What are some common chess traps? What are some of the most common traps to be aware of?

I am talking about examples such as

The Fishing Pole Trap
The Lasker Trap in the Albin Counter Gambit
The Rubinstein Trap in the Queen's Gambit Declined
The Noah's Ark Trap in the Ruy Lopez

While such traps are easy to avoid in long games, they can come up and be quite effective in bullet games.

One sort of not-always-obvious trap that players can fall into are pawn forks that aren't immediately apparent in a given position. For instance:

[FEN ""]

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Bc5 4.e3 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nge2 Be6 $2 7.d4 $1

Here White wins material since 7. d4! gains time against the bishop on c5, and can then push on to d5. I've actually won with this exact tactic in more than one OTB tournament game, even against A-class players; and in internet blitz it's happened countless times. If you're not used to playing the black side here, I think it can be easy to miss the shot before you let go of the bishop on e6. This same kind of scenario can arise in other positions with a lot of centrally-located minor pieces.


How do I obtain statistics on openings? I'm looking for statistics on the probability of a given opening being used in a game, and by what percent its use is growing or declining over some set timeframe, for example, over the previous year. How do I do this?

Any chess database (chessbase online, for example) can give you general statistics on how often a move is played in a given position, which you can use to get a feel for how popular an opening is.  To see an opening's popularity over time, and other more sophisticated metrics, you could use a commercial product like ChessBase, which has options like 'Opening Report' which gives you graphs of frequency over time, top player games in the position, and the like.


White's reply against Reti advance (2...d4) I enjoy playing 1.Nf3 as an interesting transposition device, and for other reasons, but after 1...d5 2. c4 don't find a proper answer to the advance variation, 2...d4:

[FEN ""]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4

Main answers are :

if 3. e3, Black can reply 3...Nc6 and some exchange of knights are usually occuring and the black queen is coming right in the middle of the board.
3. b4 looks interesting but only if Black wants to play in a reverse-Benko/Blumenfeld gambit style. After 3...f6, I don't see a nice answer for White.
3. g3 looks the best (rightly so, it's played the most according to databases) but what is the White plan if any? Or at least ideas. Maybe because I'm not familiar with this setup.

Am I missing something ? What would you play as White on the third move?! Thanks.

Focusing on the 3. g3 line, you have the Advance Variation of the Réti. There is an extensive discussion of this line available here, an offshoot of this page on Understanding the Réti.
These are the main lines listed there:

Main line:
a. 3...Nc6 4. Bg2 e5 5. d3 Nf6 6. O-O
b. 3...Nc6 4. Bg2 e5 5.O-O
c. 3...c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. d3
d. 3...g6 4. Bg2 Bg7
Critical line:
e. 3...Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O

The reason for the popularity of 3. g3 is that by advancing to d5, black has weakened their hold on the center, opening the way for control of the center diagonal with a fianchettoed bishop. As noted by Bad_Bishop this is a reverse Benoni, with the crucial difference being that you have an extra tempo to play with. Alexander Delchev has a good book on the Réti, with 28 pages devoted to the reverse Benoni (The Modern Réti). As Delchev notes, you're likely going to want to make the most of your extra tempo and play a very sharp game. Unfortunately, this counts against 3. g3 assuming Black counters with 3. ...Nc6!. If, however, black plays 3. ...c5 then you can counter with a strategy similar to the Benko (likewise for 3. ...g6). I'll start with an overview of the kingside fianchetto, and then delve into specifics.
General Strategy for a Kingside Fianchetto
The purpose of 3. g3 ... 4. Bg2 is to exert control on the central h1-a8 diagonal with the fianchettoed bishop. This bishop will become the lynchpin of your King's defense, since any move of a pawn in front of the king opens lines of attack, as well as a great tool for indirect control of the center in the hypermodern style. This bishop is very valuable and should not be traded without significant advantage as compensation. The e2 pawn is usually important to keep in place to help protect f3 and avoid pesky attacks from a knight (but this rule of thumb has many exceptions). A common strategy for trading off bishops is for black to double their queen behind their bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal and then push Bh3, attempting to pin the fianchettoed bishop to the rook on f1 (after castling) and trade with Bxg2. In the event of a queenside castle by black, you could wind up with a pawn attack on the h-file, aiming to break up the pawn structure of your fianchetto (this is the common line in the Yugoslav attack in the Sicilian Dragon). Since you're playing white here and already have a slight developmental lead, however, this strikes me as too slow to be practical.
You typically want to avoid a closed position to exploit the full power of your bishop's influence on the central diagonal. Usually you will attack queenside, with a pawn storm in slow games and careful maneuvering of minor pieces in quicker games. Given this, your pawn chain will generally extend from e2 to c4, giving you a structure similar to what you would find in the English, Reverse Dragon variation. Your big obstacle here will be how to open a file for your queenside rook, given that trading cxd5 is no longer an option. For this reason b4, leading to something like the Benko gambit, will be a popular choice in most of the lines following 3. g3.
Black Plays 3. ...c5
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 c5

With 3. ...c5 (as well as 3. ...g6) you win up in the reversed modern Benoni. This move serves two main purposes: it protects the pawn on d4 and allows development of the knight with Kc6 without blocking in the pawn on c7. You'll notice that black doesn't have a lot of control over the light squares -- this is something that will work to your advantage.
You want to stick to your plan of development play Bg2 and d3, getting the pawn structure I mentioned above. The main line above makes these moves immediately, with 4. Bg2 and 5. d3. Going this route will generally lead to a slower game where you launch a pawn storm on the queenside.
The more aggressive option is the reverse Benko Gambit given by 4. b4, preparing the way to open a file for your queenside rook. This is usually accepted with 4...cxb4. With 5. a3 you force Black's hand, and will usually be met with 5. ...bxa3 6. Bxa3.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 c5 4. b4 cxb4 5. a3 bxa3 6. Bxa3

At this point you should see that you've gotten a considerable amount for that pawn. You have your rook on an open file, with another open file right next door on b, and you have developed your queenside bishop to possibly assist in a queenside attack (but likely not).
Black's strategy at this point is usually going to involve 6. ...Nc6 followed by e5, at which point you'll be forced to trade bishops on f8. Your plan is going to involve finally completing the fianchetto with Bg2 and following up with d3 for the e2-c4 pawn chain -- extending towards your point of attack. See the linked page for more discussion.
Black Plays 3. ...g6
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 g6

Like 3. ...c5 this usually winds up in a variant of the reversed Modern Benoni, but a bit slower for Black. Given how sharp that defense is, the extra tempo can be exploited to great advantage. You're going to likely want to pursue a similar strategy involving a Benko-like push to b4, assuming that black eventually plays c5. Otherwise, it will likely transpose into the critical line (e) -- though Delchev disagrees that (e) is the line to worry about.
Black Plays 3. ...Nc6
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6

This is usually considered Black's best line. Your plan will stay largely the same. You'll follow with Bg2 and d3, leading to a queenside attack. I typically prefer to hold off on castling, so would probably opt for the sequence in the main line (a). The point of 4. ...e5 is obviously the same as the move of the pawn to c5 in the other variation -- to protect the pawn on d4. You might be tempted to attack with f4, but I'd (generally) avoid weakening your fianchetto with such a move. The central diagonal is still open for your fianchettoed bishop, but you'll have to pay attention to the c pawn since c6 is still on the table once the knight is moved -- weakening your bishop's control of the diagonal. Better to simply follow with 5. d3 or 5. O-O (with the move you don't make coming shortly after).
Suppose the sequence goes as follows: 4. Bg2 e5 5. O-O Nf6 6. d3. The move Delchev considers best for black here is 6. ...a5!, which pre-empts the Benko-like push 7. b4.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 e5 5. O-O Nf6 6. d3 a5!

This sequence is actually what leads Delchev to reject 3. g3 as being too slow (he comes to a similar conclusion regarding 3. e3 which is also best responded to with 3. ...Nc6 and popularly continued with 4. exd4 Nxd4 5. Nxd4 Qxd4 6. d3 c6! which tends to cramp White's position and restrict its knight).
This line is one case where the e3 pawn seems advisable. See this game between Kujawski and Kiolbasa to get an idea of how things might develop. The basic idea will be to follow with 7. e3, which is best answered by 7. ...dxe3! since allowing White to initiate the trade with something like 7. ...Be7 8. exd4 exd4 9. Na3 O-O 10. Nb5 aids your development by giving you the active knight.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 e5 5. O-O Nf6 6. d3 a5! 7. e3 dxe3 8. exd4 exd4 9. Na3 O-O 10. Nb5

Now, the Critical Line according to the linked page is 3. ...Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O

Delchev actually doesn't consider this, having concluded that the previous sequence involving 6. ...a5! as decisive against 3. g3. From my analysis, I think Black's best strategy here is to simply follow normal development. The pawn on d4 is awkwardly placed since it blocks the fianchettoed bishop. So, I'd figure this would continue with 6. ...Nf6 7. b4, preparing to pseudo-sac the b-pawn in order to open a file for the rook and establish an attack.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O Nf6 7. b4

If 7. ...Nxb4 then 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. Ne5 putting a lot of pressure on c6.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O Nf6 7. b4 Nxb4 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. Ne5

Black can go with either 9. ...O-O or 9. ...Bd7. Either way you capture 10. Nxc6 and eventually get Black's b-pawn or a nice lead in development and good initiative. For 9. ...O-O we have
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O Nf6 7. b4 Nxb4 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Qxc6

Whereas for 9. ...Bd7 there are two branches,
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O Nf6 7. b4 Nxb4 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. Ne5 Bd7 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. Qxc6

and
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. O-O Nf6 7. b4 Nxb4 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. Ne5 Bd7 10. Nxc6 bxc6

If you face the latter, I'd hold off on taking the pawn and develop your knight and rook with Nd2, Nb3, and Rb1.
Why does Delchev suggest 3. b4?
Though my main focus has been exploring 3. g3 and trying to provide some insights into the dynamics of play with a kingside fianchetto, Delchev recommends 3. b4 as the best move.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. b4!?

His reasoning is that it offers you the sharpest play and makes the most of the extra tempo. You essentially jump right into a Benko-like gambit and exert maximum pressure. Optimal play continues 3. ...f6! (as you note) then 4. e3 e5! where it gets tricky. You have to be bold. VERY bold (not for the faint of heart). 5. c5 positions White for another gambit and is best answered by 5. ...a5!.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. b4!? f6! 4. e3 e5! 5. c5 a5!

