Make chess great again Chess at the highest level has changed a lot perhaps helped by computers, so that nowadays we have:

black often playing for a draw
GM analyzing some opening lines all the way to the endgame
opponents blitzing out 30 moves of theory
some openings considered to be drawish
games ending more often than not in draws
GM playing obscure openings like the London system, etc, not with the aim to gain an opening advantage, but with the aim of keeping enough pieces on the board and to achieve less analyzed positions.

, and other, similar factors which make for less interesting (to watch) games. I was wondering, what proposals there are to lessen the influence of computer analysis on human games and to focus more on the work done at the board instead of at home? A few I am aware of:

chess960 (Fischer Random)
reduced time control
Sofia rules

What else is there?

Play Chess Variants

Capablanca suggested to add to new pieces, a Bishop-Knight compound and a Rook-Knight-compound, to the setup and enlarge the board size to 10 files and 8 rows. Computer experiments suggest that Capablanca Chess and some variations of it (putting the new pieces on different files than Capablanca) are less drawish than Classical Chess, see this comment on Schoolbook on chessvariants.org)

If you want a balanced and very decisive Chess Variant, try Shogi.


What are some examples of promoting a pawn to a rook or bishop? I understand the theory, and have seen examples, of endgames where a pawn promoted to a queen creates a draw and instead the player typically promotes to rook. My question is, has this ever occurred in a game at the international level?

Instances of a pawn promoted to a knight would be interesting, but not really the target of this question. I am interested in notable games where a pawn was promoted to either a rook or a bishop.

The wikipedia entry on promotion gives a position from a 2006 game at the Irish Chess Championship, in which a promotion to queen would allow stalemate:

[FEN "8/8/4Q3/8/5q2/8/1p2K2k/8 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1...b1=R! $19 (1...b1=Q?? 2.Qh3+! Kxh3 $10)

The same entry also points to the 1972 game between Aron Reshko and Oleg Kaminsky, where promotion to a queen or rook would allow stalemate, and promoting to a knight would be insufficient to win:

[FEN "4Q3/Pq4pk/5p1p/5P1K/6PP/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.a8=B! (1.a8=Q?? Qf7+! 2.Qxf7 $10) (1.a8=R?? Qf7+! 2.Qxf7 $10) 1...Qb3 2.Qd7 $18

Rook and Bishop promotion is very rare in world class play.  Knight promotion is more common, but not as much as Queen promotion.  From the looks of it, it looks like Knight promotion is popular when promoting to any other piece would result in its immediate capture where as a Knight promotion would often be used to fork a King and a another piece resulting in material gain.


FIDE rules, 5.1:

  d. The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)

FIDE rules, 9.2:

  The  game  is  drawn  upon  a  correct  claim  by  the  player  having  the  move,  when  the  same  position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
  ...

The emphasis is mine, and that's what happened here. The position was repeated 3 times, but the moves weren't. However,  that is still a draw.


Inconsistent timings of world championships According to Wikipedia recent world championship tournaments have been played in these years:

2006
2007
2008
2010
2012
2013
2014
2016

What is logic behind this, sometimes they are played every year and some there is gap of year? I can't find explanation for this inconsistency. Why wont there be game in 2015?

Due to funding and other problems with FIDE, the world championship schedule has been changed many times during past few years. TLDR: After the title reunification match in 2006, there was a tournament in 2007, followed by matches in every two years, starting from 2008. The 2013 match was an exception.

The match in 2006 was the reunification match between the FIDE world champion (decided in knockout tournaments by FIDE) Topalov and the classical world champion (decided by matches against the current classical world champion) Kramnik. Before the match, FIDE had announced that there is a world championship tournament in 2007. Kramnik and Topalov agreed to that. Before the 2007 tournament, there was also an agreement that if Kramnik (2006 winner) does not win, the winner of 2007 tournament needs to play against him in a match in 2008.

After that match, FIDE had decided to have a 2-year world championship cycle. However, there were some problems with some players withdrawing from the qualification tournaments because rule changes by FIDE, see e.g. the list in Wikipedia's page on the 2012 match or Carlsen's interview. FIDE apparently reacted to that and shortened the world championship cycle: the qualification cycle for the 2012 match started in 2008, and the qualification cycle for the 2013 match started in 2011.

As to when it was decided that there are matches in both 2013 and 2014, my memory fails me. The lists in Chessbase and FIDE web site, both dated on March 28th 2012, are different. The FIDE contract with Agon in early 2012 might also have something to do with it.


Does playing tournament chess help one in the field of chess-related math? A question of personal interest.  Is "visualization" of various types of boards and graphs helped along by competitive, tournament play? Of course, I'm assuming play beyond simply knowing how the pieces move.

To the extent that "chess-related math" requires any expertise in chess beyond the rules(*), tournament play is probably not as useful as solving and composing chess problems/studies.  Typical positions in tournament play are too complicated to evaluate with mathematical certainty, while problems and studies should and usually do have rigorous proofs of correctness that are comprehensible to human players and problemists.

(*) Sometimes one needs no expertise beyond (say) how the Knight moves (as for questions involving the Knight's tour, or dominating the 8-by-8 board with a minimal number of Knights).


When was it possible for a player's king to be attacked by 3 of the opponent's pieces? According to the current FIDE Laws of Chess:

  3.9.1 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained
  from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then
  leave or place their own king in check.

  3.9.2 No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

It wasn't always so.

When was it legally possible in a FIDE rated game of chess to have your king attacked by 3 of the opponent's pieces? Please give an example illustrating this.

In my thread on the English Chess Forum, which seemed to make the world go crazy on the subject, I gave all the major and minor events in the history of the “legal” triple check that my extensive research has uncovered. This loophole was even talked about recently in Episode 20 of "The Chess Pit" at the 12:13 mark. Here is all information in chronological order.
The dubious phrasing in FIDE's laws of chess goes back to the 1984 FIDE Chess Congress when it is was implemented. This is indicated by its first appearance in the 1985 laws-many thanks goes to @Stephen for pointing this out in a comment. Here is the 1985 law on check in whole. (All linked laws come from the Chess Arbiter's Association website.)
"ARTICLE 9. CHECK
9.1 The king is in check when the square it occupies is attacked by one or two of the opponent's pieces; in this case the latter is or are said to be "checking the king."
9.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following.
9.3 If the check cannot be parried, the king is said to be "checkmated" ("mated"), (See Article 10.1.)
9.4 Declaring a check is not obligatory."
Beforehand, the 1980 laws instead stated "The king is in check when the square it occupies is attacked by an enemy piece." This itself is as vague since it can interpreted to allow a king to be left in double check. However, since double check is widely known to be possbile,  such an arugement obviously wouldn’t stand. Even so, it is no wonder then why they later rephrased it to "one or two” for clarity. But that still wasn't enough, as the saga of the “legal” triple check shows.
Within a few years, at least some people had realized the implications of the law’s wording. This is evidenced by a letter sent by Robert Norman, who is from Dar Es Salaam Tanzania, to "CHESS Magazine", then called "Pergamon Chess,” that was published in the June 1988 issue. This is the oldest known chess problem that utilizes the "loophole."
[Title "Robert Norman, CHESS Magazine June 1988, White To Move And Win"]
[FEN "1n5k/1r6/5K2/4Q1Pb/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. g6 Nd7+ 2. Kf7+ Nxe5++ 3. g7+! Kh7 4. g8=Q+ Kh6 5. Qg7#

Thanks to Jonathan Bryant on Twitter, we have a visual of Norman's letter.

The chess magazine EG reprinted it April 1989, saying this about it: "Definitely an oddity. Ridiculous, irrelevant, amusing or disturbing, as the reader chooses."
Of course, it is arguable as to whether or not it can actually be considered legal. It can be countered that triple check is indeed accounted for in the letter of the law. The aforementioned EG magazine summarized it neatly: **"The argument is that check by three men is not check. Well, one can easily counter that check by three men includes check by two and is therefore covered (not 'specifically excluded') under the Laws, which do not need to be changed." Even under the counterargument, the idea of the triple check alone was enough of an ambiguity to change the law's wording,  which definitely says something about it.
Norman’s problem is a online rarity online, so here are a few links to it.
1- A Dutch blog for bizarre chess problems.
#2-An obituary for Robert Norman.
#3-Page 29 in the 12/2001 issue of Internet træk.
A few years later in 1992, the idea again appeared in CHESS Magazine, then called Maxwell Macmillan Chess, in the column "Addicts Corner" by Richard James and the late Michael Fox. I found the relevant part of the February issue in an old Google forum.
"CHECK THIS OUT!
Right, N. Short, J. Speelman, J. Nunn, and the rest of you clever clogs. Break your heart on this: White: Ke3, Qb2, Ne5 Black: Kh8, Re8, Rg8, Ba7, Nb6, Pg7, h7 Black incautiously played a double check 1...Nc4+?? How did White crash through to victory? Admit it; you're baffled. Deduct one hundred Elo points [and read on]:
Dead easy. White gets out of check by 2. Nf7 mate. Yes, it's perfectly legit. Consult Article 9.1 of the laws: "The King is in check when the square it occupies is attacked by one or two of the opponent's pieces..." It says nothing about a threefold attack, so White's move takes him out of check..."
[Title "Kevin Thurlow, CHESS Magazine February 1992"]
[FEN "4r1rk/b5pp/1n6/4N3/8/4K3/1Q6/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nc4+ 2. Nf7#!

It seems that Thurlow's problem spread like wildfire, and FIDE finally got wind of it. This is similar to what Tim Krabbe's joke castling problem did. In a short time, the wording was soon changed to the modern wording at the 1992 Fide Chess Congress for the 1993 laws-"The king is in "check" when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces"
You can find various references to the subject in the English Chess Forum. Most are by Kevin Thurlow in reference to his problem, and some others are by Stewart Reuben, who is an English arbiter who has on the rules commission and helped fix the wording after its 1992 rediscovery.
In conclusion, from 1985, when the effect of the 1984 FIDE Chess Congress change took place a king could hypothetically be left a in a “legal” triple or higher check in a FIDE rated game until 1993 when the law was again rephrased at the 1992 FIDE Chess Congress.
Additionally, this caused some effects on chess composition other than Norman's and Thurlow's joke. There exists a chess variant called ”Bosma Chess" that was created in 1993 by Dutch problemist R. Bosma that is based on the "loophole." Bosma also noticed the odd wording of FIDE laws, after it was changed in 1992, so he incorporated it into fairy chess.
In Bosma Chess a king is not in check if it is attacked three or more times. If a king is triple checked, it can't be captured. Here is an example problem that utilitizes underpromotion to get the point across.
[Title "Henk Le Grand, 1st Price 151th Thematoernooi Probleemblad 1993, Mate In 2, Bosma Chess"]
[FEN "7K/1NRNkP1R/5p2/b1P2B2/2n5/8/8/3q4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rc8! null (1... Bd8 2. f8=R#) (1... Qxd7 2. f8=N#) (1... Nd6 2. f8=B#) 2. Re8#

Finally, fast forward to 2008, 30 years after Norman's problem was published, a variation of it appeared in an obscure and now dead blog called "Far Off Chess." that was created by  IM Jens Kristiansen. In a post entitled "In the twilight zones of chess rules", which is about old and new ambiguities in the rules, Kristiansen created a version of Norman's study from his hazy memory. It is as beautiful as the original and worth showing.
[Title " Jens Kristiansen, Far Off Chess 12/13/2008, White To Move And Win"]
[FEN "7k/rn6/5KP1/p1p4b/8/8/8/7R w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf7 Nd6+ 2. g7+! Kh7 g8=Q+ Kh6 4. Qg7#

This is the known history of the "legal" triple check. Whether or not you would consider it legal, the idea was and still is an amusing nitpick at the exact wording of the FIDE laws of chess.

