Fritztrainer on Linux What is the best way to use Fritztrainer DVDs/videos on Linux? Is there anyone who is using them on Linux now? Is there any free tool to run Fritztrainer DVDs natively?

Over the years, this question has been asked several times on other forums, but I am not aware of a purely native solution.

According to this discussion on chess.com from 2013, some people have tried Wine, which is "a compatibility layer capable of running Windows applications on several POSIX-compliant operating systems, such as Linux, Mac OSX, & BSD" (quoted from the Wine website). People have reported varying levels of success, depending on the version of Wine and the distro they were using.

In an older discussion (started in 2009), someone suggested using VirtualBox and installing Windows in it. Unlike Wine, this requires Windows installation media and a Windows licence.

Update: Proton, released by Valve (the developers of Steam) in August 2018, should enable Linux users to run Windows games directly through Steam for Linux. Fritz XIV for Steam and FritzChess 15 for Steam have been available since September 2014 and February 2016, respectively. I don't know whether this also solves the issue of using the Fritztrainer DVDs.


In the USA, if you achieve a USCF rating of 2200 and gain the National Master title, what happens if your rating then goes below 2200? Is the "National Master" title awarded for your entire life? Or do you lose the title if your rating goes below 2200?

I've heard that to get the title of National Master for your entire life you have to have a rating of at least 2200 for 300 games (that seems to be a lot!). Is this true? And is it 300 consecutive games (if your rating goes below 2200 before the 300th game you'll have to restart from the beginning) or simply 300 games not necessarily consecutively (it doesn't matter if your rating goes below 2200 a few times) ?

Oh and what about the FIDE titles "Candidate Master" and "FIDE Master"? Are they awarded for life?

There are actually three different distinctions in the USCF system that have to do with a 2200 rating.

First is the National Master title. It is awarded to anyone who has ever had an established (not provisional) rating of over 2200. Once a player is a National Master, they have the title for life no matter what happens to their rating. The NM title has no effect on rating floor other than the 2000 floor which a player receives for having crossed 2200.

The second and third are both called Life Master, confusingly enough. To distinguish between them, they are usually referred to as Life Master and Original Life Master.

Life Master is part of the norms system which was introduced in 2008. To gain the title, one has to have 5 performances in USCF tournaments that qualify for "M" norms and have achieved an established rating over 2200. To see a player's norm history, click on the link next to "Highest USCF Norms-Based Title Earned (in events since 1991)" on their member page then click on Norms History. This title also has no extra effect on rating floor.

Original Life Master has been around for a long time. It is achieved by starting 300 games (not necessarily consecutively, as far as I know) with a rating above 2200. Once a player has started the 300th game, they are given a lifetime floor of 2200. To my knowledge, this is the only way to get the 2200 floor-2300 gives you a 2100 floor but 2400 does not raise it.

Candidate Master is a FIDE title awarded when you make 2200. FIDE Master is at 2300. They are both awarded for life.

Edit: For reasonable evidence that the 300 games do not need to be consecutive, see the rating history of USCF member ID 12462971.


In this position why shouldn't the knight capture the rook? The white knight is going to move to e6. However, the computer advises the rook to capture the pawn in b2. Even after the knight moves to e6, forking the queen and the rook, it advises to NOT capture either and instead go for the pawn c5 (see 2nd picture). Why is it a better move?

next moves from the analysis tab:
(Nxe6, Qd7, Nxc5)

and later

Black's idea is to play Re2+ at the right moment. If, for instance, White takes the rook with 19.Nxf8 Kxf8, there is no way to prevent Black from playing Re2+ later, winning the Queen (after Qxe2 Bxe2 Kxe2, not hopeless but slightly good for Black possibly; in practice Black might pick up g2 before doing this), reason being that Kf1 walks into a discovered attack. Because of that, White chooses to play 19.Nxc5 instead to capture the bishop on a6 and thereby prevent Re2+.
Although the difference between taking the rook or going for the bishop is not that big, both moves can be considered reasonable.
EDIT: In fact a deeper analysis reveals that taking the rook is in fact to be preferred since after 19.Nxc5 Qc6 20.Nxa6 d4! apparently leads to an advantage for Black, threatening Qxg2 and thus forcing 21.Qf3 after which Qxa6 now leads to a Black advantage due to having forced the enemy queen away  from the Queen side defenses. So I suppose you were right after all to consider 19.Nxf8 stronger.