From this point, the main lines break into 6. Nxe5, 6. Bc4, 6. Bb5+.
The move 6. Nxe5 leads to a forced draw after 6. ...fxe5 7. Qh5+ Kd7 8. Qf5+ Ke8 9. Qh5+:
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. b4!? f6! 4. e3 e5! 5. c5 a5! 6. Nxe5 fxe5 7. Qh5+ Kd7 8. Qf5+ Ke8 9. Qh5+

With 6. Bc4 you face 6. ...axb4! then play naturally continues 7. exd4 exd4 8. O-O Bxc5 and now Black has two pawns and more space.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. b4!? f6! 4. e3 e5! 5. c5 a5! 6. Bc4 axb4! 7. exd4 exd4 8. O-O Bxc5

It seems the line following 6. Bb5+ is the key. It leads to very sharp play, and while not necessarily to White's advantage, the knowledge imbalance should tip the scales in White's favor. The theory ends with 6. ...c6! 7. Bc4 Ne7!? 8. O-O!? axb4 9. Bb2, at which point Delchev concludes that White has compensation for the pawn and the attack.
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. b4!? f6! 4. e3 e5! 5. c5 a5! 6. Bb5+ c6! 7. Bc4 Ne7!? 8. O-O!? axb4 9. Bb2

The critical line continues 9. ...dxe3 10. fxe3 Nf5 11. Qe2 Bxc5 12. d4 Ba7!:
[FEN " "]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. b4!? f6! 4. e3 e5! 5. c5 a5! 6. Bb5+ c6! 7. Bc4 Ne7!? 8. O-O!? axb4 9. Bb2 dxe3 10. fxe3 Nf5 11. Qe2 Bxc5 12. d4 Ba7!

At this point the three branches considered by Delchev are 13. a3?! e4, 13. dxe5 Nd7!, and 13. Nbd2 Qe7 -- none of which are simple or clear cut. Engines can hold the line for Black, but things are complicated to say the least. From what I can tell, the idea is a continuation of the theme of this variation: make things sharp, make things complicated, and hope you know more about the opportunities and pitfalls of the variation than your opponent. For what it's worth, I play the Sicilian Dragon with the same strategy in mind. If my opponent knows the Yugoslav attack -- and they usually do if they're any good -- I believe they have a slight edge on paper. But the opening is so sharp and bookish (I believe the book line is settled for something like 22 moves) that unless I'm against another Dragon specialist they can rarely avoid some mistake that I know how to exploit.
The Bottom Line
The line with 3. e3 is safe and slow, perhaps too slow (though I haven't discussed it in detail). At any rate, it isn't my style. 3. g3 has potential if you're able to exploit some of the gambit opportunities, but could be turned into a slower game in the 3. ...Nc6 line. 3. b4 is very aggressive and sharp, but an interesting option if that's your thing. I'd probably go with 3. g3 since I'm more familiar with that sort of pawn structure and I'm a big fan of keeping the pawn structure similar across my various openings/defenses. If, however, you're not comfortable playing with fianchettoed kingside bishops and aggressive gambits then it might be a bit much for you to jump right into.


Which chess site has the most rapid players? It is common advise that a chess player trying to improve should limit their blitz chess. Online chess is filled with people playing blitz and bullet and I often have trouble finding players to play longer time controls. Is there a chess site with a lot of rapid players? I'm thinking that unfortunately, chess.com is the best option, but sometimes I feel like it takes too long to pair up, and the opposition is not so strong. I've heard that ICC isn't too good for long time controls either. Anyone have any information?

The vast majority of online chess games played on any site are played with very short time controls. Because of this fact, if you want to play longer games, you will have to wait longer, on average, than you would for a game shorter time control.

If you are looking for quality chess games and you want relatively long time controls and decently high-rated players then you can try limiting your searches to high rated players.

You can select custom rating ranges on lichess and on ICC. This will allow you to, for example, filter out lower-rated opponents if you want a strong opponent.

Another possibility is to play in the long-time-control tournaments that most popular chess sites have on a regular basis. Both ICC and lichess have regular tournaments with relatively long time control. The advantage of this is that once the tournament starts, usually the wait time between games is not that long.


What are the most popular defences White should be prepared to fight against in the Ruy Lopez? Could you put the move orders as well as briefly explain the idea of the defenses?

The mainlines and key ideas are highlighted in wikipedia. The article covers:

Morphy Defence: 3...a6

Exchange Variation: 4.Bxc6
Norwegian Defence: 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5
Variations combining 3...a6 and ...Bc5
Steinitz Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 d6
Schliemann Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 f5
Arkhangelsk Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7
Mackenzie Variation 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.d4
Russian Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6
Open Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4

Closed Defence 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7

Delayed Exchange Variation Deferred: 6.Bxc6
Centre Attack: 6.d4
Worrall Attack: 6.Qe2
Averbakh Variation: 6.Re1 d6
Trajković Variation: 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7
Marshall Attack: 7...0-0 8.c3 d5

Main line: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0

Pilnik Variation: 9.d3
Yates Variation and Bogoljubow Variation: 9.d4
Chigorin Variation: 9.h3 Na5
Breyer Variation: 9.h3 Nb8
Zaitsev Variation: 9.h3 Bb7
Karpov Variation: 9.h3 Nd7
Kholmov Variation: 9.h3 Be6
Smyslov Variation: 9.h3 h6
Smyslov Variation: 9.h3 Qd7

Black defences other than 3...a6

Cozio Defence: 3...Nge7
Smyslov Defence: 3...g6
Bird's Defence: 3...Nd4
Steinitz Defence: 3...d6
Schliemann Defence: 3...f5
Classical Defence: 3...Bc5
Berlin Defence: 3...Nf6


Elo rating and fide rating I am an amatuer chess player and I want to know the difference between Elo rating and FIDE rating (for example, a 2500 Elo rating is needed for GM title).

The Elo rating system is a rating system for two-person, zero-sum games based on the assumption that performance is normally distributed. That is, a player's performance is expected to follow a normal distribution. For FIDE the mean = the player's rating and standard deviation = 2000/7 = 285.7.

It was developed by Arpad Elo and first implemented by the USCF at a meeting in St Louis (where else?) in 1960. So, the USCF rating system is the original Elo rating system. It was later adopted by FIDE in 1970. Many other federations also implement Elo rating systems and it is also used in other sports, for instance soccer.

It has since been discovered that players' performances are not strictly normally distributed. Lower rated players have a better chance of an upset result against higher rated players than their ratings suggest and so the basic system has been tweaked by different federations (including FIDE) over the years. Varying k factors are one variable that is changed.

Elo rating systems predict relative performance, not absolute performance. Hence FIDE, USCF, Lichess, Chess24 ratings, although all elo rating systems, are not comparable. All you can say is that if player A has a higher rating in one implementation than player B then you expect that in a different implementation player A will again have a higher rating than player B although it is not certain. The likelihood will depend on the difference in ratings and the standard deviations of the systems.

So, the bottom line is that Elo rating is a system of rating and FIDE rating is a particular implementation of Elo rating.


How long is a miniature? A miniature is a short game of chess. Depending on the forums you ask in or the blogs you look at, the length of the miniature is always a problem.

Is there a standard number of moves under which the game is considered to be a miniature? Is there a reason that number is special?

Not even Wikipedia has a concrete definition regarding this aspect of the game.

I have an old book in my house, 500 King's Gambit Miniatures, and in the first pages the games, at the least, didn't pass 30 moves. I think it is a very good definition.


Could you estimate Napoleon's (or other historic persons) Elo on the base of his known games? I wonder if there is a possibility to calculate/estimate the Elo rating Napoleon would have today by analysing his known games? Is it possible at all to calculate an Elo rating only with some documented games, if so, how many games would you need to give a good estimation? Is there a list of Elo estiminations for historic persons which are known as good Chess Players before Elo rating was used?

I wonder if it is somehow possible to estimate the strength Napoleon would have even it is not an Elo value. If you could theoretically play a game against him today, with all the chess-knowledge and strategies discovered after his death, how good would you need to be to have a chance?

There are efforts to calculate the playing strength of pre-Elo players on the basis of their games. See for example this paper by Kenneth Regan.

But if you look at the "intrinsic performance rating" of historic players on page 5, you will find that they vary quite a bit even for the same player at different points in time.

Personally I find it quite unlikely that the performance of Zukertort or Steinitz varied by over 300 points against different players.

To estimate the playing strength of a player who left only very few (and selected at that!) games, these methods seem to be nowhere precise enough.

Edit: I found another paper but this method seems to end up with a rating between 2700 and 2800 no matter what, which doesn't inspire much confidence.


Can you compile Stockfish on Windows without Unix/GNU? Can you compile Stockfish on Windows (without Unix/GNU), perhaps via Visual Studio?
The official "how to compile Stockfish on Windows" suggests using MinGW (see links below) and I am looking for a Windows-specific project build of Stockfish if it exists.
Links:

Compiling Stockfish on Windows (dead link, verified on 26.12.2020);
Compiling Stockfish yourself from the sources (link added on 26.12.2020);
MinGW - Minimalist GNU for Windows.

The stockfish source code can be easily compiled with gcc, Visual Studio, XCode etc. In Visual Studio, create an empty project, use the mouse to drag all files in Stockfish into the project then press the compile button. Very simple.

The only reason that Visual Studio is not listed in the documentation is that the website maintainer (Daylen Yang) is a Mac and Linux user. He doesn't have Windows installed so he didn't care about it.


Is the first game of World Chess Championship 2013 the shortest game in WCC history? The first game of the 2013 World Chess Championship, Carlsen vs. Anand, ended in a draw after just 16 moves.

Is this shortest game in the history of the World Chess Championship?

There have been some shorter ones, for instance

Kasparov-Kramnik (2000), game 7, draw in 11 moves.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252046

Kasparov-Anand (1995), game 18, draw in 12 moves.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1241980

Karpov-Kasparov (1984), game 29, draw in 13 moves.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1293014

The shortest games in WCC history I believe are the two 10 move draws at the end of the 1963 Botvinnik-Petrosian match, but it's clear Botvinnik had more or less given up the match before those games.

The shortest decisive game in a WCC match is reportedly Anand-Gelfand (2012), game 8, in which black resigned before his 17th move:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1666558


How is White winning in this OTB position? Can anyone kindly guide me on how White has won in this picture of the end of an OTB game?

In the picture, it could be either the two simply agreeing to the draw, or black resigning, depending on who has the move. Both are typically followed by a handshake.

White to move is a draw.