In the comments, @bof has discussed the effects of the triple check, which was only lightly discussed in the English Chess Forum. This section will supplement that discussion.
When triple checked, kings become normal pieces that can castle. Under the 1984-1992 laws, castling into, out of, and through check along with having adjacent kings is legal. However, the main interest is about king captures, which are not forbidden either. The answer is simple-if a king is captured, that side can't be checkmated. This is the only possible conclusion going strictly by the law's letter. This is different from Bosman Chess's immune kings.
Here are problems of mine that show these bizarre conclusions.
Castling Into Check
[Title "Me, chess.stackexcange.com 6/15/2020, Mate In 1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/7n/5Rrp/2k1K2R w K - 0 1"]

1. O-O#

Castling Out Of Check
[Title "Me, chess.stackexcange.com 6/30/2020, Mate In 2"]
[FEN "4r3/4N3/8/b7/5pp1/3P1Bkp/2n5/2N1K2R w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf5+ Kxf3 2. O-O#

Castling Through Check
[Title "Me, chess.stackexcange.com 8/12/2020, Mate In 2"]
[FEN "8/8/8/5B2/5p1Q/5kn1/2NRb2n/31K2R w K - 0 1"]

1. O-O+ Nhxf1 (1... Bxf1 2. Rf2) (1... Ngxf1 2. Qf2#) 2. Qg4#

Adjacent Kings
[Title "Me, English Chess Forum 6/13/2020, Mate In 1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/3p4/3rp3/RK1kN3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc2#

Lastly, here are some bonus problems.  On page 3 of in my English Chess Forum thread it was asked if a quadruple check could be done, which I did, but I later managed a quintuple check!
[Title "Me, English Chess Forum 4/30/2020, Mate In 4, Dedicated To Marken Foo"]
[FEN "1RnkBB2/2p5/8/4K1Nr/4N3/6R1/1n5q/bQ2r3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qd3+! Nxd3+ 2. Ne6+ Kxe8 3. Nf6+ Kf7 4. Rg7#

Per another request, I also showed a triple check via en passant.
[Title "Me, English Chess Forum 6/13, Mate In 2"]
[FEN "3r4/3B3N/4n3/3K1k1P/2pp2p1/3r1bP1/2Q1PR2/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. e4+! dxe3+ 2. Bxe6#

Lastly, as suggested by @supercat in a comment, here is a mate in 1 that removes two checks for mate.
[Title "Me, chess.stackexcange.com 6/13/2020, Mate In 1"]
[FEN "8/7B/3B2NK/8/5k2/6P1/5Q2/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ne5#


Why does it seem that one drops more rating points when losing than gaining when winning? It seems that when one loses a game against a compatibly rated opponent, the (USCF) rating point decrease is more significant than when one scores a win.

For example, between two 'C' players, losing an over-the-board game may cost a player 12 points, whereas wining, the increase in rating is 7 points.

This is an odd phenomenon in the Elo system. Is there an explanation?

I suspect it's a result of you not really knowing the rating of the player you're playing. Posted rating for a player in a tournament is typically already out of date. You can see it in more detail by checking the actual rating report of the event you played in (http://www.uschess.org/datapage/event-search.php) and you can see what the real rating of the player you played was at the start of the event. Keep in mind it changes with every round.


Are there any moves in the opening stage that are perfectly sound but not book moves? In the opening stage, are there any moves that are perfectly sound but are not book moves? Here a book move, is defined in Wikipedia as follows:

  Opening moves that are considered standard (often catalogued in a reference work such as the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings) are referred to as "book moves", or simply "book". Reference works often present move sequences in simple algebraic notation, opening trees, or theory tables.

By a sound move, I mean a move that is completely reasonable in a certain opening position and does not create any weaknesses. (There may be a better definition, but you probably know what I mean.)

Obviously, you are not the first chess player to think about alternatives to the 'book moves'.

I think it is a solid assumption that all possible moves that deviate from the book move have been considered by someone already, and probably by someone with some playing strength.
So either those moves are good enough (equivalent) to 'book moves' and therefore they would have made it in the books by now, or they are (considered) at least slightly inferior.

If you consider playing an inferior move, you will have to balance the expected 'loss' from the inferiority against the potential 'gain' from forcing your opponent into a non-book variant (which you have analyzed in depth before, and he probably didn't). Depending on his strength in 'book openings' compared to his strength in 'think-yourself', this might be a good deal for you or not.

Note that this is not an uncommon idea - nearly all chess players I know have taken this approach from time to time, and more or less successful. Try it, but don't expect your opponent to be shocked out of his mind.


Chess Pieces like classic 1997 "Pure Mate" ad I used to have this print up on my locker in highschool, and have had a blown-up, framed version in my living room for the past several years.

I've recently started playing chess regularly again and was looking to buy a new board, and was wondering if anyone could recommend a place to purchase a similarly detailed set.

The ad is titled "Pure Mate" from 1997.  I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link amazon or an outside site in these posts, but this if so here is the ad in question:  http://www.amazon.com/Smirnoff-Vodka-Bottle-Chess-Pieces/dp/B00764VM14

Try these themed sets from House of Staunton.  I don't see the set you're looking for, but you can expect whatever they have to be very high quality.  I love the Isle of Lewis set.

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/chess-pieces/themed-chess-pieces.html?src=feature


What is a DGT 2010 Limited Edition chess clock worth? I have a DGT 2010 Limited Edition chess clock (red version from 2013) and I want to know the market value.

I can't find any listings for it on ebay or chess shop websites, other than old pages from 2013, and the item is "unavailable".

So what's it worth?

These are still very common, so not worth a lot. Considering that the more recent ["DGT 3000 Limited Edition" clock can be bought for $59.93][1], at least it held its value, but no more. Don't be fooled by "Limited Edition"...it does not equate to "rare".

P.S. Sorry, I did not pickup on the difference...they both looked red to me, but I see it now. Frankly, I still do not think it is going to make it valuable unless you wait many years, but you can do a couple of things to find out what it is really worth now:

Put it up for sale on eBay and start high with the price, but if you do, only use a "Buy It Now". If you put it up for bid, you will definitely get a lot less.
Set up an eBay search that sends you an email every time there is a new listing. Eventually, someone is sure to be selling one, and you will get an idea of what it is worth when it sells.


Playing Kb1(b8) immediately after O-O-O I'm curious about this move duo.

I see this quite a bit, and I'm trying to figure out under which conditions that playing Kb1(b8) is normally preferred.

In some openings, such as the Sicilian Dragon, White will castle long followed up by playing Kb1.  In such cases, there are some rather real threats against the castled position there (Bg7 pointing at b2, open c-file with Rc8, active Black Queen).

However, I'm more curious about some of the more quieter positions where there doesn't appear to be any obvious threats.  In some cases, I see players, and even computer programs, play Kb1(b8) immediately.  I've analyzed some of these lines and never seem to find any reason why Kb1(b8) is played.

I've always been of the mind to just leave the King at c1(c8) unless there is some obvious threat.

Why is Kb1(b8) played in some of these positions?  What types of threats can the other player come up with to require Kb1(b8) to be played?

There are two main reasons to play Kb1(b8):

Prophylaxis - Kb1 does many things, xaisoft's answer touches on some of them.  On c1, the king is very exposed to checks on the c1-h6 diagonal.  This means that a queen could check on g5 and pick off a loose piece on h4.  Or similarly, if black plays ...Bh6, the white king will be checked, or worse, a piece could be pinned to the king.  In most openings where white plays O-O-O, the center and kingside pawns are being thrown forward to try and mate black, so avoiding diagonal checks is almost always useful.  Some other reasons that Kb1 is useful are:

Clearing c1 for a rook to help defend c2
Protecting the a2 pawn
Preparing to play c3 or b3 to blunt an attack along the c or b file (although c3 is almost always wrong once O-O-O has been played)

A Waiting Move - Since we have already established that Kb1 is useful, it is also important to note that there are very few drawbacks to the move.  Other moves might not be so good in the position though.  For example, in the Yugoslav Attack of the Dragon, in current theory white will play 12. Kb1 instead of 12. h4 because white is not yet sure how best to deploy the kingside pawns.  Frequently white will just play g4 and omit h4 to speed up the attack.


Can you solve this queen + 3 pawns vs bishop + 3 pawns chess problem? [FEN "7k/8/8/8/6p1/4QpPb/5PpP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

I found this interesting and unique chess problem online while surfing on the internet.
Disclaimer: This is not necessarily a position from a game. It's just a beautiful composition wherein your objective as White is to checkmate the black king. White is moving from bottom to top and Black is moving from top to bottom.
This problem was composed by the Hungarian Engineer, Ottó Bláthy.
It's White's turn. Can you find the winning move continuation for White?

If White can get the Black king to the first rank, then it will not be fast enough to catch the g-pawn from promoting.  White starts by playing 1. Qg5, and after 1...Kh7 2. Qf6 Kg8 3. Qh6, the White queen can simply imitate the Black king's movements until she can start forcing the king down towards the first rank.
[FEN "7k/8/8/8/6p1/4QpPb/5PpP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qg5 Kh7 2. Qf6 Kg8 3. Qh6 Kf7 4. Qg5 Kf8 5. Qg6 Ke7 6. Qf5 Ke8 7. Qf6 Kd7 8. Qe5 Kd8 9. Qe6 Kc7 10. Qd5 Kc8 11. Qd6 Kb7 12. Qc5 Kb8 13. Qc6 Ka7 14. Qc8 Kb6 15. Qd7 Ka6 16. Qc7 Kb5 17. Qd6 Ka5 18. Qc6 Kb4 19. Qd5 Ka4 20. Qc5 Kb3 21. Qd4 Ka3 22. Qc4 Kb2 23. Qd3 Ka2 24. Qc3 Kb1 25. Qh8 Kc2 26. Qxh3

As to whether this is the fastest win, I'm not sure.


