddenly attacked by White's d-pawn!} 4...cxd4 {What else
can Black do?} 5.h5 $1 {All very clever, original and
decisive! Of course the ordinary run of people who envy my
every spark of genius but cannot follow my line of reasoning
for even three paces, outdo themselves in sneering at me with
the poison-dripping epithet, "bizarre." The text move creates
confusion in the whole Black army and prepares for the
annihilating invasion by the Queen 18 moves later.} 5...Qb6
{Naturally not 5...Nc6 6 Bb5! etc. Why should Black play the
French Defence only to allow the Ruy Lopez Bishop move after
all?!} 6.h6 $1 {An avaricious dullard would never hit on this
deeply conceived Pawn sacrifice.} 6...Nxh6 {After 6...gxh6,
White has an even more comfortable game.} 7.Qh5 $1 {The reason
for this becomes clear after next move.} 7...g6 {Black
threatens to begin a successful siege of the weakling at e5
with Bg7. But White forestalls this.} 8.Qh2 $1 {To every
fair-minded observer, this move must come as a revelation! All
the previous manoeuvres now become clear! White has completed
his development brilliantly and proceeds to overprotect
e5. Against this, Black is helpless.} 8...Nf5 9.Bd3 {Note the
splendid cooperation of White's forces: while the e-pawn and
the King Bishop completely blockade Black's position, the
development of the overprotective forces takes place behind
the broad backs of these sturdy blockaders.} 9...Nc6 10.Nf3
{As a rule this is a routine move. But here it is strikingly
original and as such occupies a place in the treasury of my
intellectual property.} 10...h5 {Old stuff!} 11.b3 {A deep
trap, as will soon become apparent!} 11...Bg7 {How Black must
have rejoiced when he anticipated his formidable opponent in
the occupation of the long diagonal. But...} 12.Bf4 $1 {...how
bitterly disappointed he must have been to realize that 11.b3
had only been a trap and Bb2 had not been intended at all. The
position of Black's Bishop at g7 is now quite
pointless. 11...Be7 would have been relatively better.}
12...Bd7 13.Nbd2 Rc8 {Black no longer has any good moves!}
14.Ke2 $1 {Again, an extraordinarily deep move. White sees
through Black's plans, and in addition he prepares a
particularly powerful continuation of his strategy of
overprotection.} 14...Nb4 {Just what White was waiting for.}
15.Ne1 $1 {This was the point of his previous move! Black is
now forced to exchange off the attacking Bishop at d3. But,
with that, even White's King Knight enters the fray with
fearful effect at d3, while the square f3 becomes available to
the Queen Knight. Surely a grandiose piece of strategy. The
fact is that I'm a marvellous player, even if the whole chess
world bursts with envy.} 15...Nxd3 16.Nxd3 $1 {Naturally not
16 cxd3? which would have been quite inconsistent. The Pawn on
c2 is unimportant, and Black only wastes precious time by
capturing it.} 16...Rxc2 17.Rae1 $1 {White continues his
overprotection without much ado.} 17...a5 {This counterattack
has no punch. Black would naturally like to get a passed Pawn
plus a Rook on the seventh, but it is too late for that.}
18.Kd1 $1 {Now the menaced Rook must scurry back, for capture
on a2 would be much too dangerous.} 18...Rc6 $1 {At last,
Black gets the right idea: overprotecting his Pawn at e6. But
it is already too late.} 19.Re2 Ke7 {Introduced into
tournament play by myself. See note to White's 14th move. The
King overprotects e6.} 20.Rhe1 Re8 $1 21.Nf3 $1 {Completing
the overprotection of e5 and thus deciding the fate of the
game. Black has no defence. Note the aesthetic effect created
by White's position.} 21...Bf8 {Now Black threatens to
complete the overprotection of e6 by playing Ng7. But White
has prepared a brilliant combination.} 22.g4 $1 {Much stronger
than the obvious Bg5+ etc.} 22...hxg4 23.Qh7 $1 {Now one
clearly realizes the masterly understanding of position which
went into White's eighth move (Qh2!).} 23...gxf3 {Had Black
continued overprotecting by 23...Ng7 there would have followed
24.Bg5+ f6 25.Bxf6+ Kf7 26.Ng5 mate. Black's basic error was
that he started overprotecting much too late.} 24.Bg5# {One of
my best games! I am proud of it if only because Herr
Systemsson is one of the strongest Scandinavian players. The
game made an overwhelming impression on the players and
spectators as well as on my opponent. The game has become
famous in Denmark as "the immortal overprotection game."} 1-0