 [FEN "8/3k4/5p2/3K1P1p/7P/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kc5 {The only move} Kc7 {Again the only move.} 2. Kd5 Kd7= {Both sides are forced to repeat here, and it is a draw.}

Now, black to move loses as black has to cede space, and then material.

 [FEN "8/3k4/5p2/3K1P1p/7P/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

 1... Ke7 2. Kc6 Ke8 3. Kd6 Kf7 4. Kd7 Kf8 5. Ke6 Kg7 6. Ke7 Kg8 7. Kxf6 Kf8 8. Kg5 Kf7 9. Kxh5 Kf6 10. Kg4 $18


Guidelines for preparation for a Blitz tournament I have been playing chess for many years now in with my friends and online. But I will be participating in first ever chess tournament of my life in few days. It is a FIDE rated Blitz tournament.

Since I have never played any tournament at such a high level, I wanted few tips from you all. Basically Do's and Dont's would help me a lot.

When I play online, all my moves are automatically recorded and also I dont have to check the time control as  automatically stops after my moves. But when I will be playing tournament, I will need to do that manually. How much difference would that make?

Know your openings!

You didn't mention time control, but it doesn't matter, you just may not allow yourself to waste precious time on opening.

Avoid sharp, theoretical lines if you can not memorize them fully.

I usually avoid such openings because if you face a novelty/variation you haven't seen so far, there goes precious time on thinking for a move that will "keep me in the game", and usually you will end up caught in the endless loop of searching the only move that "keeps you in the game".

Take solid lines that give equal chances, do not worry about possibility of a draw. Since this is blitz, people make mistakes/blunder more often, and do not forget that time trouble is a huge factor here.

Your job is to play the opening as fast as you can, without any mistake, so you can get a playable middle game with equal chances and concrete and simple play/counterplay.

In the middle game, simplify a little, so you can protect yourself from sudden tactical blasts and to reduce the calculation (believe me, in blitz, time flies and before you know it, you are in the time trouble ), but keep enough peaces on board so you can complicate if you feel you can win ( exchanging 2 minor pieces would suffice since it greatly simplifies, but still leaves you with good chances to complicate if you really need a win).

BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN EXCHANGING PIECES!!!

In blitz, people often offer exchanges to simplify, so always assess the resulting position that will arise after the exchange.

This method will give you the best results-offer them unfavorable exchange ( e.g. offer your bad bishop for their good one ). You will be surprised how many people make wrong exchanges!

Practice tactical blows on the real games, NOT on the artificial studies/problems and try to find those examples related to the openings you play.This will additionally protect you from sudden blows.

And again, prepare openings thoroughly! ( I just can't emphasize this enough ). You will want to use your time only for calculation, not on the opening.

EDIT ( updated on December, 20th 2013 ):

About the clock:

Do not forget to press it when you play the move-most beginners/those who are not used to clock, forget it.

What will happen is this:

After you make the move, without activating the opponents clock, he/she will just stare at the board like an idiot, doing nothing.

You will start wondering what is going on-are you winning so he/she thinks how to save the game, or did you play something utterly stupid so your opponent calculates the refutation?

Neither is happening! Your opponent saw you not pressing the clock, so patiently waits for your time to expire, in order to claim win due to you exceeding the time limit.

Yeah I know...there are all kind of people out there :)

As for notation, as soon as you play your move, press your clock first, and then write down the move.

Why? Because if you play blitz at more than 5 minutes each, you do not have to write down moves if you have less than 5 minutes ( double check this, since it was a long time I have played blitz, and this information was told to me by a friend ), and your time is always the highest priority in blitz, you can always write down the move after the game.

If I recall correctly, in 5 minute blitz you do not have to write down moves ( again, double check this ).

Hopefully this will help you.

Good luck!

Best regards.


Bughouse rating formula Is there rating formula like ELO but for bughouse chess?

Yes, you take the same formula and do absolutely the same calculations. Elo formula has very little to do with chess (except of it is used to calculate rating in chess). You can take any event that has win/lose/draw and apply elo formula to calculate the rating.

In bughouse you play in a team of two, so you will end up with a rating for a team.


What are the differences between tactical and positional chess? Does one style of play have an advantage/disadvantage over the other?

Are today's GMs mostly tactical players or positional players?

What GMs should I follow if I want to be more of a tactical player or positional player?

I don't think one style has an advantage, or at the GM level, there would only be one style; the other would be extinct.

The very definition of a tactical player is Mikhail Tal AKA 'The Wizard of Riga.'  Others include Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov.  Anatoly Karpov and Tigran Petrosian are great examples of positional players.

Fischer himself said that tactics flow from a superior position.

Edit: I'd like to add that any of the top players can find the best move in a given situation. Where positional versus tactical considerations come into play is where there isn't a best move, as such.  That is, when there are several reasonable candidate moves.  Then some players show a positional tendency while others show a tactical tendency.  Petrosian, who is probably the most defensive GM, was more than able to uncork technical savagery if his opponent let him.  However, he preferred to tighten the noose instead of looking for a brilliancy.


How much time did Capablanca have / use on the clock to refute Frank Marshall's Marshall Attack over the board? Capablanca's over the board refutation of Frank Marshall's deep home preparation, in what was later called the Marshall Attack, is widely regarded as one of the great defensive masterpieces of all time.

The question is, is it known how much time Capablanca had on the clock to do so and how much time he actually used for the game?

Here's the actual game -

   [FEN ""]
   [White "Capablanca"]
   [Black "Marshall"]
   [Date "1918"]

   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O
   8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 Nf6 12. Re1 Bd6 13. h3 Ng4
   14. Qf3 Qh4 15. d4 Nxf2 16. Re2 Bg4 17. hxg4 Bh2 18. Kf1 Bg3 19. Rxf2 Qh1
   20. Ke2 Bxf2 21. Bd2 Bh4 22. Qh3 Rae8 23. Kd3 Qf1 24. Kc2 Bf2 25. Qf3 Qg1
   26. Bd5 c5 27. dxc5 Bc5 28. b4 Bd6 29. a4 a5 30. axb5 axb4 31. Ra6 bxc3
   32. Nc3 Bb4 33. b6 Bxc3 34. Bxc3 h6 35. b7 Re3 36. Bxf7

I am currently doing some research on the subject and hopefully can provide a more complete answer later, but apparently Capablanca did not invest much time. As he said (extracted from this compilation) about his tenth move:

  I thought for a little while before playing this, knowing that I would be subjected thereafter to a terrific attack, all the lines of which would be of necessity familiar to my adversary. The lust of battle, however, had been aroused within me. I felt that my judgment and skill were being challenged. I decided that I was honor bound, so to speak, to take the pawn and accept the challenge, as my judgment told me that my position should then be defensible. – Jose Raul Capablanca

Edit 1: The tournament time controls on the late XIX and early XX centuries were similar (but not exactly the same) to the Classical time control, that is, 120 minutes for 30/40 moves, plus an additional 60 minutes for the next 15/20 moves (with obviously no time added back then, and occasionally 15 extra minutes were added for the rest of the game once the final control was reached). This is backed up by a few links to tournaments like Vienna 1898, Paris 1900 (1), Paris 1900 (2), Ostend 1907, St. Petersburg 1914 and Carlsbad 1929 (and I'll stop the counting here). There were surely many more with this 30 moves on 120 minutes plus 15 moves on 60 minutes or similar time controls.

Thus, I think it's reasonable to assume that Capablanca and Marshall were playing this time control. Now, the opening phase of the game is mainly an automatic one, where if still on book you simply blitz the lines you like. As my coach says, when you know a theoretical line, you don't waste much time thinking about the correctness of such line, you just play it out. Based on actual games from GMs, they invest around 15-30 seconds per move on the opening, that is, the first 10-15 moves (sometimes even more if they enter a big theoretical line). So we can safely assume that Capablanca's time had been reduced by more or less 5-10 minutes by the time he faced the decision to take or not the pawn on the tenth move.

If we assume this reasoning correct, I think that Capablanca had 110 minutes for the remaining 20 moves.

Edit 2: As the member batgirl of Chess.com pointed out to me, the information about the time controls for the tournament is available in the tournament book "International Masters' Tournament of the Manhattan Chess Club, October-November, 1918". According to it's 11th page, the rules governing the games at the event were:

  THE CODE AND SUPPLEMENTARY RULES.

  The following is a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the players and committeemen, held the day before play was scheduled to begin, and at which a number of special regulations were discussed and adopted to supplement the Revised Draft of the American Chess Code:

  At a meeting of the competitors and committee (Messrs. Marshall, Morrison and Whitaker being absent), held at the Manhattan Chess Club on the afternoon of October 20, it was voted to adopt the Revised Draft of the American Chess Code (British Chess Code) as the Code to govern this tournament, insofar as its terms do not conflict with any of the special regulations adopted at this meeting and hereinafter mentioned.

  After a discussion of the advisability of the adoption of the rule providing for the moving of the King as a penalty for illegal moves, it was voted to apply this rule (or "Penalty C" of the Code) only to such instances where the illegality affects sealed moves.

  It was decided that a game may be declared drawn at any time by mutual consent of opponents.

  Where any player sets up a claim (as for a draw because of a threefold repetition of position), which, upon investigation, turns out to be false, such player making false claim shall have charged against his playing time on his clock so much of the time as may be required for examination and demonstration of the claim, provided, however, he is not penalized more than thirty minutes for any one such false claim.

  There shall be no analysis by any of the competitors of pending games, either their own or those of other competitors, during the regular sessions of play and the evening intermission, within the confines of the Manhattan Chess Club rooms.

  The time limit shall be Thirty (30) moves in the first two hours and fifteen (15) moves each hour thereafter.

  Any claim for exceeding the time limit must be made before the player, against whom the claim is directed, has completed his 30th, 45th, 60th, 75th (etc.) move. It shall be the duty of the Umpire to declare forfeited any game the moment a player has exceeded the time limit.

  In the event of a player's withdrawing from the tournament, the games played by him up to that time shall stand as scored, if at the time of his withdrawal he shall have completed his schedule of games for the entire first round, in which case all of his other scheduled games shall be forfeited to his opponents; if he has not completed the first round (meaning half of the tournament), all of the games played by him shall be cancelled.

  Adjourned games shall be played on Mondays in the order of the schedule. All adjourned games must be played to completion before any games of the second round (or half) of the tournament are begun.

  The regular hours for play on six days of each week, exclusive of Monday, shall be from 2.30 P. M. to 6.30 P. M. and from 8 P. M. to 11 P. M. On "Mondays the same hours shall obtain for adjourned games.