What is the "increment" in chess? I saw this in many online games, but I do not understand how it works. With every move we can gain time, but what is it dependent on how much we get? Can please somebody explain the system behind it.

Take a look at Wikipedia's time control article:

Fischer delay (or time increment), invented by Bobby Fischer. When it becomes a player's turn to move, the delay (or increment) is added to the player's remaining time. For example, if the delay is five seconds and the player has ten minutes remaining on his clock when his clock is activated, he now has ten minutes and five seconds remaining.

And in the usage of chess servers:

On chess servers (like Internet Chess Club and Free Internet Chess Server) the time control is usually expressed with a formula: time+increment. Where time is a fixed amount of time (in minutes) assigned at move 0 for the entire game, and increment (in seconds) is the amount added after each move.
When the increment is 0 the time control turns into a sudden death: so a 5+0 game is a game with sudden death at 5 minutes.
When the increment is bigger than 0 the time control is a Fischer delay: e.g. a 2+12 is a game with Fischer delay with 2 minutes + 12 seconds each move.
A game can even have a time set to 0: the clock is set to 0 and started after the first move with the increment only on both sides, and each move each player is granted only the increment: a 0+10 is a game where after the first move each player has 10 seconds to move.

To sum it up:
Time increment gets added to your current time to compensate for a probable delay (for humans is the reaction time and for servers may compensate for latency etc.). If you are fast enough to play your move before the increment ends, the extra time gets added to your current time thus augmenting your remaining time.


USCF player question I was looking at the list of uscf players (as anyone can through WinTD) and two columns in a dataset, downloadable through the program, are titled RSUPP_NUM, R_PLR_TYP.

Does anyone have any idea what these columns mean? I see that these are short for Rating Supplement Number and Rating Player Type, but am unsure of why this is there.

Here's a screenshot of what the data looks like.

Here is all of the possible values in both of the columns.

For RSUPP_NUM:

For R_PLR_TYPE:

Does "E" mean experienced, and "P" mean provisional?

Does the 1-12 value mean it correspond to months? Does it mean the rating a person has corresponding to that month's value?

As can be verified by looking at player information on http://uschess.org, RSUPP_YR and RSUPP_NUM are the year and month of the latest supplement with a rating for that player (which is in the R_LPB_RAT columns). If you looked up a sample player who has a P in R_PLR_TYP, it wouldn't be hard to confirm whether that means that the rating is provisional.


How can I play Colle System against Kingside Fianchetto? I enjoy the Colle System as white, because it often leads to a strong kingside attack for white without exposing my own King to significant danger.

However, when my opponent castles behind a fianchetto on the kingside, I often struggle to understand how to attack it, as it significantly blunts the attack of my Bishop at d3, and advancing kingside pawns would likely open my own King up dangerously.

Can anyone point me to a good example of how to attack a fianchettoed king from the Colle system?

If it conforms to your style of play, one possibility is to switch to a stonewall setup, which generally leads to a king-side pawn storm where the g6 pawn acts as a very convenient lever for opening up your opponent's king. It must be said, though, that an early king-side fianchetto followed by ...c5 to undermine the white center is probably one of the best and most aggressive ways to meet the Colle system, so if you're not prepared to vary your approach, you shouldn't be surprised if black achieves easy equality immediately out of the opening.


Long algebraic notation-piece promotion I am building a chess engine with the use of Artificial Intelligence, and I am almost done as long as the AI and the internal game mechanics are concerned.
Currently I am training the AI and I want to get it to play with as many other AIs as possible. As I was searching, I came across the Arena interface which makes possible exactly what I want.
So I began to modify my engine to meet the specifications required for this to work and here is where my question lies. To be more specific, Arena uses the UCI protocol to make two engines communicate.
In the UCI protocol, the move format is in long algebraic notation. I would like to know how exactly long algebraic notation differs from algebraic notation, and more specifically how pawn promotion is represented.

Most games published for human study are written in short algebraic notation.  For each move, the destination square is always specified, the moving piece is specified unless it's a pawn (in which case the origin file is specified for captures only), and if there's any ambiguity the origin rank and/or file is given to resolve it.  Captures are indicated by inserting 'x' before the destination square.  Promotion is indicated using eg. "=Q" suffix.  Additional suffixes are used to indicate check, mate, and move quality.
Long algebraic notation is just like the above, except that the origin square is always exactly specified, and usually a '-' is inserted in place of the 'x' for non-captures.  So Re1 might become Ra1-e1.  The same suffixes are used, and castling is still specified using O-O type notation.
English descriptive notation is somewhat more arcane, and may specify only the piece identities if the resulting move is unambiguous, eg. RxB.  It is now considered obsolete, though you might find it in old literature.  I don't think it is used in any engine protocols.  The same goes for foreign-language piece name abbreviations, eg. German chess uses Springer (S) instead of Knight (N).
The UCI protocol uses none of the above notations, but merely specifies the origin and destination squares; the only suffix is a single letter to disambiguate pawn promotions.  So exd8=N in short algebraic would become e7xd8=N in long algebraic, but e7d8n in UCI (all in lowercase).  Castling is specified by moving the king two spaces (in standard chess) or onto the corresponding rook (in 960) instead of in shorthand notation.


Analysing Crazyhouse Games I have recently started playing crazyhouse on chess.com. For my normal chess games, I download my chess games in PGN format. Then open them up in chessbase 13 and from within chessbase load up the UCI-compatible stockfish engine to analyse the games. Ideally, I would like to store my crazyhouse games in chessbase too and call up an engine supporting crazyhouse. But for some reason, chessbase doesn't like crazyhouse PGN files. My first question is whether there is a way to analyze crazyhouse games in Chessbase? If not, is there a database program that can handle both normal chess and crazyhouse games? It should also allow loading of UCI-compatible chess engines. I do not need all the advanced database features of chessbase. More important to me is a single consolidated software to store and analyze my games in normal chess and crazyhouse.

If you accept to give up the use of a graphical interface, you can analyze your games with python-chess-annotator:

https://github.com/rpdelaney/python-chess-annotator

It is a python script that uses an UCI engine to analyze a game in a pgn file. It will give you in output a pgn file with the annotations. It works with every chess variant supported by python-chess, and Crazyhouse is supported. You can use Stockfish Crazyhouse to analyze.


Is it allowed to talk to your opponent in a tournament game? Suppose my opponent in a tournament was running very low on time, and after move 40, presses the clock and leaves the board for a while, falsely believing they will get extra time on their clock. There have been many losses on time as a result of a similar situation. In this case, is it allowed to warn your opponent of the potential danger of flagging?

In this case, is it allowed to warn your opponent of the potential
  danger of flagging?

Yes. The rule which limits talking to your opponent is the one which forbids annoying the opponent, article 11.5 -

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

If your opponent has left the board and you remind him of the time control this cannot be interpreted as distracting or annoying. It is helpful.


How would top grandmasters fare against engines in correspondence chess? If Magnus Carlsen, for example, faced Stockfish with the time control 1move/day, how well would Magnus do against Stockfish? It seems with so much time per move, tactical oversight disappears.

short answer: the computer would still win

long answer: a human player has much more time to think, well. but a chess-computerprogram would also have much more time to calculate much more variants. (and every good "classical" chess-computerprogram would use this time to evaluate as many variants as deep as possible). so the skill-difference would become linear bigger whilst you give them more time to think (assuming the players can use this time really prolific productively). the limits will be reached for a human when he wants to think deeper about more variants. for computers the limits a much broader because a computer would never be confused when it analyzes millions of positions.


Is there any resource where you can look up a board position and read a number of suggested moves? Is there any resource where you could just plug in the positions of all the pieces on the board and, for example, see an annotated page where different people or computer-generated bots have analyzed the strengths of various possible moves?

If you get ChessBase, there are a number of features that are available when setting up a certain position:

1) With a reference database, you can see the moves chosen in all the games from that position. These moves can be ranked in various ways (e.g., number of games played, rating of players, etc).

2) When turning on an engine to analyze the position, you can see previous engine evaluations of the position (stored from people who analyzed it before). This assumes you're connected to the internet, and that they were as well (so that their engine evaluation could be saved on the cloud).

3) The LiveBook feature allows you to see the number of visits certain moves from that position have had by people who analyzed previously (again, assuming these people were connected to the cloud at the time). This is often a good way to see what the best moves are objectively, as well as the most popular moves played in games (since people could be following a game, which is why they looked at a particular move).


Caro-Kann continuation for Black in this position I would like to ask your help regarding this position. I played as Black in this game in a tournament and it has ended in a draw by repetition.

Now I fear that I may encounter this position again, so I would like to ask help about what are the plans for Black in this position and what should I do if White decides to put his Queen to h3?

[Title "Caro-Kann continuation and plans for Black"]
[StartPly "36"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Bf5
5. Ng3 Bg6
6. h4 h6
7. Nh3 Nf6
8. Nf4 Bh7
9. Bc4 e6
10. O-O Be7
11. c3 O-O
12. Re1 Nd5
13. Qh5 Qd6
14. Qg4 Nf6
15. Qf3 Nd5
16. Qg4 Nf6
17. Qd1 Nd5
18. Qg4 Nf6

Thanks!

UPDATE
Regarding the issue with move 13, I actually couldn't remember if it was a blunder or just a move order issue. But my point is after move 18, what plans should be followed by Black in order to play actively?

I'm wondering about the purpose of 13... Qd6. Seems a waste of time to me. What's wrong with grabbing the pawn? White's 13. Qh5 is a simple mistake.

And about the point that "draw with Black is as good as a win" - it is not. You should aim for a win with both sides and also ignore rating gaps. I've given up the habit of looking at my opponent's rating before the game. Just play.


How does Elo rating gain scale with games played? I only take two players starting out at 1500 Elo and have them play against each other with one player winning all games. Also I leave out any artificially introduced cut-offs.

So the winner is constantly gaining rating while the other player is losing Elo rating. The gain is decreasing because the rating difference of the players increases.

How does (mathematically) the raiting gain scale with the number of games (n) played for large n?

It kind of depends exactly what you mean by artificial cutoffs. There is one explicitly stated artificial cutoff in the FIDE rating regulations. That says that if the rating difference is greater than 400 it will be treated as 400. But there is another hidden cutoff. The actual elo algorithm for calculating expected score or scoring probability involves power functions but FIDE provide a look-up table with approximations. This bottoms out when the rating difference is 735 with the expected score of the stronger player at 1.