Despite Kmoch's humorous exaggeration of Nimzowitsch's ideas about overprotection, a very recent top-level game brought Kmoch's parody to mind; namely, it was Caruana's destruction of Topalov during his unbelievable winning streak at the ongoing Sinquefield Cup 2014. In particular, if we compare the position after "Nimzowitsch's" move 21 above with that after Caruana's move 22 below, we see that Caruana has a similar array of forces buttressing the e5 pawn that clamps down on Topalov's position (though not the extreme-to-the-point-of-silliness buildup of every single piece directly supporting it).

[fen ""]
[Event "Sinquefield Cup"]
[Site "Saint Louis USA"]
[Date "2014.09.02"]
[EventDate "2014.08.27"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fabiano Caruana"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[ECO "B46"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "61"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bxc6
7.Bd3 d5 8.O-O Nf6 9.Re1 Be7 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg4 Kf8 12.Na4 Qa5
13.Re2 h5 14.Qf4 g5 15.Bd2 Qc7 16.Qg3 h4 17.Qg4 Rg8 18.Rae1 c5
19.c4 dxc4 20.Bxc4 Bb7 21.h3 Rd8 22.Bc3 Nb8 23.Re3! Nc6? 24.Bxe6!
fxe6 25.Rf3+ Ke8 (25...Kg7 26.Qh5 Rdf8 27.Rf6! Rxf6 (27...Bxf6 28.exf6+ Rxf6 29.Rxe6 Nd4 30.Qxg5+) 28.exf6+ Bxf6 29.Qxg5+ Kf8 30.Qxf6+ Qf7 31.Qh6+ Ke8 32.Nxc5) 26.Qxe6 Rg7 27.Qh6 Nd4 28.e6 Nxf3+ 29.gxf3
Bf8 30.Qh5+ Ke7 31.Bxg7 1-0

After Caruana's 22nd move, Topalov has no good way to create counterplay via a pawn break, because if the e5 pawn were to capture on f6, the power of his supporting pieces would be unleashed (as can be seen in the 25...Kg7 lines given above; 25...Kg7 was Topalov's original intent before he found the 27.Rf6! reply in his analysis). Because of that fact, Topalov's only productive try is to reroute his knight to d4; but he overlooked that 23.Re3! makes 23...Nc6? tactically unworkable.


How to play vs the 1...e6 and 2...d6 Pawn structure? I've noticed that sometimes beginners play 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 as Black.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6

As strange as it may seem, I find it difficult to play vs this neglected defense. Is it better to increase central control with an early 3. c4 (neglecting piece development) or to follow-up with 3. Nc3? Then, assuming Black continues to neglect the center, would you follow-up with an early f2-f4, or would you prefer piece development with an early Nf3? Any ideas would be much appreciated.

By choosing these moves black is giving you a lot options, and you are free to choose what you prefer with a good game.

Most aggressive is probably Nc3 followed by f4, Nf3, Bd3, 0-0, and looking for attack on the king's side, with f5 or e5 depending on what black does.

But more positional approach with c4 is totally fine.

Another alternative is to fianchetto the light squared bishop, and maybe eventually play f4.

Just play the game that fits your style.


Who has the advantage at this point in the game? I was playing the following game and at this point I thought black had the advantage but upon thinking about it for a little while was not sure.

At this point in the game who has the advantage and by "how much"? …and I don't mean just counting piece points which I know how to do—I mean taking the positioning into account as well.

Additionally, how could I figure this out myself without bothering the folks on Stack Exchange?

[fen "2k5/1pp2p2/p5p1/3b4/2NBq2P/1PK1N1r1/P7/3R4 b - - 0 1"]

In this position, the material imbalance pretty much tells the whole story, as a queen and two pawns against two knights is, barring significant positional compensation, an overwhelming material advantage. And in this case, the non-material positional considerations only serve to emphasize Black's advantage: the white king is exposed, and his pieces are not well coordinated (one knight pinned, and the remaining forces at risk of becoming overloaded trying to protect one another). The upshot is that White is powerless to prevent Black from further increasing her (already winning) material advantage, liquidating to a situation in which White has nothing left to play for or with. Resignation wouldn't be unreasonable for White.