  Appeals from decisions of the umpire shall be submitted to the referee by the tournament committee of the Manhattan Chess Club and at the discretion of the said committee.

  The entry fee shall be $20.00 for each player and shall be returned upon completion of his schedule of games, and forfeited if such schedule be not completed.

  The prizes shall be: First, $300; second, $200; third, $100; fourth, $50. Non-prize winners shall receive payment at the rate of $5 for each point scored.

  Prizes for the most brilliant games: First, $30; second, $20.

Thus, there were 60 minutes added to the clock for every 15 extra moves on the board after the 30th one.


Why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5? Why isn't 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5 a good move? It gains space in the center. As beginners we are told that after 1.d4, 1...d5 directly opposes White's ambitions in the center, stopping d4-d5 (similarly, in some way, to 1.e4 1...e5)

In this case, because you probably cannot maintain it, and it will become weak. The principles of not making too many pawn moves, and developing your k-side and pieces quickly take precedence. It may also be too early to determine that d5 will be the most useful move.

   [Title ""]
[FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. d5 e6 3. c4 (3. Nc3 Bb4 4. dxe6 fxe6) exd5 4. cxd5 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 (5. Bd2? Nxd5) 5... O-O {Black is already slightly ahead in development} 6. Nf3 d6 {White has had to artificially isolate the d-pawn, and it is weak. He also still had to develop the k-side, and could easily come under attack.}

P.S. To answer Trolly's question below: While the position is only slightly better for black, and hardly lost, his evaluation of the position is not really correct for several reasons. First, black is ahead in development right now, and white is surely going to need to make some concessions in order to finish developing in that position. Second, being ahead in development, there is little chance that white will be able to exploit any current weaknesses black may have anytime soon...you have to be able to get at a weakness to be able to attack it. If white does castle king-side, then the open rook-file is actually useful for black. Lastly, and this is very important, black may play d5 next move, and all of a sudden, d4 is a threat depending on what white's next move is. He may also get a big center after d5 with a subsequent e5. How exactly do you propose to castle queen-side with both Q and B wanting the d2 square? (give a sample line) because I really do not see it happening as easily as you think, and black may just throw in Bc3 if you have to capture with the b-pawn, and to prevent that is going to make white develop unnaturally.


What chess games have violated commonly accepted principles? There are certain chess principles that generally should be accepted and followed. I was wondering If anyone knew of any game or games that have gone against these principles and still resulted in a win from the player who violated the principles?

Here are some principles we teach beginners but grandmasters regularly break.

Don't bring your queen out too early.

This principle was successfully broken by Korchnoi in an important match.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Candidates Semifinal"]
[Site "Évian-les-Bains FRA"]
[Date "1977.07.16"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Lev Polugaevsky"]
[Black "Viktor Korchnoi"]
[StartPly "8"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3. e4 Bb7 4. Qc2 Qh4 5. Nd2 Bb4 6. Bd3 f5
7. Nf3 Bxd2+ 8. Kf1 Qh5 9. Bxd2 Nf6 10. exf5 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Nc6
12. Bc3 O-O 13. Re1 Qh3+ 14. Ke2 Rae8 15. Kd1 e5 16. dxe5 Nxe5
17. Be2 Nxf3 18. Qd3 Rxe2 19. Rxe2 Qg2 20. Rhe1 Nxe1 21. Kxe1
Qxh2 22. Re7 Qg1+ 23. Ke2 Qg4+ 24. Ke1 h5 25. Qg3 Qxg3
26. fxg3 Rf7 27. Bxf6 gxf6 28. Re8+ Kg7 29. Kf2 Kh6 30. b4 Kg5
31. Ra8 Kxf5 32. Rxa7 d6 33. a4 Ke6 34. a5 bxa5 35. Rxa5 f5
36. c5 Rh7 37. cxd6 cxd6 38. b5 h4 39. gxh4 Rxh4 40. Ra8 Rb4
41. Rb8 Kd5 42. Kf3 Rb3+ 43. Kf4 Kc5 44. Rc8+ Kxb5 45. Kxf5
Re3 46. Kf4 Re1 47. Rd8 Kc5 48. Rc8+ Kd4 49. Kf3 d5 50. Kf2
Re5 51. Ra8 Kc3 52. Ra3+ Kb4 53. Ra1 d4 54. Rc1 d3 55. Rc8 d2
56. Rb8+ Kc3 57. Rc8+ Kd3 58. Rd8+ Kc2 59. Rc8+ Kd1 0-1

Develop your pieces!

Here we see Polugaevsky successfully play his own variation where he uses the queen to grab a pawn, and then start to think about developing the minor pieces around move 15.

[FEN ""]
[Event "USSR"]
[Site "USSR"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vladimir Zagorovsky"]
[Black "Lev Polugaevsky"]
[StartPly "22"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6
7. f4 b5 8. e5 dxe5 9. fxe5 Qc7 10. exf6 Qe5+ 11. Be2 Qxg5
12. O-O Ra7 13. Qd3 Rd7 14. Ne4 Qe5 15. c3 Bb7 16. Bf3 Bxe4
17. Bxe4 Bd6 18. g3 gxf6 19. Kh1 Bc5 20. Rad1 Kf8 21. Rfe1 Qg5
22. a4 Kg7 23. axb5 Bxd4 24. cxd4 Qxb5 25. Qe3 Rhd8 26. d5 Nc6
27. Rf1 exd5 28. Bd3 Qxb2 29. Rf5 Qd4 30. Qc1 Ne5 31. Rh5 Nxd3
32. Qh6+ Kg8 33. Qxh7+ Kf8 34. Rxd3 Qe4+ 35. Kg1 Qxh7 36. Rxh7
a5 37. Rh4 d4 38. Kf2 f5 39. Ke2 Ke7 40. Kd2 Ke6 41. Ra3 Rd5
42. Kd3 Ke5 43. Ra2 Ra8 44. Rh6 Rb5 45. Re2+ Kd5 46. Rf2 Rb3+
47. Kc2 Rab8 48. Rd2 a4 49. Ra6 a3 50. Ra7 R8b7 51. Ra8 Rb2+
52. Kd3 R2b3+ 53. Ke2 Re3+ 54. Kd1 Rb1+ 55. Kc2 Rb2+ 56. Kd1
d3 57. Rd8+ Ke4 0-1

Don't move the same piece twice in the opening.

Although Kasparov didn't win this game, he should get an award for moving the same knight 5 times in the 9 first moves.

[FEN ""]
[Event "21st Linares"]
[Site "Linares ESP"]
[Date "2004.02.20"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Bc4 Be7 5. d3 Nf6 6. Nd2 d6
7. Nf1 Nd7 8. Ne3 Nb6 9. Ned5 O-O 10. O-O Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Rb8
12. a4 Be6 13. f4 exf4 14. Bxf4 Bg5 15. b3 Bxd5 16. Bxg5 Qxg5
17. Bxd5 Nb4 18. Bc4 d5 19. exd5 Nxd5 20. Qf3 Qe3+ 21. Rf2
Qxf3 22. Rxf3 Nb6 23. Bb5 a6 24. a5 axb5 25. axb6 Rfc8 26. Ra5
c4 27. Rxb5 cxd3 28. c4 Rd8 29. Rd5 Rxd5 30. cxd5 Rd8 31. Rxd3
Rd6 32. Kf2 Kf8 33. Ke3 Rxb6 34. Kd4 Ke7 35. Kc5 Rh6 36. h3
Rg6 37. g4 Rg5 38. b4 h5 39. Rd4 hxg4 40. hxg4 f5 41. gxf5
Rxf5 42. b5 Rf6 1/2-1/2


D5 move closing my bishop activity I would like to know why playing d5 in these two positions is useful for me (Black).

You do not have enough control of e4, and if white gets to play e4-e5 here, your king is a goner. It is an absolute must here to stop that plan, and the only way to do it is d5. Making your Bb7 bad for now pales in comparison to letting your king get mated, or loss of significant material, which will happen after e4-e5.


Which openings lines are both sharp and drawish? Two knights defence, Wilkes Barre (Traxler) variation seems to me to be a sharp line which is quite drawish. After the following position:
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "15"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2 6. Kxf2 Nxe4 7. Kg1 Qh4 8. g3

Black usually continues with 8... Nxg3 and some statistics show that more than 2/3 of the games in this position ended with a draw. I would call this line drawish. But as the same time, it also gives me the impression to be a sharp line (is it not?).
My question is, are there any other lines that are both sharp and drawish?

Typically by sharp you mean highly tactical lines, with few alternative moves, where any wrong move leads to immediate defeat.

A sharp and sound opening would be one that is so far analyzed that you can claim to lead to more or less equal position.

Many sharp openings tend to be drawish if players know what they are doing. Reasons for that:

because moves are basically forced, you have a small branching factor and it is possible to analyze such openings much further, sometimes all the way to a perpetual or very drawish endgame
sharp lines are usually found in open positions, which tend to favour exchanges. The fewer pieces on the board, the more drawish it often gets.

I have a limited repertoire, but I believe there are many lines in the Sicilian which are said to be drawish.

In any case for  many mortal chess players this is not an issue as it is unlikely that games are played perfectly through  to the draw. Also people at lower level tend to fight for a win playing black and white, so there is not so much of a risk running into a drawish line as white (unles you play a much lower rated player).


How to highlight current and previous move of the player in chessboard.js? I want player 2 to see what last move player 1 has moved. The best way to do this would be to highlight the last move. How is it possible in chessboard.JS?

I wasn't familiar with chessboard.js - but a quick search of their site turned up an example entitled Piece Highlight 1, which seems to do just that.  The link includes both javascript and HTML examples, depending on which you're looking for.

Since links are not permanent, here is the HTML example:


Is a queen for two rooks reasonable in this position? What are the disadvantages? Is Qxe8 reasonable?
I always wanted to trade off a queen against two rooks and the engine likes this idea, but am I leaving my pawns unprotected in this situation?
It would be hard to protect those with rooks.

This is a losing position for White. Normally, trading for a queen against two rooks is reasonable but Black has an extra knight here...

The best objective move sequence would be:

1.Qxe8 Rxe8 2.Rxe8+ Kf7 3.Re2 Qb6+

White's position after 3...Qb6+ is absolutely hopeless - the rooks have no useful squares. White has no counterplay, no attacks, no chance for Black to make a mistake. Very easy win for Black.