So, if the 400 point cutoff is excluded but the exact FIDE algorithm with its table of expected scores is used then the maximum rating difference is 735 points and once the two players' ratings reach 2235 and 765 further wins for the stronger player will not change ratings. That is part of the reason the 400 point rule was introduced.

If, however, you are not talking about FIDE's implementation of the elo algorithms then the problem becomes a purely mathematical one. I look at the algorithms below.

The formulae for working out rating change for elo ratings work like this:

Suppose the initial ratings of the two players are r(1) and r(2)  and their recalculated ratings (which we want to work out) are r'(1) and r'(2).

First we need to calculate a power function for each initial rating to use to calculate the expected result of the match. So, call these power functions for the two players R(1) and R(2) and their expected scores E(1) and E(2).

So -
R(1) = 10^(r(1)/400) and R(2) = 10^(r(2)/400)

And -
E(1) = R(1) / (R(1) + R(2)) and E(2) = (1 - E(1)) = R(2) / (R(1) + R(2))

Now let S(1) = player 1's score in the game (going to be 1 in this case) and
let S(2) = player 2's score in the game (going to be 0 in this case) then

r'(1) = r(1) + k * (S(1) – E(1)) and
r'(2) = r(2) + K * (S(2) – E(2)) where k is the k factor

If there are no artificial cutoffs then the two ratings will eventually reach 3000 and 0 (with the same k factor for both, one player's rating gain is the other player's rating loss).

What happens in the next game?

Well r(1) = 3000 and r(2) = 0 so -
R(1) = 10^7.5 = 3162276.6 (to 8 sf) and
R(2) = 1
E(1) = 0.999999968
E(2) = 0.000000032, so
r'(2) = -0.000000032*k

The second player's rating continues to decrease and goes negative.

I'm fairly sure that as these algorithms are power function based the limits will be power function limits, i.e. the first player's rating will tend to infinity and the second's to -infinity


Wwhy was f5 played here? [FEN "r1b1k2r/3pnpbp/pp2p1p1/2q3B1/3pPP2/1B1P4/PPP1N1PP/R2Q1RK1 b k - 0 1"]

In this position, f5 was played. The reasoning is that Black's king is still in the center, so if White decides to start a kingside attack the king can just to run to safety. But this doesn't make any sense! Black could just castle after the move. Am I missing something?

Black could castle, but that doesn't make the king any safer! White could follow with f5 0-0 Qd2, threatening both f6 and Bh6.
Anyway even if Black could castle that doesn't make f5 a bad move (the only downside being the e5 square becoming a bit weak)


Another chess problem The below puzzle White to mate in two moves. I tried all combinations. I can't figure it out how to solve this? I am starting to think this as a bug in my mobile application which is showing wrong information that it can be solved in just two moves.

[FEN "2K3Bn/B/3pp1N/1p1P3R/4k/R5q/N1P3Pp/7Q w - - 0 1"]

To be fair, I tried solving this manually.

Qb1 works.

Basic idea - We see that the Black king cannot move. All that is needed is to give it a check. But where to give it a check from? The Black queen guards many key squares like h4, e3, c3, e1. Thus, White should try to find other squares. Qb1 threatens mate with Qb4+.

This is what I calculated -

1...exd5 2. Bxd5#
1...e5 2. Qb4#
1...b4 2. Qxb4#
1...h1=Q 2. Qb4#
1...Qxa3 2. c3!#
1...Qe1 2. Qxe1#
1...Qe3 2. Rxe3#
1...Qb3 2. cxb3#
1...Nxg6 2. Qb4#

I also confirmed with a computer that Qb1 is correct.


How to deal with the Sicilian Wing Gambit? The Sicilian Wing Gambit is never popular with good players, thus, it is only played as a surprise. But, how to deal with this unexpected surprise? It seems to me that all responses would just worsen Black's position. What to do if I face it?

[White "Wing"]
[Black "Gambit"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.b4

The easy way out is to just play 2…b6. This move certainly doesn't "just worsen" blacks position:

Now both players can fiancetto the bishop, but a black bishop on b7 actually has a target, the e4-pawn.
If white plays 3.bc bc the b-line is open. This makes the option of 0-0-0 quite unattractive, an option that is much more often utilised by white, especially in the sicilian.
If white doesn't take on c5, he will sooner or later have to deal with the threat against b4. Actually, he will have to evaluate the threat against b4 every move!


In ChessBase 12, when viewing an Opening Tree, why do all the games always stop near move 26? I have ChessBase 12 64Bit. To create an Opening Tree I do the following steps:

I click on "Mega Database 2014".
I filter all the 5.8 millions games like I want (for example, taking only the games where a specific player was White).
Right click > Edit > Select all.
Right click > Edit > Clip or unclip.
File > New > Database > Save as type: Books (*.CTG)
And then I drag the "Clip Database" to my newly created Opening Tree.
The newly created Opening Tree works fine.

But there is just one problem: all the games always stop near move 26 (sometimes at move 23, sometimes at move 29).

Why is that? And how can I fix this?

.

.

Edit:

Both of the current answers are completely incorrect.

I had the confirmation from two other independant people that their opening trees in their ChessBase do not stop after a certain number of moves!

They both told me that in order to make an opening tree that doesn't stop after a certain number of moves, we simply had to select "Absolute Length" and then input a big number (100 will work) for the "Length".

See page n°103 of this manual: http://download.chessbase.com/download/pdf/ManualFritz13.pdf

But that's what I have always done, and it doesn't work.

I have tried to input various numbers for the "Length": 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200, 400. And surprisingly, no matter what number I put, the opening tree always stop near move 26!

I also tried to pick "ECO-Relative Length" instead of "Absolute Length", and weirdly there was absolutely no difference: the opening tree still stops near move 26.

This means that there really is a big problem, a bug. ChessBase is simply ignoring whether I choose "Absolute Length" or "ECO-Relative Length" and what number I put for the "Length"...

"Move 26" (or thereabouts) is the "midpoint" of most chess games.

Your opening tree application appears to working fine in getting you to the  peak or "combustion point" of most games. (That seems to be its purpose.) From there, it's mostly downhill.


Python Engines to Beat to Take the Crown Since Python is extremely slow, chess engines are almost never written using it.  I've been building a Python engine to avoid this issue (through JIT compilation), and want to compare my engine against other 'pure Python' engines.

I'm defining a 'pure Python' engine as an engine where all the core functionality is written in Python.  An example of this would be an engine which is written in all Python except for a tiny bit of C used to efficiently stitch together the use of a few Python packages.

Given that definition, I'm wondering which engine's would need to be beaten in order to fairly say my engine is the "Best Python Engine" running on my computer hardware.

If you'd like to test against my engine, or are just curious about it, my chess engine is Batch-First (although as of writing this the trained ANNs aren't currently uploaded).

You may claim yourself the World Computer Champion in Python if you beat all of them:

  http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67025


Material score in analysis report Is it possible to do an analysis using Scid vs PC or any other major chess program where it shows material score after each move in addition to showing the normal evaluation score? So for an endgame of let's say a king with 2 knights vs king with a bishop the material and evaluation scores would show (6-3 +0.0) on the last move of the game.

Check the program pgn-extract (https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/~djb/pgn-extract). It has what you probably need. Here I copy a fragment of its help:

Include a position evaluation after each move (--evaluation)
The --evaluation argument causes a comment to be appended to every move, which contains an evaluation of the position immediately following that move. The default evaluation is a simplified version of Shannon's board evaluation. In this case, the evaluation is the difference between the value of White's position and Black's, where the value of a position is a weighted sum of the pieces plus a multiplier (0.1) applied to the number of available moves for that player.
I see this primarily as being a hook for people who wish to embed their own evaluations in the output. See the evaluate function in apply.c if you wish to write your own.
However, an alternative approach to annotating games with engine analysis would be to consider using something like my UCI-analyser that can pass suitably formatted PGN files to a UCI-compatible engine. See, for instance, the section on obtaining annotated output in PGN format.

pgn-extract: A Portable Game Notation (PGN) Manipulator for Chess Games
Version 19-04 by David J. Barnes (@kentdjb)


Chess GUI for windows that shows two boards? Is there a Chess GUI for Windows that shows both the board from white's perspective and black's perspective side by side, without the need for flipping?

The closest I've gotten to something like this is having separate accounts on whatever chess server you're using.

If you're using, say, FICS, you have two instances of your favorite client running, the first client is your main one and the second one you just join to the game through another account as a "watcher".

This requires a bit of manual labor, though. A more automated way is done through exploiting the macro functionality of most modern clients. You could, say, run the second client in the background at all times, and have the first client send an invite to the second to join the game, and the second client set to automatically accept invites coming from the first account.

At the very least, I think Winboard and BabasChess are capable of this. Others almost certainly are.


Is the Danish Gambit viable for Class D tournament play? I've been recently playing the Danish Gambit online in blitz. It started as a dare from one of my friends, but I've had ludicrous success with it due to  common mistakes from my opponents.

Also, I don't mean the wimp-out Danish Gambit with 4. Nxc3. I mean this Danish Gambit:

 [FEN " "]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2

It's been doing so much better online for me that I may want to try it in tournament play.

However, I'm worried that the slower time control will cause my opponents to make better calculations.

I'm currently a Class D (1200-1399) player.

So, my big question is:

Is the Danish Gambit viable at longer (tournament-length) time controls for a Class D player?

If you don't think so, can you give me some similar openings to try out (for White) that may perform better?

My old chess tutor answered a similar question of mine quite decisively: "Just don't worry about it: Below 2000 (FIDE) you can succeed with every opening."

Lower rated (or non-prepared) players do not know how to punish the weaknesses an opening like the Danish Gambit opens - and they make mistakes. Lots of them. Playing against as sharp of an opening as the DG requires your opponent to make really precise moves and prompts them to make even more mistakes on which you can capitalize on.

To conclude: I think you are perfectly fine playing the Danish Gambit in Class D tournament chess, as your opponents are not likely to know the theory and will probably blunder sooner or later, especially if the opening fits your style. Even in longer time controls. (Also playing sharp openings is just a lot of fun!)

Another opening that comes to mind is the Grob (1.g4). It is no less dubious at master-level, but if you put the effort into it and learn some theory behind it, you can absolutely obliterate a careless player.

Finally a word of warning: The higher you rise in the chess rankings (approaching 1800+), the harder it will get to win with "one-trick-pony" tactics. So put some time aside to improve your general Chess, not just one opening.