To illustrate, if Black has the move (the OP doesn't say whose move it is), then 1...Bxc4 already yields 2.bxc4 Rxe3+ 3.Bxe3 Qxe3+, when Black has a queen and two pawns for a rook, and can win at her leisure. But even if White has the move, he is so tied up in knots that he can't stop that operation (or something similar). For example:

[FEN "2k5/1pp2p2/p5p1/3b4/2NBq2P/1PK1N1r1/P7/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

1.Re1
    ( 1.Rd3 Bxc4 2.bxc4 f5 3.Kd2 f4 )
1...Bxc4 2.bxc4 f5 *

Black can continue to pick up material with her queen in the open field, and White won't even have an army with which to dream of mounting an improbably comeback.


When to move/centralize king? [fen "8/3k1ppp/2p2n2/r2p4/p2Pp3/4P3/PP2BPPP/4K2R w - - 0 1 "]

At this position Stockfish has recommended Kd2, and noticing how the black bishops are off the board the king seems safer centralizing itself, but ultimately when do you decide to advance/center the king and especially over advancing pawns or getting major pieces in better positions?

The general rule of thumb is that: if the queens are off the board then it's generally safe to keep the kings central in order to use them as active pieces (specially in endgames) instead of tucking them away into a safe corner.

But that's just a general rule, and like any other rule in chess it is to be taken with caution, because at the end of the day everything still depends on the precise context (i.e. concrete assessment of main lines). Easiest cases to assess are when there are not many open files and diagonals towards the king, because otherwise, well-coordinated minor pieces can tactically exploit an exposed king's position to either win material or win tempi.

In your example, Kd2 is very natural because it successfully achieves two goals: it centralizes your king (so bringing it equally close to weak points such as b2 and f2) and it activates your rook. I emphasize successfully, because concretely speaking, there are currently no direct threats which prevent you from playing Kd2. If instead you castle (assuming it's legal in this position), sure the rook gets activated, but the semi-open b-file (e.g. ...Rb5 though currently prevented by the bishop on e2) will eventually bound your rook to the defense of the b2 pawn, potentially followed by a3, and that's a healthy initiative for black with a dangerously advanced a-pawn. But with the king on d2, your king starts covering your queenside (Kc3-Kb4, or Kc2), enabling your rook to create counter-threats.


Black only has pawns: Mate in what? In a standard opening position in chess, imagine that all Black pieces are removed except for the king and pawns.
[FEN "4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1"]

What is the shortest forced mate, assuming White starts?
I don't know the answer to this but it seems like a fun piece of chess trivia if it is solvable.

Having run stockfish for a couple of days, I can confirm there is at least a mate in 15.


How to create a useful ECO list? I am using SCID; the built-in ECO list is very incomplete and sometimes just weird. The Caro-Kann: Accelerated Panov Attack for example is called Caro-Kann: English Variation, the Carls-Botvinnik Defense hasn't even a name, and many sub-variations are just missing.

So I want to build my own list to use it in SCID.

I like the lichess opening list, but it is based on FEN positions, not on moves, and SCID needs the latter. I looked at the related questions here, and searched on Google, but couldn't find a good text file with moves and correct opening names.

How should I proceed? Maybe there is already such a file and I just haven't found it, or I can use FEN positions in SCID instead of moves?

I maintain one here that you might like to take a look at to see if it is any use for your purposes:

PGN for ECO descriptions with moves


Does Fritz 17 have extra features compared to othe Chessbase offerings? For me, the strength of the chess engine is not that important as today almost all of the top engines are beyond human level. I want to use a chess program for training and analysis of my games.
If I understand correctly, Chessbase publishes several chess programs all using the same GUI. So in terms of graphics and probably the menu options all their chess programs look the same.
However, when it comes to features such as analysis or training, does Fritz 17 have anything special over other programs such as Komodo 14? Can it produce better quality commentaries or more meaningful probes to the opening books to make analysis more human like?
There are several similar questions here but they only deal with user interface rather than specifically analysis and training.

Fritz 17 is really just the same Chessbase GUI bundled with a chess engine Fritz 17. Depend on what version you buy, your Chessbase product may come with MegaDatabase - a huge collection of master chess games. Fritz 17 doesn't give you that.
EDITED:
Fritz 17 is not a public chess engine in the sense that it only works for Chessbase. I'm not aware it runs on anything other than Chessbase GUI. But it's actually an advantage. The engine is able to offer things that a standard engine like Komodo can't do. A standard engine must comply with the UCI chess protocol, whereas a private engine bundled with GUI can do anything. The last time when I used Fritz, I remember it offered GUI advice not available in UCI protocol. I don't use it anymore because it doesn't run on Mac.
Komodo engine has skill levels.