What was the last open tournament Anand participated in before this Gibraltar 2016 event? When and what was the last open tournament that Vishy Anand participated in before this 2016 Gibraltar Open?

The 1993 Biel Interzonal according to The Hindu.


Does a KQQ vs KQ endgame position with perpetual check exist? In such an endgame situation (no specific position), where White isn't pinning the Black queen on the first move, is it possible for Black to get a perpetual check if they move first?

The position given by Akavall is indeed a draw by perpetual, but it's a bit difficult to see because White has many different options at some moves. They can even choose to sacrifice the h2 queen, which effectively ends the perpetual (but it's still a draw).
A position where this is much easier to see is the following one:
[FEN "5k2/8/8/8/8/5q2/7Q/6QK w - - 0 1"]

1. Qgg2 Qd1+ 2. Qhg1 Qh5+ 3. Q2h2 Qf3+

White has two options each move, and the black queen simply moves to the opened line/diagonal. As mentioned in the comments, White could sacrifice a queen on f1 or h3, but even then Black can force a perpetual on f1 and h3 (though the easiest way to draw is then trading the last pair of queens).


I made an illegal move. What happens? Especially in blitz or bullet games, it is possible that a player makes an illegal move, for example castles through check.

If the opponent does notice the illegal move, then as far as I know the first player is obliged to make a legal move with the same piece, if one exists. What if there are no legal moves?
What if the opponent, being in time pressure, doesn't notice the illegal move and makes a move. What happens after they realize that? Does the person who made the illegal move forfeit? Or is the whole game cancelled?

Are there any standard rules for these kinds of situations?

This only really applies to over the board games (since online chess servers prevent illegal moves).
In a standard time control game, under USCF rules, when the illegal move is noticed by one of the players, a few things happen.  First, the illegal move must have been made within the last 10 moves.  If not, then the current position stands, and play continues.  Assuming that the move is recent, the position is restored to the position immediately before the illegal move.
Then, the player that made the illegal move now must make a legal move with the same piece (if one exists).  If there are no legal moves, then the player is free to make any move.  This is due to the touch move rule.  Finally, if the offending player has pressed the clock, a two minute "bonus" is added to the opponent's clock to compensate them for any time lost and to penalize the offending player.
Here is the relevant passage from the USCF rulebook:

11A. Illegal move during last ten moves. If, during a game, it is found that one of either player's last ten moves was illegal, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move. The game shall then continue by applying Rule 10, The Touched Piece, to the move replacing the illegal move. If the position cannot be reinstated, then the illegal move shall stand. Move counters on clocks that have them may by readjusted.
11D. Illegal move. If, a player completes an illegal move by pressing the clock, in addition to the usual obligation to make a legal move with the touched piece if possible, the standard penalty specified in rule 1C2a applies (i.e. two minutes added to the opponent's clock).

In blitz chess, the rules are different.  According to the WBCA (World Blitz Chess Association) rules, a player who makes an illegal move loses the game instantly.  This rule is frequently enforced in casual games too.  The most common way that this occurs is that one player doesn't notice that they are in check and makes a move that doesn't get out of check.  Then the checking player simply captures the king and claims a victory.
Because blitz is a much faster pace game, the illegal move must be noticed within two moves.  If it is not, then the current position stands and play continues.
At no point is the game cancelled due to an illegal move.  Pretty much once a game starts and both players make a move, a result of win, loss, or draw will be recorded.


Python and UCI engine I'm working with Stockfish in Python 3.

And when I do something like this:

I get just "bestmove e2e4". How can I retrieve full information?

Like this:

To get evaluation score for each legal move, you can do:

Set MultiPV to a high number, like in your answer
Play the moves, then invoke SF on each of the resulting FEN. For example, in the starting position you could start 20 SF instances, one for each possible move. This is the approach adopted by commercial companies, such as Chessable.

The first approach works but it's slow and not exactly scalable.

PS: Asking for Python code is off-topic here. We can guide you but we won't write code for you.


Can you capture a pawn en passant with a king? Friend right now is trying to en passant me with a king. I'm saying that its not legal.

He won't believe me.

He is saying that any opposing piece can capture the en passant pawn.

An en passant capture is a move that involves pawns, exclusively. In particular, the king is not allowed to capture en passant.