Guidance on a new idea for an engine design? for my A-level computing project I was going to do an investigation into a type of engine design which incorporates Neural Networks that I haven't seen elsewhere; as part of this project I need to base my specification around the recipients of the outcomes for investigative projects (hopefully you guys).

My current design idea is this:

For a given position, A neural network will evaluate the position and spit out two values: how good it is for white/black, and a value representing how much will be gained from analysing this position further.
All of this information (along with the depth) could then be combined to determine whether the engine should analyse to a layer further down in the decision tree or return the first value (how good the position is for white) so that it could then be used as a "leaf" in the decision tree that could then be analysed by mini-max (along with suitable pruning algorithms) to give an overall analysis of a given move.
To train the neural network: I was going to play two networks against each other and analyse their evaluations of the certain moments in the game post-game to tell them (using back propagation) where they should look deeper or evaluate a certain position as better/worse based on who won the match. I think this method is similar to policy gradients. Another approach I was looking into was a genetic algorithm however I was sceptical of whether I have nearly enough processing power available to me seen as I'm doing this all on my laptop :(

I would be very grateful if you could answer these questions for me:

Have you seen any similar projects like this before?
What are any pitfalls that you could see with this method?
would you consider using a similar method in your engines? Why/ why not?
how would you alter this investigative project so that it could benefit you more personally?
Would you use the genetic algorithm approach?

Thanks a lot in advance for any replies!

I see three ways of tackling this:

You can add a confidence value to you position evaluation function. And then use this to improve your tree search. This sounds amenable to mathematical analysis, you'd have to adapt min-max search to handle a trade-off between confidence and evaluation.
You can output a distribution of evaluations instead of a single numerical value. And again use this information to improve tree search. That's similar to the one above.
You directly output a "how much compute should be spent on this position"-value.

The second thing has been done in some of Deepmind's video game reinforcement learning projects. So you might want to take a look at that.

I haven't seen anything like this for turn-based board games. It certainly sounds like a sensible idea.

If you want to do the third thing you need to figure out how to capture and backpropagate "how much compute should be spent on this position". That doesn't sound trivial and is not guaranteed to work, but it would be pretty neat and it would tilt your work more towards Deep Learning kinda stuff.

No, you should not use genetic algorithms. It's almost always better to optimise your function non-randomly. In your case backpropagation is highly likely to be much more efficient.

One pitfall is that even backpropagation might not be efficient enough. If you train your networks from scratch by self-play on your laptop, it is possible that the learning never really takes off. Self-play doesn't provide enough information for efficient learning, which is why AlphaZero and co use humongous amounts of compute.

So it might be more sensible to plan your training in such a way that it can use existing games. Then evaluation and confidence can be learned without doing any tree-search yourself.


Board editor using customized pieces and board I'm looking for a program or website which offers to create chess diagrams using custom piece sets.

I know many sites and programs that offer this but with a preset types of pieces. This is the case for example for jinchess board editor. So what I'm looking for is a board editor like this one but which gives me the option to edit the pieces set with some png image files I have for a personalized chess set.

I would love as well the possibility to change the board image.

My final aim would be to be able to create a chess position like the one bellow using a chess board editor and not having to copy and paste the image files with an image editor.

To sum up

To sum up I look for a program or website which lets:

Create a chess board position.
Use custom piece set using personalized image files.
Use as board a personalized board image file.

Note: If not a website, the software I'm looking for can be for Mac, Windows, and/or Linux.

Not exactly "custom" images but it has over 50 piece designs and 6 board sizes. You can make a "remix" version, as Scratch calls it and replace the piece designs with whatever you like, same goes with the board. The project is here: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/339815697/

Edit: I've made a new HD Version of this project, it only supports an 8x8 board size but there are now over 160 piece designs and all of them are fully HD! You can use it here: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/343444076/


Castling Rules-Does “The king & rook must be on the same rank.”="Only original rooks can do castling."? According to Wikipedia, one of the conditions of castling is:

  The king and the rook must be on the same rank (Schiller 2003:19).

This is because of a loophole that would occur otherwise:

  Without this additional restriction, it would be possible to promote a. pawn on the e-file to a rook and then castle vertically across the board (as long as the other conditions are met). This way of castling was "discovered" by Max Pam and used by Tim Krabbé in a chess puzzle before the FIDE rules were amended in 1972 to disallow it. See Chess Curiosities by Krabbé.

I understand this rule like this: Only the two original rooks (not promoted rooks) can partake in castling. Is there any loophole in this understanding of mine?

No.  You got it right.

The King can only castle if the K and R is on its original square and each has never moved,  the king is not in check, and the king does not move through a check, and it is your move so you can move.

I remember that puzzle. Guy at worked showed me a mate in one.
Which was impossible.  I finally guessed he was a true patzer and thought you really could castle with a promoted rook on the king file.
So I did that and got the puzzle right.

It was hard to conceive of castling that way but the rules got fixed to make sure it would never happen.  As if it could happen in a real game and not a puzzle-problem.


Countering the Horowitz Defense Since my last post I've successfully learned how to counter the wayward queen attack, and now I've run into an interesting opening that I don't immediately lose to, but I feel I can play against better.

Typically as white I like to play the Queens Gambit. Being still new I stick to what I know. A VERY VERY common opening for black against the queens gambit in the 700-900 range (on chess.com) seems to be the Horowitz Defense.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "6"]

1. d4 e6

Generally, I tend to continue with the queens gambit, moving 2. c4. My justification being an early deployment of his dark bishop would give check but theres plenty of (safe) ways to mitigate it and continue to develop my pieces. However, I feel there's strategy here I don't see. I haven't searched chessbase yet (will do that tomorrow) but I don't usually see this opening in club games.

Is there a better counter to it than 2. c4, are there specific master games I can study?

thank you!

Since you are playing the Queen Gambit, 2.c4 is indeed the most logical way to continue. The main answers, 2...d5 and 2...Nf6, should fit in your repertoire anyway. The alternative is to go for 2.Nf3 first.

Move order finesses

Black's move order bears three subtelties:

You are offered a choice to switch to a French opening with 2.e4. This is probably your opponent's secret hope and since you are a 1.d4 player, you will probably not want to go down that road even though 2.e4 is of course a good move - unless you are fond of playing against the French defense.
After 2.c4, Black can bring the game to original territory with 2...Bb4+. This is a decent line, but not overly dangerous, and you can handle it with general rules (develop, avoid doubled pawns, castle...) if reaching an equal position suits you. Or you can learn a bit of theory about it, although at 700-900 level there are a lot of more important stuff for you to study.
If you want to avoid it altogether, you can start with 2.Nf3. Then 2...d5 3.c4 is back to QGD, with an early Nf3, which might or might not suit you depending on your favorite line of Queen Gambit. Note that 3...Bb4+ remains a decent option for Black.
Dutch players often start with 1...e6 to provoque 2.c4 and reduce their opponent choice: after 1.d4 f5 White often goes 2.g3 or 2.Nf3 and plays c4 only a few moves later, or even plays subvariations like 2.Bg5 or 2.e4, but after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 those options are lost. If you play an early 2.c4 against the Dutch anyway, you won't mind those shenanigans at all, otherwise 2.Nf3 might once again be the solution.

Finally, some Black players also intend 2...b6 or other rare moves you should not be too worried about.

Conclusion

1...e6 is a decent move that plans to reach normal positions while limiting your choice. Those move-order subtelties are interesting when building your repertoire, yet they should not worry you too much until you reach a level around 1800 or so.

The natural alternative for a Queen's Gambit player is between 2.c4 and 2.Nf3; both have pluses and minuses. If it fits your usual way of playing in the QGD, go for 2.Nf3 first before 3.c4 and go for standard, QGD-like development: that avoids 2...Bb4+ tricks and requires less specific work on opening lines that shouldn't be your biggest concern right now.


How many possible chess moves are there? Starting from the standard initial position, how many possible legal chess moves are there in this and all possible following positions?
Say, ignoring the starting position, a bishop can move to 32 squares (but the other covers the other 32), a rook to 64, if both sides are taken into account, pawns can also reach all 64 squares, a knight, king and queen can also reach all 64 positions.
So in sum, that should be 384 total move target-square+piece combinations. Is this correct?
But what is the number of moves if the starting position is not ignored?
Then, 16 pawn double-step advances have to be added, plus 4 castling moves (2, queen and kingside for each player). And en passant , which should be 7 left and 7 right, times 2 for both players. And all possible source-target square combinations of all other pieces!

The white king can move to 8 fields from the inner 36 fields, to 4 fields from the 4 corner fields and to 5 fields from the remaining 24 boundary fields. That's 420 moves for the white king, add 2 for castlings to arrive at 422. If you distinguish captures, this almost doubles (castling can't capture) to 842. Now allow for the black king to double this (1684)? Or identify moves they could both make (i.e., all but castling - 844)?
A rook can always (given free line of sight) move to 14 squares. That's 896 moves. Double to 1792 if you distinguish captures. Double again (3584) if you want to distinguish colour.
On a diagonal (NW to SE, say) of length n, a bishop can make n(n-1) moves (pick a start field and a distinct end field). Sum over n=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 (i.e., ignoring the colour of the bishop) to arrive at 280 moves, double to 560 to count both diagonal directions. Double (1120) if you want to distinguish captures, double once more (2240) if you want to distinguish by colour.
For the queen simply add rook and bishop, thus counting 1456, 2912, or 5824 moves.
The knight can typically make 8 moves, but as with the king we have to account for nearby boundary. It is easier to count by direction: There are 42 (6 by 7) fields from where we can go two to the right and one up, say. We have the same number 42 (though with different fields) for all eight directions, hence a total of 336 knight moves. Double (672) if you distinguish captures. Double again (1344) if you distinguish by colour.
A white pawn can move two fields ahead from its initial position (8 moves). It can move one ahead from rows 2 to 6 (40 moves). It can move ahead from row 7 and promote to queen, rook, bishop, or knight (32 moves). For pawns, we must distinguish captures: In only seven of the eight columns, we can capture to the right, and in seven of eight columns we can capture to the left. This gives us 70 capture moves from rows 2 to 6, plus 56 capture with promotion. So far 206. If you want to distinguish capture en passant from a normal capture by the same movement (start and end field) of the pawn, add 14 to arrive at 220. Again, at least for pawns it seems useful to distinguish by player and arrive at 440.
In summary, the most generous way of counting possible moves might lead to 1684  + 3584 + 2240 + 5824 + 1344 + 440 = 15116 distinct moves. One could raise the number even higher by distinguishing moves that give check or even checkmate, or by distinguishing captures according to the piece captured.