If this were a GM game, the White player would have resigned. Here, your best swindle move is 1.Qd3. By keeping the queen on the board, you --might-- be able to generate a miracle comeback.

A possible line:

1...Nxf4?? 2.Rxe8! Nxd3 3.Rexf8# checkmate!

The above line is not impossible in a blitz game. But it wouldn't have happened if you played 1.Qxe8.

Don't follow the computer analysis. Computer lines are meaningless in a lost position. You will need to try a human move. Don't trade your queen for the rooks. You need it to give troubles for the Black players.


Does White have any feasible way to break through this position? I recently played as Black in a 1+0 blitz game on Lichess in which the below position was reached.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. d4 d5 4. e5g Nfd7 5. f4 Nb6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. O-O g6 9. Bxc6 Bxc6 10. Ne2 Bg7 11. g4 Qe7 12. g5 a6 13. b3 Nd7 14. c4 b5 15. c5 Bb7 16. a4 c6 17. axb5 axb5 18. Rxa8+ Bxa8 19. b4 O-O 20. Be3 Qd8 21. Qc2 Qb8 22. Ra1 Bb7 23. h4 Qc7 24. Ng3 Ra8 25. Rxa8+ Bxa8 26. h5 Kf8 27. h6 Bh8 28. Kg2 Qa7 29. Qd2 Ke7 30. Kh3 Kd8

A lockdown position eventually ensued, and I offered a draw to my opponent, even though I theoretically could have won on time but I am a fair player, and they accepted.

The final position is one in which I see no foreseeable advance for either side. Black shouldn’t even think of making one, with a useless dark-squared bishop and an imprisoned light-square one. White has a knight pair, which could jump past Black lines, though it would be hard to do so. A good knight outpost is on a5. Their dark-square bishop is also useless. Therefore, White has an small advantage, but it would hard to due with dancing queens. If exchanged, then there is much less of a chance of an advance.

If the game was continued between two other people who were given infinite time, could White, in theory, ever commence a winning breakthrough into Black’s camp, or can Black hold a draw? Ignore the 50-move rule if you must.

I don't see any way for White to make progress. There are a few ways but all don't lead to anything:

1) Maneuvering a knight to f6. This just gives Black an opportunity to exchange his bad h8-bishop. After ...Bxf6 gxf6, Black puts his knight on f8 and plays ...Ke8, defending the f7- and h7- pawns.

2) Playing the f5 pawn sac. The purpose of this would be to plant a knight on f4. But here Black just plays ...exf5 and again employs ...Nf8, defending the e6- and g6- squares.

3) Putting a knight on a5. This doesn't really due much and hardly warrants a response from Black.

I also let Stockfish think to depth 68. The evaluation it gave is 1.97, which sounds bad, except it gave this same evaluation before it reached depth 30. This suggests White has no way to make any progress, meaning most likely the result is a draw (though it doesn't prove it).

Btw, in a 1+0 game trying to flag your opponent in a dead drawn position is completely fine. Aiming to win on time in bullet is a huge part of that time control. I'd only considering playing on there an unfair practice maybe in longer time controls (say over 5+0).


Outcome of a game in case of an illegal checkmate Suppose that, in an amateur rapid play tournament (where supervision is inappropriate), the following position appears:

[fen "5K2/8/1q6/1N1k4/8/8/8/2R1R3 w - - 1 1"]

1. Re5+? Qc5+? {illegal} 2. Rxc5#

The players do not agree on the result of the game. White claims he won in virtue of the rule:

5.1.a.
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

Black claims the game is a draw in virtue of the rule:

Appendix A.4.d.
If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Remark that the position after 2.Rxc5# is indeed illegal in virtue of the rule:

3.10.c.
A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

The referee remarks that there is a discussion about a game, moves to this table and listens to both claims. What is the correct decision?
A related question: suppose that the referee remarks the illegal position after 1.... Qc5+, and stays near this table, and assists to the move 2.Rxc5#  What is the correct decision in this case?

The mate stands and white wins. Although the position both before and after the mating move is illegal the mating move itself is legal therefore article 5.1.a is satisfied.

If an arbiter observes black playing 1...Qc5 then they declare the game lost for black for playing an illegal move. If they do not see the move but they observe the position after 1...Qc5 they will wait for white's move. Since white played 2.Rxc5 both kings are no longer in check hence article A.4.d does not trigger. In fact the purpose of the arbiter having to wait one move is to give the player a chance to correct the position. As it happens in this example the final position is still illegal but for a reason not covered by article A.4.d.


GMs resigning in theoretically lost endgames In classical play, do GMs tend to resign in endgames like king+queen vs king+rook where the game can be won by the side with more material in under 50 moves, but only with good play? (I understand queen vs rook is a win in 31 in worst case, barring any immediate captures/checks which make it a draw. A computer can likely draw it out to 50 moves against a human, but another human might not.)
Queen vs rook isn't the only example - think of any pawnless endgame where the fastest forced mate is between 20 and 50 moves long.
On one hand I could see that it might be insulting to continue to play on with such a difference in material, where your opponent will clearly not fall for any skewer tactics and the endgame will be very long and very boring, but on the other hand I see the pragmatism in continuing play as long as there is a non-trivial chance of a draw.

They may as well try, since Q vs R is extremely difficult to win (even disregarding skewer tactics). The example of RB vs R is a great similar example, as it is a theoretical draw, but extraordinarily difficult to draw. There are numerous examples of top grandmasters being unable to convert Q vs R. As to a computer vs human- this was tested in 1978 in a special match between Belle (computer program, had the tablebase so it would play perfectly), and GM Walter Browne. Two positions were played, both with a win in 31 moves. He was unable to convert one but won the other (although barely avoiding the 50 move rule)
Example 1 - Gelfand-Svidler (two of the greatest players of their time, admittedly a rapid game. Black was pushing but Gelfand held.)
Example 2 - Morozevich-Jakovenko (Morozevich was a great player, but Jakovenko not so much. Morozevich was pushing, but Jakovenko held with what is known as a rambling rook idea, where a rook is sacrificed and keeps checking so either perpetual check occurs, or the king takes the rook leading to stalemate)
To add more to this- it's quite possible that the side with the queen is in time trouble, which heightens the difficulty of breaking through.


Is this a checkmate for White? [FEN "8/3RkQ2/3B4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Is there a way out for Black?
 My son and I finished this way (only the relevant parts of the position are shown in the diagram), but reading about stalemates now has us confused. We are new to the game and I would appreciate an explanation.

This would be checkmate, because the king is in check and has no valid move to escape. But it's impossible to get into this position if you follow normal chess rules. The most you can do is a double-check (using a discovered attack), but your position shows a triple-check.

The stalemate rule is only applicable when the king is not in check, so it doesn't apply here.


Longest number of moves that have been identical in two independently played games on record Are there any recorded examples of two chess games that were identical till the end?

If the answer is no (which is most likely the case), what is the longest number of moves that have been identical in two independently played games on record?

There are Several reasons for identical games:

The fact that we databases and computers allows us to find the best move in known positions. (if both players knows the theory in the same level - it might lead to a known draw).

Hence some players might follow a known game between two great players, which might result with identical games.

The fact that there are known traps, might lead to to the same trap (when one player knows the theory and the other fall in the trap)

In this case, the game might end after the player fall in the trap.

In same cases, following a theory might lead to a lose as in the below story about Vishy Anand:

Vishy Anand loses in 6 moves after following a known game

[White "Zapata"]
[Black "Anand"]

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5?? 6.Qe2

Anand resigns

  The story goes: reaching the position after white's 5th move,Anand
  recalled the publication of the game Miles-Christiansen,in the
  Informator(a highly respectable chess journal),which went 6.Nxe4,Bxe4
  etc....Impressed with the ease with which black had drawn in that
  game,Vishy decided to try it himself.But,after 6.Qe2,black just loses
  a piece.

  Now,how could both Miles and Christiansen have missed such an
  obvious move???? The answer is........they didn't!!That game had been
  agreed drawn in advance.Something the Informator had not revealed.At
  the board,Miles did see that Qe2 was winning,but remained the
  gentleman,and avoided playing it.It is said,that he did spend some
  seconds polishing the e2 square with his finger,untill Christiansen's
  face had the appropriate shade of red,whereupon Miles took on e4.

Two Identical games

Here you can find

Two identical games for the first 28 moves

A Lopukhin vs Alexander Semeniuk (1975)
Yakov Estrin vs Hans Berliner (1965)

48 Moves - Both Haugen (2523)-Fernandez (2437), 2010, and Bross (2587)-Efremov (2574), 2011, reached the same position after 48...Qd7+:

This is my source for the below Answer, in this link you can find more identical games.

[Event "Uxbridge Int Alekhine"]
[Site "Uxbridge ENG"]
[Date "2010.02.17"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Rudd, J."]
[Black "Gormally, D."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "2286"]
[BlackElo "2479"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[EventDate "2010.02.13"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[EventCategory "2"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2010.03.01"]

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6 8.
Be3 Ng4 9. Bc1 Nf6 1/2-1/2

Another Game:

[Event "ch-SUI"]
[Site "Lenzerheide SUI"]
[Date "2010.07.16"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Jenni, F."]
[Black "Kurmann, O."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "2542"]
[BlackElo "2449"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[EventDate "2010.07.08"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "SUI"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2010.07.19"]

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6 8.
Be3 Ng4 9. Bc1 Nf6 1/2-1/2

Another Game:

[Event "Moscow Dvorkovich Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "2009.09.11"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Gansvind, Valeriya I"]
[Black "Pisakov, Ilia"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "2226"]
[BlackElo "2331"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[EventDate "2009.09.08"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "13"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[EventCategory "4"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.03"]

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6 8.
Be3 Ng4 9. Bc1 Nf6 1/2-1/2


Does FIDE give titles to chess composers? If so, do share more insight about the how-tos and other links to read. Thanks!

They used to, but now the titling process is handled by the World Federation for Chess Composition.