From Wikipedia (link):

  It is a special pawn capture, that can only occur immediately after a pawn moves two ranks forward from its starting position, and an enemy pawn could have captured it had the pawn moved only one square forward. The opponent captures the just-moved pawn "as it passes" through the first square. The resulting position is the same as if the pawn had moved only one square forward and the enemy pawn had captured it normally.


Is it wise to resign a game if the win is only apparent too many moves ahead? I will clarify my question with an example:

A grandmaster plays a game against stockfish, with a material handicap for stockfish, and the advantage is not clear for either of the players. Throughout the game, the position is a dead draw. However, during the endgame, stockfish discovers a loss 50 moves later (100 ply). For the game, stockfish was set to resign the game if the evaluation of the opponent's position exceeds 900 centipawns for 5 moves (2 ply). Consequently, stockfish resigns the game.

Was this a wise decision? What if the human blundered? Did stockfish resign a game which probably could've been drawn?

The time to resign is when think your opponent will win.  Against a beginner, I would never resign, because they will most probably blunder and lose.  Against a decent club player, I could resign after being a rook down in a lost position.  Against a GM, I would resign after the 12th move if I thought I had a bad position (it's a good learning possibility to see the technique).

I find it insulting to not resign when your opponent has a won game. (An exception can be made for cases like checkmating with a knight and bishop).

In the case of a computer, it can only do as it's programmed to do.  (Although humans now stop the game when an endgame database position has been reached to prevent the human from making a mistake the the computer looks up in a book.  This is cheating if a human did it, why not the computer?)  I don't think that the computer should resign this early, but he late should the computer resign?


Early-game Principles I am a novice player who is trying to brush up on the core principles for successful chess.

Instead of focusing on specific openings in the beginnings of a game, I am trying to play to certain principles, namely:

Control of the centre by a combination of pawn and minor pieces.
Early development of minor pieces
Not losing momentum, or hindering development, by having to move the same piece twice.

Specfic Problem:
I am currently having trouble with tripping over myself by moving pieces in the way of each other so that I end up not adequately defending pieces, or defending pieces come under attack.
I often lose a pawn in the center which I was trying to defend, i.e. I failed in taking a square I wished to hold (d4, e4). This tends to happen by a pawn being taken and then the attacker pawn is defended by another pawn, so that my developed minor pieces can't retake without losing material in the exchange. So I think I might be pushing forward too early with my pawns. (I usually move e4, then some variation of knights, then bishop. I also don't know where to place my bishops (the only places I know for tactical/strategic advantage are pinning an opponent's minor piece against queen or king, or to aim them at the opponents weakest square (f2, f7).

General questions:
Are there any other early-game principles? What order do you generally develop? How many turns does it take you to make a push for the centre? What squares do you move your minor pieces to for strategic or tactical opportunity?

You can probably benefit greatly by improving your tactical calculation. Doing some exercises on chesstempo.com will help you get used to calculating out those exchanges. What you are describing seems like a tactical issue and generally can't be addressed using strategic ideas.

That said, a good way to avoid those difficulties may be to specialize in some less complicated openings until you get comfortable with the tactics that appear in the opening. Maybe the London System (1. d4 ... 2. Nf3 ... 3. Bf4) for white and the Center Counter Defense for black (1. e4 d5). Both have some traps, but there are less to deal with.

Personally, those are the two openings I liked to use to get "used" to chess without having to really deal with the openings much. Especially if you are a more strategic, positional player, these two openings should feel pretty natural.


When did the light-on-the-right convention ascend to dominance? I came upon the following wonderful painting by Sofonisba Anguissola, ‘The first great woman artist of the renaissance,’ of her sisters playing chess (painted 1555).

The painting is truly sublime. Chess players will notice, however, that the color of the squares on the board is the opposite from what is usually used in modern games, with light on the right, and so it made me wonder about the history of this convention. When did the light-on-the-right convention come into prominence? Has it been long established that way? Is this painting illustrating a different custom at that time, or rather might it be explained by an artist inventing a scene and not aware of the custom?

Sometimes chess textbooks would rotate the board by 90 degrees, under the assumption that the players sat at the left and right of the board:

  The only clear evidence of the use of different sources is supplied by the diagrams. While the great majority are oriented in the way universally followed in modern text-books, a small number in each work are at right angles to the ordinary arrangement. These must have been derived from an MS [manuscript], in which the positions were drawn on the supposition that the players were seated to the right and left of the board.