Why is Be6 a better move than Bh5 in this position? Original position:

After Bh5 (move I think is better because of the threat to the queen if pawn moves):

After Be6 (move recommended by the engine):

Not only do you lose a pawn as previous answers told, but there's a strategic idea behind this too. What characterizes the position you gave is that it has opposite-side castles. On this positions, players try to pawn-storm their opponents and break their opponent's king position. With Bh5 you are giving your opponent the chance to start a pawn storm with tempo, which means you are basically allowing him to make his desired moves "for free" and succeeding easily on his plan.


What sort of job opportunities fits well with a good chess player? A friend of mine recently lost his job, and he happens to be a pretty decent chess player; Over 2000.

There is not enough chess teaching positions in the area to employ him full time, and he hasn't quite found his niche yet in the working world. What sort of job opportunities really take advantage of spacial logic and other characteristics that would belong to a good chess player?

If you're question is: What job can I get if I put "strong chess player" on my CV, the answer is probably nothing. Although a difficult game to master, the skills you acquire with chess has very little resemblance to the skills prospective employers are looking for. Employers value real world experience in their domain - they are not usually too interested in abstract similarities.

On the other hand, if you're question is: I'm good at chess - what else could I be good at? I imagine any career that is founded on logic and mathematics would be a reasonable fit - perhaps computer programmer or actuarial work. But you still have to do show that you can do the job - either by getting an education or getting experience even if it means doing work in your free time.

Being a chess player is a certainly a benefit - it shows you are able to grasp complex problems and perform under pressure - but at your friend's level it is not nearly enough by itself to get any kind of job that I'm aware of.


Is it poor sportsmanship to resign immediately after a major blunder early in the game? In a recent (online) game in which I had black, my opponent played an opening variation with which I was unfamiliar. That, a very aggressive attack, and lack of adequate time to think through my moves had me down a pawn and in poor position as we entered the middle game. While I wasn't yet in major time trouble, they had significantly more time on their clock also.

After a relatively long time before their 15th move, I got the end of game sound and pop up window. The first thing I noticed was that my opponent had taken another pawn and put me in check with their queen. For just an instant, I thought I was being told that I had lost. However, I had multiple ways out of check so knew that couldn't be correct. Then I realized that my opponent had resigned so fast after making their move that the move and end of game signal appeared on my computer simultaneously. Apparently they hadn't seen that I had a knight guarding the square to which they had moved their queen.

Presumably my opponent resigned because they had hung their queen and realized it right after making the move. While that mistake devastated their chances of winning the game, to me it felt unsporting for them to have resigned so abruptly, when many pieces were still on the board (in addition to the two pawns I had lost, the only pieces off the board were from a bishop/knight trade).

Is a resignation like this bad sportsmanship? Or should I just accept it as part of the game after such a significant mistake? (For reference, both of us are rated in the 1100's.)

It is totally normal, and actually, I would consider it good sportsmanship, but that is a bit relative to your level of play.

Among masters, if someone blunders even a piece, they know that their master opponent will have no problem converting, so to play on could be considered rude and a waste of time. That said, they have the right to, and if they do, you don't really complain about it.

At MUCH lower levels, sometimes players are not strong enough to win, even up a queen, so playing on may make sense.

In either case, it is your opponent's right to resign a position they do not want to play. Take the rating points, and smile.


Rules for ending a chess game I have seen many games that do not end by checkmate but still say 0-1 or 1-0.  The following picture also shows that the game did not end but White won. Can anyone please explain this.

It means one of the players resigned or lost on time.  In the game above, White threatens mate on g6 if the black Queen can be deflected from its defense. So White threatens Qxe8 followed by Qxg6#.  If Black plays 37... Qf7, White responds with Qxd7 which threatens the Black Queen and a potential mate on g7. It's a mess that at best ends up with Black being down a ton of material.


Touching chess pieces in official matches Is it a rule in official matches, that if I touch a piece I must play with that one?

Sorry for my noobness; my friend said that I should move with the touched piece.

It's an often confusing issue. I have quoted key portions of the USCF rule book below, but the basic gist is that...

If you touch a piece, excepting adjustment and accidents, you must move it.
If you touch an opponent's piece, you must capture that piece.
If you release a piece, you have determined your move. (It is completed after you hit the clock.)

Incidentally, I once coached a scholastic, who inadvertently touched his opponent's queen (because he was too short to reach over the board easily) and his opponent claimed touch move and insisted that he capture the queen. He was only seven and not experienced enough to know to call the TD so he gave in to the older, very intimidating player and played the losing move. This was the state elementary championships, and he finished with 4 of 5 after losing this game.

New players are often unaware that accidentally touched pieces do not have to be moved. If there is doubt, call the TD. The TD should err on the side of accident and adjustment.

  10A.  Adjustment of pieces. A player who is on the move and first
  expresses the intention to adjust (e.g., by saying j'adoube or I
  adjust) may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.
  10B. Touch-move rule. Except for 10A, a player on move who deliberately
  touches one or more pieces, in a manner that may reasonably be
  interpreted as the beginning of a move, must move or capture the first
  piece touched that can be moved or captured.
  10E. Accidental touch of a piece. A director who believes a player touched a piece by accident
  should not require the player to move that piece. For example, a
  player's hand reaching across the board may inadvertently brush the
  top of a nearby king or queen, or a player may hit a piece with an
  elbow.


What rule changes are proposed to minimize the incentive to draw a game? Many world champion games are drawn, and people in the general public think that is disappointing. Not to debate that opinion here, but the question seems to be out there. So what would a rule change look like to get rid of most of the drawn games in tournaments? Especially those agreed upon rather than those forced. What has been proposed?

What consequences would come from giving zero points to both players who draw? Or to punish the party who proposes a draw by a reduced score? Draws can be forced, and the players could "agree to force" a draw, so it's not apparent to me how it would work out.

Tried systems are to award 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, not being able to offer a draw before move 30, and only being able to draw with the consent of the arbiter.  There has been a long discussion about giving black 0.6 points versus white's 0.4, due the the advantage of the first move.  There is also Fischer's suggestion of not counting draws in matches.

I have suggested on splitting the point in a ratio derived by the difference in rating.  For people with <= 75 points difference, the point is split evenly.  75-150, the point is split 0.6-0.4, weaker and stronger player respectively.  There could also be a variance based upon which color was played.  This should give the stronger player more incentive to play for a win, however it also gives the weaker player more reward for playing for the draw.


What's a good explanation for stalemate being a draw for a beginning chess player? I've started playing chess a little more using an app on my phone, and frequently run into the situation where I'm dominating the computer opponent (on an easy difficulty level) to the point where he can't make a legal move (e.g. I've got 5 queens or something like that).  Of course, this is a stalemate and it's a draw.

From Googling around, it seems like it's common for most beginners to feel like they're being "cheated" in this situation (as I do), while most experienced players "agree" with the rule.

I've yet to see an explanation that makes me feel like I'm not being cheated.  The explanations all seem to say "it's a draw because the rule say it's a draw", or only slightly better, "the rules say that to win, you must put your opponent into check (such that he can't get out), and since you didn't do this, you didn't win, so it's a draw."  I don't mean any offense, but this just seems like circular reasoning to me.

Draws make intuitive sense to me when there are few pieces left and neither player has enough of an advantage to checkmate the other (a simple example would be when there are just 2 kings left), but I'm having a hard time seeing how "anywhere I move would put me in check" and "I'm in check and anywhere I move would leave me still in check" aren't really equivalent concepts.

Take the theoretical case above (say black has 5 queens and a king, and white just has a king, and they're positioned in such a way that white can't move without putting himself in check).  How can a beginner be convinced that black hasn't dominated so thoroughly that he should win?

If you were dominating so much, you should have checkmated him. It's not the fault of the game that your mistakes may mean you don't win.

The appeal of chess comes partly from the fact that it is hard. One of the reasons for that is that there is quite a large drawing margin -- you may have a great position at some point, but there may still be many ways to defend tenaciously in endgames, and a good opponent can make it very hard for you to win even if he does make a big mistake early on.

Those ways include eternal check, the fact that you can't checkmate with a single bishop or knight against a lone king, fortresses, and also many ways to defend based on stalemate.

For instance, king + pawn vs king (where the pawn isn't immediately lost) would be a trivial win for the pawn without stalemate, but with stalemate it's sometimes a forced win and sometimes it's possible to hold a draw. Because you need to see which it is before you trade down to that endgame, that makes the game deeper and harder.

I don't think chess would have become as popular as it is without rules like stalemate. It would be a shallower game.

You just didn't play well enough.


Can't seem to get back to winning consistently I’ve been in a big time slump lately. I play a lot of chess on the chess.com platform. I am sure that you all know the platform. My question is this: How does someone get out of a slump? I am losing to players I shouldn't be losing to. Do I just need to get my mind right?

I think you have hit the nail on the head with "Do I just need to get my mind Right?"

For many years I had very inconsistent form, I would try very hard and work on my game frequently, I saw gradual improvement but yet I would still find myself losing to players I really shouldn't...

Here is my last two years of form click here

Chess is a game which will never be played perfectly (not by any human), every game is riddled with mistakes from World Champion to absolute beginner, as players we tend to focus only on the bad things we do, "I just blundered a piece stupidly" or "I missed a simple tactic" rather than thinking about the deeper reasons for our mistake, oversights and tactical errors almost always occur when you don't understand the type of position you're playing or spending enough time to appreciate the finer points in the structure!

To play yourself into form, (or get out of bad form), you should spend a little more time getting to the bottom of why you've made the mistakes in the games you truly believe you should be winning!

Here is an article I wrote on my own improvement a year or so ago: If it looks interesting, play it!


Is the Smith-Morra gambit still worth playing at a ~1600 level? I've been playing the Smith-Morra Gambit (e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3) against the Sicilian defense for about 2 years. I have a tournament coming up in 3 days and I am beginning to doubt if the Smith-Morra would suffice. I like attacks and do not enjoy slow maneuvering play (which is why I do not play queen's pawn). Is there any reason I should change my response to the Sicilian? It seems like 3 days is not enough time to learn the thousands of variations in the Sicilian. And even I understand good play by black means that I am down a pawn for good.

FYI, I have an FIDE rating of 1398 and it seems to me that my opponents will be rated average of 1600.

The gambit is perfect for amateurs, the gambit is tricky and could be deadly if Black underestimate White's attacking potential.

I've personally used it to beat players around FIDE 2000, so it's fine for you to try.


Why underpromote in this KNNP-KR endgame? In the position below, I'm promoting my pawn. The app says promoting to a Queen is incorrect, but a Rook is correct? In this setup it doesn't make sense.