Here's a link to some of the titles:

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


Was my knight salvable after the queen exchanges? After the queen exchanges at move 23., I realised my pinned knight was going to die. I had a couple of moves to try to prevent the inevitable, but I couldn't:

[fen ""]
1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  Nc6 3. Bc4  e6 4. O-O  d5 5. exd5  exd5 6. Re1+  Be6 7. Bb5  Nf6 8. d4  a6 9. Bxc6+  bxc6 10. Ng5  Qd7 11. Qe2  Ne4 12. Nxe4  dxe4 13. Qxe4  cxd4 14. c3  Be7 15. Rd1  O-O 16. Rxd4  Qc7 17. h4  Bd5 18. Bf4  Bd6 19. Bxd6  Qxd6 20. c4  Rfe8 21. Qf4  Re1+ 22. Kh2  Qxf4+ 23. Rxf4  Be6 24. b3  Rd8 25. Rf3  Rdd1 26. Na3  Rxa1 27. Nc2  Rh1+  0-1

Was I suppossed to see 4 moves ahead after a simple queen exchange? If so I think chess is ridiculous and only geniuses should play it. I am tired of losing because of things like this. I will stop playing chess, BYE.

Give credit where it's due; Black made some good moves.  What's important here is that you didn't lose because of a queen trade.  You lost because your opponent exploited your weak back rank.  Your back rank was weak because h2 was under attack by the black Queen, your King's Rook was off having an adventure on d4, and your Queen's Knight was never developed which shut your Queen's Rook out of the game.

In addition to the above, your opponent seized the open e file with his Rook.

In any event, the 20. c4 move is what caused the immediate issue.  I'd recommend 20. Na3 instead.  After this, Black is having a good game but most of the immediate pressure is off your back rank.  I don't think you want to put your Knight on d2 since it may get tangled up with the Rooks; I can see Rad1 in your future, for example.


how do some players focus better by thinking on the first move? I've seen some of my colleagues (2100-2200 Elo) who after shaking hands just think about 3-4 minutes on the first move, even though they know what they're going to play. When I asked one of them he said he's "building up focus and concentration" so I was wondering if someone could clarify that, and I want to know what you people think if that even makes sense

Two big reasons:

At higher levels, a lot of preparation may be done for a game, especially if you know in advance whom you'll be playing. You'll want to prepare responses to all of their most common or strongest lines. You might also have novelties or uncommon ideas in certain lines to throw your opponent off-book. There is a lot to remember, and using five to ten minutes at the start of the game, when you're not under any pressure, to recall all your preparations can be very helpful.
Somewhat related, when you sit down for a game, you're often coming from some very different activity: eating, chatting, or kibitzing other games, for instance. You don't want to start playing while you're still distracted or thinking somewhat of other things, so you can take some time--again, while not under pressure--to get into a "chess mindset". This sounds to me like what your colleague was referring to.

I think there's a decent analogy to more typical "physical" sports, here. Before a basketball game, the teams take several minutes in their locker rooms, stretching out, going over the game plan, and "getting in the zone". They need to make sure they're properly warmed up and ready to hit the floor at full speed when the game starts.

The first move of a Chess game can be used in the same way. Just as basketball players need to warm up their muscles, Chess players may benefit from "warming up" their visualizations and calculations, by reviewing lines and tactics and so on.

As with any pregame routine, the exact techniques will vary widely from person to person, but the goals are always the same: get warmed up, get in the zone, and get ready (mentally) for some fierce competition.


Soundless chess clocks We are trying to organize chess event but the restaurants and coffee shops we asked complain that the sound made by pressing the chess clocks might disturb people.

We could organize the event in a chess club, but coffee shops are better since you can order stuff and have some fun.

We're not going to buy clocks, We're going to borrow whatever chess clubs have for this event. Is it possible to solve this issue?

We are trying to organize chess event but the restaurants and coffee shops we asked complain that the sound made by pressing the chess clocks might disturb people.

I believe that your problem is the attitude of the owners rather than any equipment. I would speak with the owner or staff and explain that the sound made isn't loud at all, certainly when compared to the sounds of people talking.

From industrialnoisecontrol.com, 60 decibels is the volume for:

  Conversation in restaurant, office, background music, Air conditioning unit at 100 feet.

Whereas the clocks may be at something like 20 decibels:

  Whisper, rustling leaves


The number of possible moves in Chess Question is related to chess computing about number of possible moves in chess.

I'm not talking about the number of possible positions but about the number of ways a piece can go from one square to any other.

Example 1:

  A piece can be on any one of the 64 squares and (approximately) it can go to any other. Thus, the number of possible moves are 64*64 = 4,096. This is clearly an overestimate. In other words, what's the actual number of "from square" and "to square" combinations?

Example 2:

  For the square a1, there are 23 possible from - to combinations. Because a knight can go to two squares and a queen can go to twenty one squares (the other pieces don't add any).

Unless I misunderstand your question wouldn't that just be  (for every from square) the number of (to) squares that a knight can go to plus the number of squares that the queen can go to. As in the following diagrams which show to how many squares the respective piece can go.

You'd just need to add the two numbers from the diagrams for every square.

Depending on what you need all this for you might have to consider separately the special moves of castling, en passant and pawn promotion.


Is there value to learning openings as a new player? Am a new player (had played before hadn't picked up a board for 3 years having never taken the game that seriously) and am going to try and commit to at least 1 rapid (10+5) game per day.
Have made it to 950ish on Lichess (and was disappointed to find that puts me in the bottom 2%). In my approx. 15 games I've found on analysis I've opened up at least a couple of times  (unintentionally 25 or 30%) with the Kings Pawn: Leonardis variation or the French Defence: Classical variation as black. I've just tried to play what I thought was a sensible move and this is what the analysis classed it as.
Is there any value to learning openings as a new player? My only comparison is Poker where it's advised not to use game optimal theory on new players as they don't know what the correct play is a lot of the time. Conversely I'm thinking in Chess the chance of getting a new player to not make a mistake or blunder in the first 10 moves is very low (& if someone goes off of a line I'm figuring it lowers the value of an opening). I'm figuring also if you get a completely different move to what you anticipated back (e.g. e4, d5) it would also lower the value of it? (so hence lowering the value of welding yourself to one opening).
Is there more value at this stage to be looking at pattern recognition and positional awareness and then specialising on an opening at a later stage?
Thanks in advance for any advice or suggestions.

The opening in those games depends on your opponent just as much as you, so with the sample size being so small, don't take the statistic too much into account.
The analogy with poker doesn't really work out too well. You definitely want to play "optimally" in chess against beginners! While in poker you can choose between different strategies that will lead to different expected amounts of cash/chips gained on a hand, in chess there are only three results: win, draw and loss. If you play "GTO-like", you'll win 100% of the time.
The problem is that, when you're still a beginner, studying openings won't make you much closer to being an "optimal player". We should distinguish two things here: you should definitely learn how to play the opening well (as in: develop your pieces, control the center, put your king into safety, prevent your opponent from doing these three things and similar strategic ideas). Don't just stick to the "slogans". Take a look at a variety of examples. However, this is not the same as learning a lot of moves deep into opening theory. Learn mainly by reviewing your own games (by yourself, not with a computer) and by watching how more skilled players treat the positions you reach.
The main reason why deep study of "opening theory" is not so profitable for beginners is that the difference between play "perfectly" and making a small opening mistake is much smaller than when those mistakes happen later in the game. The other main point I'd make is that it is much easier to remember opening theory when you are a skilled player that understands the underlying tactics/strategy and only has to rely on memory for a few critical situations. One of the opening mistakes I commonly see among beginners is making the "right move" in the wrong position (as in, thinking you are in a given theoretical position where the right move is X but it turned out it wasn't the same position)


Is there a "touch-promote" rule? When a pawn is moved to the promotion square, can one change their mind about what piece to promote to? Say I push a pawn to the promotion square, remove it, grab an additional queen, do not yet place it on the board, and then realise queening would lead to stalemate. So I grab a rook instead. Did I break a rule?

So I grab a rook instead. Did I break a rule?

No, the FIDE Laws of Chess are very clear. The choice of piece is not decided until it touches the promotion square.
In so far as touch move applies to promotion the key is that the promotion must be performed with one hand. That is the same hand must be used to remove the pawn from the board (it does not have to be first moved to the promotion square) and to place the promotion piece on the board. How the piece reaches the "moving hand" is irrelevant. It may be transferred from the other hand. If a piece is captured in the act of promotion it must be removed also with the same "moving hand".

4.4 If a player having the move:
...
4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion.
...
4.6  The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.
4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured.
,,,
7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.


A weird way to play the Advance French? I was watching Lichess TV the other day and I saw a game between two IMs go something like this:
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Nc6 4.Nf3 f5 5.Bd3 Nh6 6.O-O Nf7

The computer evaluates this as something like +1.5 for White so it's technically unsound, but I think it still seems interesting. If White isn't careful it seems like Black can go for a kingside pawn storm and put White under lots of pressure, and the plans are completely different from the regular Advance French. Does this have any potential as a playable opening in shorter time controls?

well, having seen f5 in my game, I would probably reply with h4 and then bring a knight from b1 to f4 and a rook to g3 (if necessary). I remember something like this being discussed in one of the Dvoretsky's books as a response to early f5. I don't think black has any potential of developing a king side play after that.
Of course, in short time control everything is playable, especially if white is expected to premove Bd3 and 0-0


Which side has the advantage? In this game, I made an early exchange of my queen for his rook and bishop.  At the time, I was ahead, though he managed to bring it back to roughly even with an effective threat on the queen side.

Here is the position now.  I traded a knight for his pawn on c7.  White to move; who has the advantage now?  My feeling is this is a draw position, but I'm unsure.

[FEN "6k1/Q6p/2P1n1p1/5p2/4r3/8/6K1/8 w - - 1 57"]

1.c7 Nxc7 2.Qxc7 h5

It is a draw. The only way to avoid perpetual check is to place the rook on f7/g7 and the king on h7. When Black does this, White will put his queen on f6, preventing the pawns from advancing and this is a draw, because Black can only sit in his fortress and repeat moves.

Note that even if Black succeeded in advancing his pawns further it would still be a draw, because that would only make it easier for White to check Black using the squares g8 and h8.


Najdorf Variation: strategy after taking poisoned pawn? After

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1  Qa3 10. e5 dxe5 11. fxe5

what are black's main strategic goals? As this is supposed to be extremely sharp and complicated, what are the pitfalls to avoid?

[FEN "rnb1kb1r/1p3ppp/p3pn2/4P1B1/3N4/q1N5/P1PQ2PP/1R2KB1R b Kkq - 0 11"]

It would be strange it it were possible to give a short list of pitfalls for one of the most complicated variations in chess. I'll try to give some hints, I don't play it from either side but I'm an opening nut.

First, you've chosen to include 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 but the interesting position is the one after 9...Qa3, where black has chosen to accept the so-called Poisoned Pawn. The other really big main line is 10.f5, and the strategy is similar (white tries to checkmate black).