Source: A History of Chess: The Original 1913 Edition by H.J.R. Murray

Murray unfortunately does not give the origins of 'light on right'.


Why do many players resign from chess in a relative young age? And become coaches or writers instead? Have they reached their peak rating and find it unmotivating to pursue any further?
Are they lacking financial security?
Are they tired of travelling?

A lot of chess players make a living off of chess coaching. You can't make enough money by playing tournaments unless you're like top 100 in the world. Therefore I assume that some people must have to resort to writing books and coaching people in order to make enough money. Considering that they resign at a young age, they must plan this out. On top of that, I would assume that maybe when you combine family life (if you're a father or mother) with coaching, having a small normal job, and a tireness from travelling, then you'll never have time to play at tournaments.

By the way, I would say that no, they haven't reached their peak, that's not why. Just look at Mark Dvoretsky, he is only an IM, but he could definitely be a GM if he wanted. It is because of personal choices, financial reasons, and convenience reasons. Or, maybe they just love teaching but hate playing in serious competitions due to stress. Besides, tournaments can cost tons of money.

Chess is considered the second most stressful sport behind skydiving.


Question on how to access a move on a line outside the main line using python-chess I'm trying to write a simple code that is capable of reading a PGN file and searching for moves and comments throughout the variant tree. However, I have not been successful, I have not yet been able to understand how I access the moves for a particular variant outside the main line.

Here is an example.

Reading the game from the pgn file below:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Study"]
[Black "Variant Caro-Kann"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B12"]
[Annotator "Joao Paulo"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[EventDate "2020.03.04"]
[SourceDate "2020.03.04"]

e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 {Variant 1} (3. exd5 {Variant 2} cxd5 4. Nf3 Nd7 (4... Nf6 {Variant 2.2} 5. c4 dxc4 6. Bxc4 e6) 5. Nc3 Ngf6) (3. Nc3 {Variant 3} dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6) (3. Nd2 {Variant 4} dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ gxf6) 3... Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. Qxd3 e6 1/2-1/2

Using the following code:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
import chess
import chess.pgn
pgn = open("pgns/Variants Caro-Kann.pgn")
game = chess.pgn.read_game(pgn)
bd = game.board()
node = game
ct = 0;
while not node.is_end():
    print('Current Move')
    print(node.variations[0].move)
    print(node.starts_variation())
    bd.push(node.variations[0].move)
    node = node.variations[0]
    print(bd)
    print(node.starts_variation())
    print(node.comment)
    if node.is_end() == 0:
        print('Next Move')
        print(node.variations[0].move)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could I access the bids for the entire variant tree (variants: 2, 2.2, 3 and 4)?
I would appreciate your help.

If you want to access every node, then you're basically iterating over the game tree. A straightforward recursion will get you there, something like:

def traverse(node):
    # do whatever stuff you want for the node here
    print(node.move)
    # terminating condition
    if (node.is_end()):
        return
    # recursion
    for child_node in node.variations:
        traverse(child_node)

And to use it, call traverse(game) where game is the root node of your game.


Playing Reversed openings In chess games where my opponent is White, White may play 1. e3 or 1. d3, so when I play 1...e5 and 1...d5 in response, I find myself in a reversed opening where I have the opening advantage. What are the advantages to playing like this?

There's nothing special about this type of position. Play sound, solid chess. Activate your pieces, put your king into safety and occupy the center without overextending. You'll have an easier time than normal achieving an equalized middlegame


How do I create sharp, tactical positions? It is said that you shouldn't simply look for combinations every move; rather, you should create positions that tend to create tactical opportunities.
But what does this actually mean? I think my calculation is pretty good, and I strongly prefer to be in tactical positions whenever I think I can out-calculate my opponent. But how do I actually create these tactical positions? I play 1. e4, I play gambits, but these aren't always accepted, and a lot of them have calm positional responses. And sometimes I find myself in a quiet middlegame where I don't know what to do apart from shuffle my pieces because the position doesn't lend itself to tactics and combinations.
What method(s) should I employ to turn a calm position into a sharp one? Does the method of doing this change when my opponent insists on quiet, positional chess?