What is %eval syntax in PGN I've seen two formats of [%eval] syntax in PGN:

[%eval 250,5] meaning white is +2.5 pawn up at depth 5
[%eval +0.25] means white is 0.25 pawn up

Is any of those mentioned by some PGN standard? Which one is more popular?

The PGN standard is found here; it does not mention the [%eval] syntax at all. It specifies comments starting with [ and ending with ] but no format for what's inside; that means that program are free to export and import these comments the way they want, without necessarily being compatible.

The only other places where evaluation is mentioned in standard, §13.8 and especially §16.2.5.6, centipawns are used (which would favor the first option):

  16.2.5.6: Opcode "ce": centipawn evaluation

  The opcode "ce" indicates the evaluation of the indicated position in centipawn units. It takes a single operand, an optionally signed integer that gives an evaluation of the position from the viewpoint of the active player; i.e., the player with the move.

It does not mention the ply depth at all.


Playing the man, not the board A recent thread used this term. Which notable GMs are known to have 'played the man'?

This is interesting because hindsight and computers are wonderful things. They should allow us to pick out "blunders" that didn't lead to losses.

Is chess a game against a person? If so, why do we look down our noses when we hear "playing the man"?

Being the one who said that, it's probably fitting I answer.

It all depends on your definition of 'playing the man and not the board.' If by that you mean ignoring your opponent's moves and the demands of the position, gambling on an unsound attack, no good player does that, certainly no Grandmaster.

OTOH, every player has preferences for typical positions, and in preparing for a game against a known opponent, most top players will 'slant' their work a little, aiming to get positions they're comfortable playing that might be uncomfortable for their opponents.

The classic case of this has got to be Kramnik's revival of the Berlin Defense against Kasparov in their world title match. Kramnik knew Kasparov well, knew he didn't like queenless middlegames with lots of maneuvering. So he added the Berlin to his arsenal for that match, and he won.

Note the subtlety, though. Kramnik didn't play bad moves; the Berlin is a perfectly playable defense that only fell out of favor because it tended to draw far more than other lines.

In my coaching I've run into too many youths who use 'playing the player, not the board' as an excuse to play "hope chess," making bad moves to generate a silly attack that in reality has no hope of succeeding against anyone with more than two synapses firing.

My advice to them has always been: "Learn how to play the board, first. Then, when you're good enough to understand what positions you're comfortable in and how to tell when someone else isn't, and only then, start to consider playing the player. Because only then will you be able to do so with any real hope of success."


Did Karpov really only wash his hair when he lost? At the recent Isle of Mann coverage, the topic of conversation was grandmaster superstitions, during which GM Simon Williams conveyed that Karpov would only wash his hair when he lost a game. Apparently he went over 40 games without a loss during a streak, leaving it up to our imagination on the consequences.

Now I know GM Simon Williams is quite the joker, so I'm inclined to believe that this is just one of his jibes, but is there perhaps any truth to this? I found some references to this with Google, but I'm not sure about how authoritative they are.

This story has a very long pedigree going back much further than the GingerGM.

The earliest reference I can find on the internet is from a November 1985 report on the Karpov v Kasparov match in People.com's archive - http://people.com/archive/anatoly-karpov-is-straining-in-vain-to-keep-his-world-chess-title-from-gary-kasparov-vol-24-no-20/

  Unlike his extroverted rival, Karpov — who has all the appeal of a
  cold fish —ignores the crowd. When he intends to play aggressively, he
  emerges onstage clad in a black suit. In keeping with a chess
  superstition, he hasn’t cut his hair during the current match. Indeed
  he seldom seems to wash it, and he has been losing weight to boot.

Paul Hoffman (https://paulhoffman.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/superstition-in-chess/) says he mentions it in his book "King's Gambit"

  In King’s Gambit, I write about superstitions at the board. Players
  who insist in wearing their lucky T-shirt or underwear or keeping
  score with the same special pen. World champion Anatoly Karpov was
  famous for not washing his hair when he was on a winning streak.
  Grandmaster Nigel Short said of Karpov: “Unfortunately, he had long
  tournaments where he never lost a game—the guy got greasy.”