Also first, the current big fashion for black is to play 7...h6 8.Bh4 before playing 8...Qb6. So if you're looking for recent games, look for games with that included as well.

In the position after 9...Qa3, white has a huge lead of development. Black has an extra pawn and the better pawn structure. Fundamental Chess Openings says "It is in fact very attractive for White to offer this pawn, and it is equally attractive for Black to take it. An ideal setting for a ferocious fight!"

White's strategy is to go all-out to checkmate black's king, as he's burned his bridges already. Black's strategy is to survive the onslaught and somehow return to a normal position (develop his pieces, return his queen to a more normal square) and if he manages that, he'll often be winning. Theoretically, chess is of course a draw, which means here that many of the long, long calculated out lines end up with white having just enough attack to give perpetual check, but not checkmate.

An example from FCO:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2
9.Rb1 Qa3 10.f5 Nc6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 { Now comes a second pawn sacrifice
to speed things up } 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Ne4 { This is the starting point of
variations, based on themes like } 15... Be7 16.Be2 h5 17.Rb3 Qa4 18.Nxf6!? Bxf6
19.c4

"It seems incredible that White should have sufficient compensation for the great
material sacrifices he has made, but Black's position is extremely uncoordinated and
his king has no safe place anywhere on the board. According to the present state of
opening theory, attack and defence are equally balanced, but... everyone is holding their
breath for future developments."

Here's Radjabov-Karjakin (1-0) from 2006 that helped make 10.e5 be the most popular line for a few years again (source: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1433642)

[FEN ""]
[Event "Cap D'Agde"]
[Site "Cap d'Agde FRA"]
[Date "2006.11.02"]
[EventDate "2006.10.30"]
[Round "3.2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Teimour Radjabov"]
[Black "Sergey Karjakin"]
[ECO "B97"]
[WhiteElo "2729"]
[BlackElo "2672"]
[PlyCount "65"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6
7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qa3 10. e5 dxe5 11. fxe5 Nfd7
12. Ne4 h6 13. Bh4 Qxa2 14. Rd1 Qb2 15. Qe3 Bc5 16. Be2 Nc6
17. c3 (17.Nxe6!! { White could have played this } Qb4+ {forced} 18.c3 Bxe3 19.Nc7+ Kf8 20.cxb4 Rb8 21.Bg3 {with the threat of e6}) Qa3 18. O-O O-O 19. Nf6+ Nxf6 20. Bxf6 Nxd4 21. Rxd4
Bxd4 22. Qxd4 gxf6 23. exf6 Qa5 24. h4 Kh7 25. Bd3+ Qf5
26. Re1 Rg8 27. Kh2 a5 28. g4 Qxd3 29. Qxd3+ Kh8 30. Re5 Rxg4
31. Rh5 Rg6 32. Qd8+ Kh7 33. Qe7 1-0

Here's a Stellwagen-Anand, 0-1 in 2009, in the 10.e5 variation. The early queen sacrifice is long-known theory, technically 17...Ra4!? is the first new move of the game but it's unclear how much was preparation. 38...Kb8?? could have thrown away the game to 39.h6!, later 46.h6?? is also a blunder.

[FEN ""]
[Event "2008-2009 Bundesliga"]
[Site "Baden Baden GER"]
[Date "2009.03.28"]
[EventDate "2008.10.03"]
[Round "14"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Daniel Stellwagen"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B97"]
[WhiteElo "2605"]
[BlackElo "2783"]
[PlyCount "104"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6
7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qa3 10. e5 dxe5 11. fxe5 Nfd7
12. Ne4 h6 13. Bb5 axb5 14. Nxb5 hxg5 15. Nxa3 Rxa3 16. O-O
Nc6 17. Rb5 Ra4 18. Nxg5 Ndxe5 19. Rxe5 Nxe5 20. Qc3 Nc6
21. Rxf7 Ra5 22. Rxg7 Bc5+ 23. Kh1 Rf8 24. Qd3 Rxa2 25. h4
Ra1+ 26. Kh2 Bd4 27. Qg6+ Kd8 28. Rf7 Rxf7 29. Qxf7 Bg1+
30. Kg3 e5 31. h5 Nd4 32. Qf6+ Kc7 33. Qxe5+ Kb6 34. Qd6+ Ka7
35. Qc5+ Kb8 36. Qd6+ Ka8 37. Qd8 Nf5+ 38. Kh3 Kb8 39. Ne6
Ra3+ 40. Kg4 Nh6+ 41. Kf4 Bh2+ 42. Ke4 Nf7 43. Qf8 Nd6+
44. Kd4 Ka7 45. Nc5 Ra5 46. h6 Bg1+ 47. Kd3 Bf5+ 48. Qxf5 Nxf5
49. h7 Ra3+ 50. Nb3 Bd4 51. Ke4 Bh8 52. Kxf5 Ra2 0-1

Edit: crap, I didn't realize the PGN viewer doesn't show comments. I only had a few, but they don't show, sorry.


What is some basic advice for playing blitz or rapid? A decade back i used to play chess, but just OTB and without time control. I now got back into chess and often play something like 15+10, where I very rarely lose on time and I am now rated ~1500 on Lichess. I tried playing shorter time controls but i lose almost every game (rated 900 blitz) on time. I also dont seem to improve at all an do not really know where to start to get better at those time controls. Are there some ressources that could help me improve or should i just change my playstyle for blitz?

Welcome to Chess StackExchange!
You say the transition from games at 15+10 to blitz sees you going from rarely losing on time to almost always losing on time.
Can I ask if the blitz is still with increment eg like 5+5 or some such?
When I switch from say bullet to 5+5 to 8+5 and such it always takes me several games to get into the rhythm of the new time control.
Do you have a sense at the shorter time controls that you are falling behind in the opening phase, middle game or end game?
Are you spending too much time in the openings to get a good position but then run out of time to win?
One way to cope with the time issue is to play a small number of quieter openings. You will learn how to play their characteristic pawn structures and where to put your pieces.
For example I aim to play as white the London System and as black against e4 the French Defense.
Against d4 I like the NimzoIndian.
There are online games repositories with notes that can help you.
A good area to study is the endgame, an extra effort here will dramatically improve your results.
Rook and pawn endings are quite common and it's worth studying them. I find it's the area where my opponents often stumble.
Always try to get your rook active even at the cost of a pawn and remember that whether in attack or defence the rook belongs behind the passed pawn!
Pay particular attention to your king safety or your opponents lack thereof.
In a time scramble an exposed king position can be a nightmare.
Best of luck!


How to play chess against a large number of players simultaneously? Lately, we have done an experiment in our chess club and liked it much. We were 4 players, and we wanted to play simultaneous each against each other. This setup worked (more or less, see the following diagram):

The players 1, 2, and 3 may sit on their tables, but the player 4 (myself) had to walk around from board to board (identified by Pl4).

Then a 5th player came around, and we could not find a reasonable setup where we can play and know who is playing where.

Is this a known problem, and for how many are solutions known? For 2, 3, and 4, it is easy, but how about higher numbers?


Do one-on-one simul competitions exist? I have occasionally played one-on-one two-board simuls: that is, two players, playing two games of chess, against each other, simultaneously. (Not to be confused with bughouse - no piece passing takes place).
This concept would seem to scale pretty easily with web technology: play any number (well, probably an even number) of games between two people simultaneously, and the score for the match is how many games you win.
You could then have a tournament in this format: each pairing is not a single game, but X simultaneous games (maybe 4 or 8 is a good number).
Has this been done? What is the name for this style of competition?

Yes, one-on-one simultaneous competitions exist. For example, you can find them in correspondence chess. One modality is as two game matches, where you play your opponent with white in one game and with black in the other. Similarly for friendly matches between federations of different countries, with two games for each board.
There are also several websites where you can play simultaneous matches. Have a look at the answers to the question Is there any website where I can play simultaneous chess against many opponents?.


Why black is happy with slow development? One important opening principle is to develop your pieces and being ahead in development is the aim of the opening. In the following opening, white is obviously ahead in development (developed the queen and both knights, one of them in a centre square) but black seems to be fine:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Ne5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nf6

I do not know that I would say "happy", but in chess, there are pluses and minuses to every move we make, and on top of that, there are exceptions to many positional concepts. We see GMs move pieces twice in the opening all the time when there is a good reason.

Now, as to that specific position, black is, indeed, somewhat behind in development, but has compensating factors. In particular, black has traded the bad bishop for white's good bishop, and the exchange of light-squared bishops makes most kingside attacks very difficult to execute, and in the Caro, with less space, that is a concern. The c6 and e6 pawns are well-placed to help control the light squares since the bishop was traded. Black's remaining bishop is probably a little better than white's, and contributes well to the defense.

In addition, black is incredibly solid, so black has the time to finish development safely, and then to break back with c5. It is almost impossible to prevent c5 later.

Lastly, black is normally down one tempo, but here it is two. Black had no choice but to play Bh7 when white played Ne5. How is being behind in development normally punished? By opening the position. That is virtually impossible here, so black is content (the word I would use instead of "happy") to be behind en development temporarily.

Edit: I am going to move a few more things from my comments below to the answer.

One more thing that compensates is that the Ng3 is not well-placed, and often goes to e4 later, giving back a tempo. You also might look at h4 as a potential weakness, but it is rare in practice that it is a factor in that sense...it usually is not weak, but cramps black's kingside.

Development is not the overriding factor in this line, or similar lines...it is that white has more space, which is why black must eventually chip away at the center with c5. If not, it will probably be a slow strangulation.


Simultaneous exhibition rules There are the FIDE Rules for Chess. This for different types of chess. Are there also official rules for Simultaneous exhibition chess? Where can I find them?

I don't think FIDE would be involved in regulating such events because they are not rated.
I found this interesting PDF with some notes, although I think they could be improved. For example, it is not clear if the player loses the game after three passes.

The exhibitor plays the white pieces on each board.
Do not touch any chessman until the exhibitor arrives at your board. When the exhibitor is standing in front of your board, make your move (within 5 seconds) while the exhibitor is observing. The exhibitor will make a move on your board before going on to the next board.
Participants, but not the exhibitor, must abide by the touch move rule. The exhibitor’s move is not final until he or she touches a piece on the next board.
Each player is allowed three passes when the exhibitor arrives at his or her board. Using a pass means that the exhibitor will skip your board, but you will need to make a move (or use another pass) when the exhibitor comes back after visiting the other boards.
Participants may not receive assistance from other players or bystanders during their games.
Exception: participants may sign up as a pair and play on one board.
Participants must take notation.
If the exhibitor has any other rules, those will be announced at the start of the exhibition.