[FEN "8/1P6/3N4/8/8/3k4/r7/4KN2 w - - 0 1"]

1.b8=R 1-0

If you promote to a queen with 1. b8Q, black has:

  1...Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2

attacking the queen and hinting at mate with Rb1++. If white takes the rook 3. Qxb2 it is stalemate.

Because of the mate threat white does not have any other good square for the queen either (no good check and no square that would defend b1).

If you promote to a rook, black does not have this defense, because after 3. Rxb2 it would not be stalemate. The resulting endgame (King, rook and two knights vs king and rook) should be a reasonably easy win.

Also you need to know that if the queen gets exchanged for the rook (e.g. after 1. b8Q Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2 3. Qb5+ Rxb5 4. Nxb5) , the endgame (king and tow knights vs king) is draw.

For the same reason white cannot postpone the promotion because black has (at least) a draw if he can give his rook for the pawn (e.g. after 1. [random non-pawn move by white] Rb2 2. [random move] Rxb7).

Lastly, any other underpromotion (to knight or bishop) does not work either, because black will win the piece on b8 in the above line after 2. ... Rb2 because of the mate threat on b1.

So the only way to play for a win is by promoting to a rook.


Why go for stalemate here? In a Daily Puzzle of the Chess.com app, playing as white the solution to the puzzle was as follows:

 [Title ""]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/p1Q3bk/P2N2p/5p1p/7P/6q/8/7K w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qxg7 Kxg7 2.Nxf5+ gxf5

If I'm not wrong this is stalemate and therefore a tie. Isn't there a better solution?

Yes, you're right that this is a draw because of stalemate. There is no better solution; White is two pawns behind, his king is exposed, he can't profit from the pin on the bishop and he can't safely win the a7 pawn. Without this tactic, black could just push his f-pawn towards victory.


Is there a good or a proper age to play chess? When I first played chess I was terrible at it. I was like 5 or 6 years old back then. Now I understand the rules and stuff, but is there a specific or good age to play chess? An age when it's easy to understand?

Like learning to speak the appropiate age will vary from child to child.

I think 3 and older (My 10 year old brother taught me when I was 3). Children are naturally curious about any activity their parents/siblings do.  Just play chess in front of them and if they show interest show them how each of the pieces move.  At very young ages you will need to be extremely patient as some rules such as the knight movement and castling are quite difficult for young children to understand.


Correctness of the lichess training solution (Puzzle:63063) I'm a beginner and right now rated 1850  in on lichess training; so I'm a very novice player. I try to solve some training examples, and though sometimes I do not feel convinced by the solution given by the computer, I continue.
 Here is an example where I felt the solution was absolutely wrong. Below are the pictures

Why did the computer save the queen rather than killing the knight on g3 with the pawn on h2?

I thought of this step when solving it but thought it was of no use. But the solution given left me wondering.

In case of 16.hxg3, Black plays 16...Qxg3+ when White has only two legal moves:

17.Kh1 Rf6 followed by 18...Rh6 is a quick checkmate.
17.Qg2 Qxe3+ and after the check is parried Black can already take back his piece with 18...Qxd3 (with already three extra pawns as a reward), or continue the attack with 18...Rf6. He's completely winning in both cases.

This exercise is a typical case of a demolition sacrifice: you give your knight on g3 to rip the opponent king of its protective pawns and mount a decisive attack.


Running chessbase Reader on ubuntu I'm currently working on ubuntu, and installed wine with chessbase reader. I wanted to watch a few videos of GM Daniel King that I had. I open the folder through chessbase, but when I click on the videos, they won't work.

Have any of you experienced something similar? Could you help me out? I appreciate your help.

When I converted the 2014 ChessBase Database to PGN format, and finally to SCID format, I used VirtualBox (x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization,  for which you need to install Windows and ChessBase) because I sure what Windows programs run perfectly with it.  However, I don't know if your hardware is powerful enough for a virtualization


A list of all authentic games that have happened so far I am looking for a database of chess games for a research purpose. I found that chessgames.com is one such site where the data for games of strong players would be available (I don't expect it to be free of course!). However, I am not at all interested in the actual moves made in a particular game; I simply want a list of two players and a result of the game. Does anybody know how and where such data would be available? It would be great if the data spans over several centuriesa as chessgames.com has.

I don't think there is any such database that only gives your names and results. But there are some mega databases you can download and script to anything that you want.

http://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/mega_database_2015
http://www.top-5000.nl/pgn.htm
365chess.com
http://ficsgames.org
net-chess.com (where you can download correspondence games)

and others.

All you have to do is simply take a PGN file and script off the names of the players

[Date "1992.11.04"]
[Round "29"]
[White "Fischer, Robert J."]
[Black "Spassky, Boris V."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

In this example, you'll just need to look for "White", "Black" and "Result". This is not a very hard scripting problem, you can even do it with unix commands. If you don't know how to write a script, please consult online documentation or post a question to stackoverflow.com.


Judit Polgar Vs Nigel Short. Youtube video Where can I find the video with the game Judit Polgar Vs Nigel Short that by the year 2011 could be found on youtube? I'm interested in the video of the match and not in the game itself. According this this page (http://www.chesscreator.com/judit-polgar-vs-nigel-short-what-a-turnaround-6)'' This epic battle took place in New York City, 1994, at the Intel World Speed Chess Tournament''

Could someone help me?

It is probably part of this collection, which has the footage available from the 1994-1995 season.  It costs money though...


Are there any Linux GUIs that can be controlled via command line? I'm looking for a GUI that I can control via the terminal.  Something where I can input a series of moves into the terminal, such as:

>  e4
>  e5
>  Nf3

...and have the GUI update the board accordingly.

Does anyone know of any program(s) like this?

I can't find anything either on Google or by searching previously asked questions.

Given your stated goal,

  "...a GUI that I can control via the terminal. Something where I can input a series of moves into the terminal,..."

and Student T's comment of

  "I'm not aware for any GUI that also offers command line."

I've tried to find paired items of engines that take command line moves and GUIs that will interact well with these.

Your best bet might be Crafty:
It seems that one can use command lines through “Crafty” [ref. 1] in order to play or analyze a chess game within the GUI of XBoard [ref. 2]  (which can run multiple chess variants, in addition to orthochess) – as in one enters one's moves directly via command line at terminal.

Though a very close second best bet would probably be Sjeng:
Sjeng takes command line moves (very definitely) [ref. 4], plays somewhere in the region of ELO 2500(±) [ref. 5, 6], can interface with XBoard [ref. 5], and supports multiple chess variants.

Arena (GUI) seems to be borderline sometimes.  Some indicate it to be unstable within Wine [ref. 7], some have no problem [ref. 8].

“Command-line-chess” uses a TUI, rather than a GUI, but is at least definitely command line based [ref. 9].  Perhaps one might utilize UTF-8's chess characters as a workaround? [ref. 10]

References:

https://www.cis.uab.edu/hyatt/craftydoc.html
http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/xboard/FAQ.html
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Games/Board_and_Card_Games/Chess/index.shtml
http://www.macworld.com/article/1139946/termchess.html
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Sjeng
https://www.linux.com/news/chess-engines-linux
http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6550
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-377613.html
https://github.com/marcusbuffett/command-line-chess
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_symbols_in_Unicode


What is White's motivation to give up the Queen? I received the following tactics puzzle on lichess.org. Even though, I ended up solving it correctly, I am still not clear about the move 2. Ng5, because this loses the Queen. What prevents 2. Qe2, which would save the White Queen.

[Title "lichess puzzle 61506"]
[FEN "rn2k3/1b1p1p1N/4pBrb/qp2P3/3P3P/pP1Q4/P4PP1/R2K1B1R b q - 2 19"]

1... Be4 2. Ng5 Bxd3 (2. Qe2 *)

What prevents 2. Qe2, which would save the White Queen?

White's problem is the mating threats from the bishop battery and queen after Qc3. For instance:

[Title "lichess puzzle 61506"]
[FEN "rn2k3/1b1p1p1N/4pBrb/qp2P3/3P3P/pP1Q4/P4PP1/R2K1B1R b q - 2 19"]

1... Be4 2. Qe2 Qc3 3. Rb1 Qxd4+ 4. Ke1 Qc3+ 5. Kd1 Bxb1 6. Bg5 Rxg5 7. hxg5 Bxh7

and White is lots of material down and still facing mate threats (Qa1)


How to use Houdini with SCID on Mac OS? I have recently moved to a Mac. Immediately I've installed Scid (looks very nice on the Mac) but I couldn't find a way to use my Houdini as a chess engine.

Supposedly, it should run with Wine, but I don't know how to do it. I understand that you have done so, so could you give me some guidance?

Although I know you're on a Mac and I don't know what you've tried so far in detail, this scid-users mailing list thread might be of interest. It suggests to add the exe file in as the command, but without the wine before it. Again, that is for Ubuntu, but maybe it will help.


Why is this a threefold repetition draw? I'm relatively new, so sorry if this is obvious. Recently played a game on my phone chess app where the option popped up that I could claim a threefold repetition draw. I hadn't known about this rule. Researching I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition#The_rule

But I can't figure out the three positions that were exactly the same at any point. Can someone point it out to me? I can find three where I (as black) repeat positions moving around my rook at the end, but the white pieces seem to be in different places when this happens, specifically the white king.

Thanks for the help! Below is a link to the game analysis, plus the full pgn notation.

Game upload:

http://en.lichess.org/CYvX2RlR

Full notes:

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. Bg5 Bf5
4. Bxf6 exf6
5. e3 a6
6. Bd3 Qd7
7. e4 dxe4
8. Bxe4 c6
9. Bxf5 Qxf5
10. d5 Bc5
11. Qe2+ Qe5
12. Qxe5+ fxe5
13. O-O-O Bxf2
14. d6 Nd7
15. Nf3 O-O
16. Rhf1 Be3+
17. Kb1 Rad8
18. Rfe1 Bf4
19. g3 Bh6
20. Nxe5 Nxe5
21. Rxe5 Rd7
22. Re7 Rfd8
23. Rxd7 Rxd7
24. g4 Bf4
25. Ne4 b6
26. c4 Bxh2
27. Re1 Rd8
28. Rd1 Rd7
29. g5 Bf4
30. Kc2 h5
31. gxh6 Bxh6
32. b4 Bf4
33. c5 b5
34. Rg1 Kf8
35. Rg4 Be5
36. Kd3 f5
37. Rg5 fxe4+
38. Kxe4 Bf6
39. Rf5 Rf7
40. Rf3 Ke8
41. Rh3 Rf8
42. Ra3 g5
43. Rxa6 Bd8
44. Ke5 Kd7
45. Ra7+ Kc8
46. Ke6 Rf6+
47. Ke5 g4
48. Ra8+ Kd7
49. Ra7+ Kc8
50. Ra8+ Kd7
51. Ra7+ Ke8
52. Rg7 Rf2
53. Rxg4 Rxa2
54. Ke6 Re2+
55. Kf5 Kf7
56. Rg3 Rf2+
57. Ke4 Rb2
58. Ke5 Bf6+
59. Kf5 Rf2+
60. Ke4 Rh2
61. Ra3 Ke6
62. Ra6 Rh4+
63. Kd3 Kd5
64. Ra7 Rxb4
65. Rf7 Rd4+
66. Ke2 Rf4
67. d7 Ke6
68. Rxf6+ Rxf6
69. d8=Q b4
70. Qd6+ Kf5
71. Qb8 Re6+
72. Kd3 Re4
73. Qc8+ Re6
74. Kc4 b3
75. Kxb3 Ke5
76. Kc4 Kf6
77. Kd4 Kf7
78. Kc4 Re4+
79. Kb3 Re6
80. Ka4 Kf6
81. Ka5

The position after 47.… g4, 49.… Kc8 could have been repeated with 51.… Kc8.