There are two key principles:

Tactics can only flow from a superior position
Dissipating tension early is usually bad

What these tell us is that, first, it is important to follow sound general principles in the opening and early middlegame. So, develop your pieces, get your king safe and try and control the center. Developing tactics is going to be much more difficult if your pieces are not developed, your king is unsafe or you don't have control of the center.
Second, if every time your opponent makes a threat or offers an exchange of pawns or pieces you tamely exchange then it is going to be more difficult to generate tactics. Instead you should try and counter with threats of your own. Ignoring one threat and countering with a threat of your own will automatically increase the complexity of the position and make it more tactical.
There is a third important principle which materialists often struggle with and that is to view the values of the pawns and pieces not according to some fixed 1,3,5,9 system but according to what those pawns and pieces can do in regard of the current and possible future positions on the board.
Now for an example from the Closed Sicilian. In the Open Sicilian there is a tactical melee from the third move when white plays d4. There are captures and threats and lots of tactics. By contrast in the Closed Sicilian white avoids an early d4, there are no exchanges, open files or big tactical threats. It is all positional manoeuvering for control of the (closed) center.
[fen "r1bqk2r/pp2npbp/2npp1p1/2p5/2B1PP2/2NP1N2/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

Here it is white to move. Both sides have almost completed development. Black has still to castle and both sides still need to develop their queenside bishops. The only capture threatened is BxN by black but that isn't going to happen. No way is black going to exchange their pride and joy, the Dragon bishop. The struggle for the center is intense. Black is currently threatening to play d5 and, as all Sicilian players know, if black can play d5 then they have equalized and, in the minds of most Sicilian players are already halfway to victory.
To continue the fight white must stop d5 and the best way of doing that is with Qe1 lining up the queen against the king and so pinning the knight against the king is the e pawns are exchanged after d5. Black castles renewing the threat of d5. Now white has no way of stopping d5. All white can do to stop black equalizing is to come up with a counter threat but what? There are no obvious threats white can make, no obvious tactics.
The answer is to offer a pawn sacrifice with f5. On the surface it looks like black can just win a pawn with the obvious exf5 (gxf5 looks much more dangerous) but this is turns out to be a losing blunder. Better is to plow on with d5 anyway and maybe even offer a counter pawn sacrifice. Play could continue:
[fen "r1bqk2r/pp2npbp/2npp1p1/2p5/2B1PP2/2NP1N2/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe1 O-O 2. f5 d5! (2...exf5? 3. Qh4! {and black is in trouble}) 3. Bb3 c4 4. dxc4 d4! 5. f6 Bxf6 6. e5

and what was a calm, positional struggle has suddenly exploded into a highly tactical game where lines are opening up, pieces are hanging and you better be able to calculate.


Can K + N vs K force black into any corner? Can white force this position

    [Title "KN vs K"]
    [FEN "8/8/8/8/8/8/5k1N/7K w - - 0 1"]

into this position?

    [Title "KN vs K"]
    [FEN "k7/8/1K1N4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Background:
Yesterday I finally figured out the KBN vs K after one year of trial and error. Solving endgame problems like this is like crack to my brain. The 'fifth' fundamental checkmate and next in line seems to be the KNN vs KP.

In this game, one of the Ns only play a passive role, with the other N and the K are doing all the moves, I started wondering if the same approach is possible in the KBN vs K: Force the king to the corner with only K and N, and then deliberately deliver the checkmate with on B's first move.

Any concrete suggestions that could lead to an answer will be greatly appreciated.

A related question: is there an engine that can search for such non-checkmate positions?

I am not aware of being able to use an engine to calculate the possibility of such moves and no it is not possible to do this with one knight.

The easiest way to figure this out is by backtracking the position by one or two moves. No matter in which position the white king or knight were before this situation arose, black was not obligated to move to the corner of the board.

1k6/8/K2N4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0

black can move to C7

8/k7/2KN4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

black can move to A6

8/k1K5/3N4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

black can move to A6 here as well

2k5/8/1K6/1N6/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

And Regardless of the position of the Knight the black king has a square on D8 to go to.

The only way to actually get this done is if the king was in the corner to begin with:

k7/8/1K6/1N6/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1


How to use stockfish for ChessBase? I have downloaded Stockfish 6 and also I have ChessBase 13 64-bit.  I have unzipped to Stockfish how do I combine the two so I can use Stockfish?

Open a game window.  On the File ribbon, look for a little UCI written in red just after where it says Remove Kibitzer.  Click on that, then in the dialog that pops up click on the button with three dots, and navigate to wherever you have Stockfish on your system.  The Author and Name will get filled in automatically.  Click on OK, and now Stockfish will appear in the dialog that appears when you click Add Kibitzer.