The English Chess forum brought this up in a thread on "Poor Taste" - http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2045&start=30#p36136 - back in 2010.


Can't apply strategical knowledge in tournament games I'm currently in a tournament and I'm losing terribly. The problem is that I never implement the strategic things I learned in books (reassess your chess, my system, etc...)

I just calculate some random moves and hope my opponent blunders which he never does. Because of that I drew a game against a much lower rated person than me.

Also, I often overlook 2-move tactics that win a pawn.

Should I create a checklist of things to look at for every move? What could this checklist contain?

When I'm playing on lichess.org (blitz), I suddenly know everything and apply all of those things. I suspect, that I'm irrationally afraid of certain moves and then try to counter those moves.

Thinking Techniques that I give my students:

What new threat(s) has my opponent's last move created?  How can I answer it?(them?)
Is my King safe?  Is my opponent threatening to checkmate me in the next few moves?  Can I checkmate my opponent?
What threats can I set up?  How?
Have I seen this position, or a similar one before?
If so:  who stands better, and what is the best plan for continuing?
If not:  what are the outstanding features and elements of this position, and what plan(s) and method(s) of achieving it are available?
What is my play?  What specific position would I like to obtain?  How can I achieve my goal?  How can I improve my position?
How many good moves do I have?  Which one is best?  Can I capture material without penalty?  Can I develop a piece?  Can I employ any of the following tactical devices:  pin, fork, skewer, discovered attack, double attack, trap a piece, double check, etc.?
Is it safe to move my piece to the square I'm thinking about?  (Blunder check.)
Did I remember to start my opponent's clock and write down my move.

Notice that there is no mention of the positional elements.  Beginners should be more concerned with the tactical side and how to develop plans.  Strategic plans are formed based upon the position.  By studying games which have similar positions and learning how the masters continued should help you with strategic plans.
There is also plans which can be applied to completely different openings.  A knight sacrifice on f5 can be used in both the closed Benoni system and the open Dragon Sicilian.  By studying good annotated games, I mean the author saying in a simple language what (s)he is thinking, not pages of computer analysis, you will find great insight.


Who is/was the lowest ranked World Chess Champion? Boris Gelfand has just won the 7th of 12 games (all previous drawn) in the FIDE World Championship match against the current holder of the title Viswanathan Anand. This puts him in a good position to take the title. Gelfand is currently ranked 20th in the world; over the past decade he has averaged approximately 13th in the world (FIDE rankings).

If Gelfand does win, will his low ranking be without precedent or is this a common match-play aberration? Who has been the lowest ranked on the FIDE rankings list at the time of taking the title of World Chess Champion?

To answer my own question, numbers shown in bold below are the FIDE ranking of the player at the time they were crowned World Champion. Before 1964 there was no ranking system as far as I know. Ranking taken from FIDE rankings site and this chess USA education webpage.

Undisputed world champions 1886–1993
?? Wilhelm Steinitz (1886–1894)
?? Emanuel Lasker   (1894–1921)
?? José Raúl Capablanca (1921–1927)
?? Alexander Alekhine   (1927–1935, 1937–1946)
?? Max Euwe         (1935–1937)
?? Mikhail Botvinnik    (1948–1957, 1958–1960, 1961–1963)
?? Vasily Smyslov   (1957–1958)
?? Mikhail Tal      (1960–1961)
01 Tigran Petrosian (1963–1969) (first unofficial rankings list 1964)
02 Boris Spassky    (1969–1972)
01 Bobby Fischer    (1972–1975)
02 Anatoly Karpov   (1975–1985)
02 Garry Kasparov   (1985–1993)

Classical (PCA/Braingames) world champions 1993–2006
01 Garry Kasparov   (1993–2000)
03 Vladimir Kramnik     (2000–2006)

FIDE world champions 1993–2006
02 Anatoly Karpov   (1993–1999)
44 Alexander Khalifman  (1999–2000)
02 Viswanathan Anand    (2000–2002)
07 Ruslan Ponomariov    (2002–2004)
54 Rustam Kasimdzhanov  (2004–2005)
03 Veselin Topalov  (2005–2006)

Undisputed world champions 2006–present
09 Vladimir Kramnik     (2006–2007)
01 Viswanathan Anand    (2007–present)

Next undisputed world champion ?
04 Viswanathan Anand
20 Boris Gelfand

And as I write this Anand has won game 8.