Because you have to claim threefold repetition before you make the move 51.…Kc8, producing the same position on the board, this would have been a sensible point for a popup dialog.


How does competitive chess affect players' mental health? I suppose that participation in international open tournaments has a positive mental effect on most amateur players. As for the professionals involved, if they have other sources of income and also don't suffer from untreated issues then I can't see any mental health risk. Concerning international closed tournaments, there players have already been preselected both by their coaches and the organisers, thus I assume most of them should be well-adjusted.

if there are certain talented players who should not become competitively active cause of their mental health status

On the contrary, there are many chess players, successful and otherwise, who get relief from their mental problems by playing chess. Fischer and Bloodgood are probably at the extreme end of mental disturbance but there are many at all the levels below that.
Victor Kortchnoi, in his famous world championship match with Karpov, is another famous example at a lower level of mental disturbance.

others who could become successful only under the supervision of a mental health practitioner

Again, I think you have it the wrong way round. Without their mental health problems many strong GMs wouldn't be that strong.


Please help solve this endgame problem posed by a friend [FEN "5K2/k7/4P1p1/8/8/8/4b3/8 w - - 0 1"]

A friend of mine is challenging me to find a solution. It’s White to play and DRAW.

White is one tempo short of catching the pawn - if White could make two moves immediately it would be a draw as white would just take the black pawn. But they can't, so white has to find a threat which black has to respond to which gains them that move. The only threat they can make is to queen their pawn, and apparently black can stop that with their bishop by moving it to b5. But ... if white can combine moving their king toward the queening square with attacking the bishop, and hence threatening to queen the white pawn, they can gain the tempo. This suggests moving the king towards the queening square via c5, because the king on c5 can attack a bishop on b5 that is stopping the white pawn queen. At that point Black will have to move their bishop or protect it, and white gains the tempo they need. Putting this together leads us to the following - note the move order also means that the black pawn interferes with the Black Bishop's movement, stopping it get to h5 which would be the other square it could use to stop the white pawn queening

[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "5K2/k7/4P1p1/8/8/8/4b3/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ke7 g5 2.Kd6 g4 3.e7 Bb5 4.Kc5 Ka6 5.Kd4 g3 6.Ke3 g2 7.Kf2 Bc6 8.e8=Q
Bxe8 9.Kxg2 1/2-1/2

If you like this kind of thing have a look at The Reti study which is a more famous relation of this problem. It also turns out that this problem was composed by Reti himself.


Why h4 is the best move here? Is not bishop to e2 better? Why does the kingside has to be weakened like this?

Thanks everyone for your answers. You all argue that the knight must remain on f4 so h4 prevents kicking it out. However, I just found another game in which h4 is played and this time there is no keeping the knight on f4. Could someone tell me what else happens here?

You're trying to analyze the very equal position with no significant tactical potential. Depending on minor tweaks of your engine settings, you may get a few "good" moves, including Be2, Ba3, c5 -- all approximately equal.

Computers at lichess have limited resources, hence they spot only obvious stuff, and have a limited precision when evaluating moves.

If you move h4 -- you're down about 0.1 pawn, I would not lose a sleep about that, Be2 is good enough and you should not worry what stupid engine says =)

Disclosure: I'm actually running one of the lichess analysis boxes, so I took a deep dive into the details. Here's what I found:

From your screen shot, you're running analysis on your local iPad, which is slow and may take some time to arrive to the good result. It would be much preferable to run the server side analysis, much faster and more precise.
I have found the game in question among your games and analysed it using various engines available. Most of the engines recommend c5 as the best continuation for White. However, for the lichess analysis we use a very conservative settings of Stockfish ("Analysis Contempt" is turned Off), this changes the focus from the active attacking moves to the "safe" defensive ones. And h4 is one of those nice safe moves.

As I have said earlier, it all depends on the minor tweaks of the engine parameters, the score difference is negligible and h4 is no better and no worse than a few other moves -- play what you like and don't worry about what computer says.

Answering the second part of your question, here's my analysis:

Bd3 seems to be "the best", with h4 and Be3 sharing the second place. Actually, while analysis was running, 4 or 5 top pretenders constantly swapped their places, sometimes h4 was on the top. Probably, if I run the analysis deeper, there will be a few moments when any of the top 5 moves will be declared "the best".

All in all, the analysis is not exhaustive, and it does not guarantee to give you the "absolute best move". The main purpose of the analysis was to spot your mistakes (8. h3? was clearly a mistake, losing 0.5 pawn), and propose something better, not necessarily the best.

Here's the analysis @ depth 24, h4 is way below.


A resource that shows how many ways an opening can be reached? Is there a resource (book/online) that shows how many ways an opening can be reached?

The point from chubbycantorset's answer about the futility of seeking the number of all ways to reach a position is a good one. Scid has a way of offering more limited (and more practically useful anyway) information than that. Its Opening Report tool allows you to input a position, and then generate a comprehensive statistical report covering games that reached that position (in whatever database you have open). Among the data presented is a tally of how many move-orders were used to reach the position in question that appeared in actual games from the database, as well as a list of the most popular.

For instance, in my big database of millions of games, when I generate a report for the standard Sicilian Scheveningen position

[fen "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/3ppn2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

part of the information I receive is as follows, where the numbers in parentheses indicate how many games feature the move-order in question:

There were 82 move orders reaching this position. The top 8 are:
  1:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  e6 3. d4  cxd4 4. Nxd4  Nf6 5. Nc3  d6 (18538)
  2:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  d6 3. d4  cxd4 4. Nxd4  Nf6 5. Nc3  e6 (11028)
  3:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  d6 3. d4  Nf6 4. Nc3  cxd4 5. Nxd4  e6 (646)
  4:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  e6 3. Nc3  d6 4. d4  cxd4 5. Nxd4  Nf6 (597)
  5:  1. e4  c5 2. Nc3  e6 3. Nf3  d6 4. d4  cxd4 5. Nxd4  Nf6 (258)
  6:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  e6 3. d4  cxd4 4. Nxd4  d6 5. Nc3  Nf6 (144)
  7:  1. e4  e6 2. d4  c5 3. Nf3  cxd4 4. Nxd4  Nf6 5. Nc3  d6 (117)
  8:  1. e4  c5 2. Nf3  d6 3. Nc3  Nf6 4. d4  cxd4 5. Nxd4  e6 (92)


Tablebases for variant where stalemate is a win? Since time immemorial, some people have suggested that stalemate be declared a loss for the player who is unable to move.  This proposal is sometimes called "abolishing the stalemate rule" although I prefer calling it "abolishing the checkmate rule" (the idea is to declare that the game ends when the king is captured, and that it is legal to move into check—although this way of phrasing the rule change means that a "true" stalemate, where a player has no legal moves even if moving into check is legal, remains a draw).

This rule change has some obvious effects on endgame theory.  What I'm wondering is whether anyone has created tablebases for this variant of chess, to investigate more thoroughly how much endgame theory would be changed.  For example, does the overall draw rate of KRP vs KR, or KQP vs KQ, change noticeably?

What I'm wondering is whether anyone has created tablebases for this variant of chess,

Interesting proposal, but nobody has done the works to my knowledge. If you would like to participate, you may modify source code of https://github.com/syzygy1/tb.


What is the CQL syntax for combinations where king is checked along a file, and the square near it is attacked by bishop or queen? I am looking to search for combinations similar to the one in Karpov - Taimanov, 1977 - a knight check, is followed by opening of an 'h' file, and the rook comes with decisive effect because attacker's queen covers the diagonal. I am only learning CQL and any tips on how to get started on constructing a query would be much appreciated -

[Event "October Revolution 60th Anniversary"]
[Site "Leningrad URS"]
[Date "1977.06.25"]
[EventDate "1977.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Anatoly Karpov"]
[Black "Mark Taimanov"]
[ECO "B32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

[PlyCount "76"]

[FEN " "]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. c4 e5 6. Nb3 Nf6
7. Nc3 Bb4 8. f3 O-O 9. Be3 d6 10. Rc1 b6 11. Bd3 Bc5 12. Qd2
Be6 13. Nxc5 bxc5 14. O-O Nd4 15. Nd5 Nd7 16. f4 Rb8 17. f5
Bxd5 18. cxd5 Qb6 19. Rf2 f6 20. Rc4 a5 21. Ra4 Ra8 22. Qe1
Ra7 23. b3 Rfa8 24. Rb2 Qc7 25. Bd2 Nb6 26. Rxa5 c4 27. Bf1
Rxa5 28. Bxa5 Qc5 29. Bxb6 Qxb6 30. Kh1 cxb3 31. axb3 g6
32. fxg6 hxg6 33. b4 Kg7 34. b5 f5 35. exf5 Nxf5 36. Rb3 Qd4
37. b6 Ra1 38. Rb1 Ng3+ {analysis: 39. hxg3 Ra8} 0-1

I'm still working out the full answer, but this is a start:

flipcolor {wtm check ng3 Pg2 Ph2 Kh1 r attack (q g1) not {square $x in h3-8 a on $x} result 0-1}

This gets down to 13 games from over 2 million and includes the Karpov - Taimanov game. I still haven't figured out a way to deal with the rook, but
this gets a game list small enough to look through. The not square bits could be taken out to expand the search to a couple hundred games, that was just looking for the h file to not be blocked by black pieces for the later rook move.

I used the above in the latest scid vs pc codebase, which has cql support by adding cql() to the beginning and running it in the cql search vs what is Chessbase Big Database 2017 updated to last month.