Source:

Simul Rules


Learning steps of a non-professional or play-for-fun player Let's say I already know the rules of the games. What would be the next thing I should focus on? And then? Learning the most common openings? Unbalances?

I learned to play chess as a kid, played once in a while back then but then I have hardly played in 20 years. I've started to play again, and I'd like to improve. I don't want to be extremely good and I don't have a lot of time to invest, I'd just like to achieve a decent level and enjoy playing.

I'd also appreciate a couple of book recommendations, pre-intermediate level.

Go to your local chess club. They will match you with opponents of an appropriate skill level. In addition, there will be people there willing to help you improve.


Simple programs for recording chess games -- Like ECTool -- for Ubuntu and Windows I should be able to google this, but I don't know what the name for this item is:

I'm looking for a simple program that can be used to record and play back a chess game. I'm not looking for a computer program to play against, and I'm not looking for a client to connect to an ICS.

I just want to record the moves of an old-fashioned postal game.

Any suggestions for free programs that do this? I'd like suggestions for both Ubuntu and Windows.

Update:
I recall using ECTool for this purpose in a previous century, but it seems to be not maintained beyond Windows XP.

It sounds to me like what you want is a chess database program. If so, the one I would recommend is Scid, which is totally free, and comes in Windows, Linux and Mac flavors.


Reading UCI Engine output in Arena Chess So for the most part I understand what I am looking at, but i have two questions about the first piece of data. Here is an example that I am looking at.

Firstly, the first column has values 1/4, 1/8, 2/17, 3/17. I'm pretty sure the numerator of those fractions indicates the depth of the search, but I am confused about the second number, my only guess being that it is the search depth of all non-quiet positions? IDK

Secondly, When I see a depth of 3, i expect to see a move order of length 3, but in the 3/17 search I am given a 6 move long line of play. Is this due to non-quiet nodes? The captures in the line make me believe so.

Thanks, any help, insight, and resources are appreciated.

http://www.chessforums.org/general-chess-discussion/9079-chess-engine-output.html

  It’s the “search depth.” It tells you how deep the search has gone.
  The value is in “ply” or half-moves. The first number gives you the
  “brute force” depth, the second is the depth to which certain critical
  lines have been investigated. For instance a display of “depth =
  12/30” means that the program has looked at every continuation to a
  depth of 12 ply (six moves), while some promising or dangerous
  continuations are being examined up to a depth of 30 ply (15 moves).

Please note chess engine always report in "ply", half-move.


Why can't I use my stockfish engine with python chess? I'm using python chess and I'm trying to use my stockfish 10 engine downloaded from the stockfish website.

import chess.uci

engine = chess.uci.popen_engine(r"stockfish-10-linux/Linux/stockfish_10_x64")

Leads to the error:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/home/tim/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/chess/uci.py", line 1139, in popen_engine
    return _popen_engine(command, engine_cls, setpgrp, **kwargs)
  File "/home/tim/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/chess/_engine.py", line 295, in _popen_engine
    PopenProcess(engine, command, **popen_args)
  File "/home/tim/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/chess/_engine.py", line 133, in __init__
    self.process = subprocess.Popen(command, **popen_args)
  File "/home/tim/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py", line 756, in __init__
    restore_signals, start_new_session)
  File "/home/tim/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/subprocess.py", line 1499, in _execute_child
    raise child_exception_type(errno_num, err_msg, err_filename)
PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied: 'stockfish-10-linux/Linux/stockfish_10_x64'

I've done this before on my old computer and I'm mimicking my old code which ran with no problem. Except in my old code I used stockfish 9 and here I'm using stockfish 10. Also I imported chess.engine in my old code but now it says this library isn't available.

In the error log you've pasted you can see it's a permission error, which can occur for files that behave as "executables" if you will (think any form of program, e.g. scripts, compiled files etc), but that have not been given the rights by the os to do so. One way to fix it, go to the folder containing the engine file and open a terminal to run the following command which will render your file as executable to the os:

chmod +x stockfish_10_x64

Alternatively, right click, go to properties, permissions and select "allow executing file as program".
After this (by either method) you should be able to load and run the engine within the python-chess library.


Why does black not move Queen here? in this board, after Nf5 as indicated, why does stockfish suggest the best move is king-knight e7? Surely it would be better to save the Q to h7 towards the check-mate on h2 (white knight blocks the white bishop, so Q safe here). Any ideas? Am I missing something obvious? Thanks.

Nf5 ...Qh7, Nd6+ (discovered attack) wins the queen. Note that any other attempts to save the queen fails:

Nb4 or Nce7 or Nge7 or Nf6 with the idea to attack the white queen fail because Nxg7+ is check
Qg6 has the same problem as Qh7, i.e. loses the queen after Nd6+
Qxe5 Rae1 (or Rfe1) pins the queen. Unpinning the queen with Nge7 (or Nce7) and an attack on the white queen does not help since after Rxe5 the knight on e7 is pinned and cannot capture the white queen.


Is an arbiter allowed to leave the playing hall while some games haven't finished yet? I've observed the arbiter responsible for the category I'm playing often leaves the playing lobby to smoke or drink/buy coffee/water in a nearby shop. Those "breaks" are quite long. What happens if both players run out of time/need another scoresheet, etc.?
Is this behaviour acceptable? What should I do?

The first thing to note is that for low level tournaments there is not even a requirement for a qualified arbiter to be on site. The arbiter must be a licensed arbiter (International Arbiter, FIDE Arbiter or National Arbiter) but is not required to actually be there. They can be at home watching TV. If there is a problem they can be consulted on the phone.
For reference here is what the FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 have to say about arbiters for FIDE rated events:

0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated.
0.4 Tournament reports for all official FIDE and Continental events must be submitted and shall be rated. The Chief Arbiter is responsible for the results submitted.
9.1 The Chief Arbiter of a FIDE registered tournament has to provide the tournament report (TRF file) within 7 days after the end of the tournament to the Rating Officer of the federation where the tournament took place. The Rating Officer shall be responsible for uploading the TRF file to the FIDE Rating Server not later than 30 days after the end of the tournament.

No mention of the arbiter actually having to be there and some federations run FIDE rated leagues where there are two or three licensed arbiters for the league but dozens of clubs where the matches are played with no arbiter present.
For Norm events (tournaments where there are enough highly rated and titled players from enough different federations for it to be possible to get a title norm) the rules are a lot stricter.
This is what International Title Regulations (Qualification Commission) / FIDE Title Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 has to say:

1.16 The Chief Arbiter of a title tournament shall be an International Arbiter (IA) or FIDE Arbiter (FA). He may appoint a temporary deputy. An IA or FA must always be in the playing venue.

Let's just remind ourselves of how the FIDE Laws of Chess define "playing venue" and "playing area".

11.2.1 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
11.2.2 The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a competition are played.

So, even in a high level norm tournament the arbiter is allowed to leave the playing area and go to the toilet, go and have a smoke, go and get a coffee.


How do you deal with you losing your concentration How do you do deal, with losing your concentration during a chess match? Then making a bad blunder? I constantly lose concentration.

I started writing this before your comment that it is online chess. My answer is geared more toward over-the-board tournament chess. I will add a little blurb specifically about online chess at the bottom, but a lot of this applies to both.

There is a lot to your question. Primarily how you deal with it comes down to experience and practice. The unfortunate part is that everyone gets that experience all too often. The initial key to not getting into that situation as often is to try to stay calm and relaxed when you play, and use your time wisely, and do not get into deep time trouble.

The first question is how bad is the error? If it is bad enough that you lose the game, you have to just put it behind you, and prepare mentally for the next game. I find that while I take the game seriously, because it is not my profession, I do not take it too seriously, and therefore, I can put it behind me easily. Do not beat yourself up over something that you can no longer control.

If it is a mistake during the game, and not so bad that you lose, that is different. It is important to mention that sometimes you will make a losing mistake that is not obvious to your opponent, but you see it. It is important to keep an absolute poker face so you do not clue your opponent in that there is something there. When you make that type of error that you have to get in the habit of buckling down and trying that much harder at the board until the end of the game. Staying as positive as possible is important.

Other ways you can cut down on such “accidents” are making sure that you sleep and eat well. I would be careful of eating a lot of carbohydrates, or you might go into a fog that I call a “carb coma”. I also think that reading short exciting games without a board, but absolutely keeping the position in your head, will help your concentration before you even sit down at the board.

For online chess, you will lose games…a lot of games, but they really do not matter much, so put it behind you, and click rematch, and move on to the next game.

In the end, practice, practice, practice.  Good luck!


What is the shortest known GM level OTB game to end with checkmate? What is the shortest known on the board game played between GM rated players that ended with a checkmate? "Shortest" does not mean the game has to be very short.

Note: Edited this question twice clarifying some ambiguity.

Keres-Arlamowski 1950, comes very close

[FEN ""]
[Event "Szczawno Zdroj"]
[Date "1950"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Keres"]
[Black "Edward Arlamowski"]

1. e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nbd7 6.Nd6# 1-0

I heard Mr Arlamovski was an IM at the time - but given Keres' level, and the fact that there were many fewer IM's back then - probably puts the game into the GM level category.


I want to give chess tutorials, which software should I use? I think that I am a enough good chess player to teach chess. So, I want to create a website and post chess videos in it. So I want a software that helps me teach chess like for example see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfjsMXlcek
This video was given by thechesswebsite.com. Note the software that he uses, I asked him about it but he is not replying so I want your help.
Thanks in advance.

Just based on ease of use and aesthetic appeal I'd recommend the free ChessBase Reader which allows you to easily draw arrows on the board and highlight squares. To record your videos you can use free screen capture software such as oCam.


Setting up a game between two computers I was hoping that this would be a simple exercise but I have spent the last two days looking into this and can not find an answer (easy or otherwise). What I want to do is have my iMac play my ubuntu laptop in chess over a lan.

I know I can do this by manually entering the moves but my hope was to automate the process. And eventually play many games alternating parameter such and length of time per move etc.

Has any one done this or any ideas on how to achieve this?

James

P.S If this has been answered before I apologise.

Get Arena!

Setup Arena on your iMac and Ubuntu computer. Register a computer account for each computer on a server of your choice. Of course, both computers need to login on the same server. Let one computer request a match and let the other computer accept the match.

That's it.

Arena is pretty cool. It wouldn't surprise me if you could create a script to automate a bunch of stuff you would want to do.