Also, an interesting quote from Alexander Khalifman responding to his very low ranking at the time of his crowning FIDE world champion in 1999:

  "Rating systems work perfectly for players who play only in round robin closed events. I think most of them are overrated. Organizers invite the same people over and over because they have the same rating and their rating stays high."

Of course he would say that but perhaps some truth there.


Where to download chess master games(pgn format)/databases for android for free? Self explanatory title, Most of the sites i have visited, Only allow downloading one game at once, So if i want to download several, It takes ages. So, is there is a website which allows downloading several pgn master games at once?

http://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html

Allows you to download by player, by opening or by event where the game was played.


What is the green/red line in this analysis I ran a game of mine on:

http://analysis.cpuchess.com/

And I see that the analysis line changes from green to red and vice versa. What does it mean? Do the green lines mark the move was the engine's choice and red not? Does it make sense in the attached picture for 1400 and 1600 players?

It seems obvious to me that a red line indicates a bad move and a green line a good move. Graphically this shows in the fact that steep lines are red and horizontal lines are green. This might be slightly confusing because the graph shows the moves of both, black and white.

Because an engine always assumes best play when evaluating a position you can never improve your position by playing a move, best case scenario is you play the best move and the eval stays the same -> horizontal line. A mistake on the other hand changes the evaluation -> the line goes up if black moved, or down if white moved.

There is probably a cutoff for what constitutes a bad move, something like a 1.0 pawns evaluation drop seems likely.


Correct definitions of chess terms We have been assigned a project of writing a simple chess evaluation engine. The engine doesn't play chess and doesn't calculate variations - it just performs a basic static evaluation of input position. When preparing a technical documentation of the project we introduced some basic chess terms and definitions used inside the project. But our adviser said that certain terms are inadequate as they are not used by chess experts and we must try to use adequate terms instead. We ain't chess players and we need a help on giving correct terms to the definitions. The terms and definitions used so far are given below:
 The ideal range (IR) of a piece P standing on the square S is all the squares that P can go to from S
if we remove all other pieces from the board

The actual range (AR) of a piece P standing on the square S is all the squares that P can go to from S
in the actual current position.

A piece P is considered limited if its actual range is lesser than its ideal range.

A square S is considered fatal for a piece P1 if the following takes place:
1) S belongs to the actual range of P1
2) S is attacked with an opponent's piece P2

A square S is considered obstructed for a piece P1 if the following takes place:
1) S belongs to the ideal range of P1
2) S is occupied with other piece P2

Your terms have been defined by GM Bien in his book
https://b-ok.cc/book/869069/2e0f8a or
https://archive.org/details/chessrecipesfromthegrandmasterskitchen.
However, although mobility is a factor in many engines, it's no calculated by the method you're trying to accomplish.
Common features checked with an evaluation function are pawn structures, isolated, backward, and doubled pawns, king safety, and piece mobility/activity, rooks on the seventh, piece mobility and closeness to the center, and restriction of the opponent's pieces.
Not a comprehensive list, but this should be enough for a school project.  If you was a better list, search for chess evaluation function or read the source code of another's program, there's plenty of examples on the internet, especially on Github.com.


What are all of the possible tags for PGN? In a PGN file, there are tags like:

[Event "Tournament"]
[White "John Smith"]

And so on. I would like to know all the possible tags for PGN files so I can use them in a PGN file that my friend is demanding for.

PGN standards are described here. There are seven more-or-less required tags:

[Event]
[Site]
[Date]
[Round]
[White]
[Black]
[Result]

and many different supplemental tags, for example [WhiteElo] and [BlackElo] for the players' ratings, [Board] for the board number in team events, and [TimeControl] for information about the time-control used.


Scandinavian: 2. Nc3 d4 I started out with a simple opening: 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 and then the computer played 2... d4, surprising me, as I had never encountered it before. Since then, I've been trying to analyse the possible ways to see if I can make this turn in my favor or if it simply means my knight is going to go on a less active square; so I wanted to know what was the best way to counter this move. Please note, I am a casual player trying to get into more intermediate/advanced chess and if you have any programs or online suggestions on teaching me openings I would love to hear them. Thanks.

3.Nce2, followed by Ng3, Nf3, Bc4, O-O, etc. is reasonable.

A thematic game to reference is http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1186636

In general, however, 2.Nc3 isn't known as the best theoretical response.