Do users of chess-db get informed when you play against their computer simulation of themselves? If I were to play against the computer simulations of chess players that have an account on chess-db (titled or none titled I know), will they get informed that I trained or prepared against them by playing their computer simulation?

No, they are not. Chess-db has no good way of contacting those people anyway.


Could a top ranked GM draw against Stockfish using drawish opening lines in classical chess? We know that are many lines which White can choose which are very drawish at 2700+ level. Drawing is easy to a very good chess player such as Carlsen, who knows dozens of forced draw lines. When I say “drawish,” it means a very drawish opening like the Catalan or the Exchange Slav. I'm not even sure you can win as Black if your opponent just goes into the Catalan and try to trade all the dangerous pieces. The idea behind it is simply to pick a line where best play from the computer results in a position where the position is a simplified endgame OR a repetition.
Just over half of GM games end in draws. Why do chess players assume that Stockfish can easily beat Magnus Carlsen?
Do rating differences even matter in certain opening lines when the statistics tells us that openings (or positions) have very high draw rates?

They can't. Engines are absurdly strong relative to humans these days, and Stockfish should be fully expected to beat top human GMs 10-0 without much trouble. In fact, they already have - and that's in spite of Komodo being several hundred elo weaker than Stockfish. Book lines with high draw rates don't matter: either the engine avoids it, or they play it and win anyway because when the human inevitably makes a mistake, the computer capitalizes.
Caveats:

The engine needs to be properly configured. Stockfish comes with a "contempt" setting that needs to be turned up. This makes the program avoid quick draws.
The other top engine right now, Leela, does not have a contempt setting. This means humans can indeed score draws against it (this was against AlphaZero, which is similar to Leela and probably weaker than the latest versions). However: humans still cannot beat Leela/AlphaZero.
The engine needs to run on reasonably strong hardware. These days engines will beat humans even on modest hardware, but if you try very very modest hardware such that the engine only manages to search a few thousand positions per second, humans might still win.

Edit: for the strategy you suggested, this was what happened when GM Michael Adams tried it against Hydra in 2005. Link to game if you want to see the moves.

Game four was another bitter pill for the human player. Adams, who had the white pieces, did everything he could to draw: exchange pieces to reduce material, simplifying in every way he could. By move 19 he had traded down to rooks and a bishop on either side; by move 27 each side had two rooks and five pawns; and at move 33 it was rook plus three pawns each. This one had to be a draw, but unfortunately the giant machine would have none of it and ground him down for a third victory in this match.

Hydra is, of course, very very inferior to the latest versions of Stockfish, and will probably lose a 100-game match by something approaching 0-100.


How could I have won this Q vs R+N endgame? I was playing as White in this superior position when I decided to sacrifice my Queen for Knight + Pawn:

[FEN "8/2k1r1p1/5n2/5PK1/6PP/3Q4/8/8 w - - 0 46"]

 1. Qc3+ Kd8
 2. Qxf6 gxf6+
 3. Kxf6 Ke8
 4. g5 Rf7+
 5. Kg6 Ke7
 6. f6+ Kf8
 7. h5 Ra7
 8. h6 Kg8
 9. Kf5 Kh7
 10. g6+ Kxh6
 11. f7 Kg7
 12. Ke6 Ra6+
 13. Ke7 Ra8 0-1

My thoughts were that the 3 far advanced, connected pawns would beat the rook, but I was wrong.

My question is: what is the best move and plan in the starting position shown?

Partial answer - a Nalimov tablebase says your queen sacrifice should have resulted in a draw.  Black cannot withstand your pawnroller and goes for a perpetual/stalemate combo. Your fatal mistake was 9. Kf5

[FEN "6k1/r7/5PKP/6P1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 9"]

1.Kh5 (1.Kf5??) Kh7 2.g6 Kh8 3.f7 Ra5+ 4.Kh4 Rh5+

From the starting position, Stockfish recommended...

[FEN "8/2k1r1p1/5n2/5PK1/6PP/3Q4/8/8 w - - 0 46"]

1.Kg6 Nd7 (1... Nxg4?? 2.Qc4+ {Black can't hold the g-pawn and both white pawns will queen... it's a merciful mate in 17}) 2.Qc3+ Kd8 3.Qa5+ Kc8 4.g5 Ne5+ 5.Kh5 Nd7 {This shuffling moves shows that Black is out of ideas.} 6.f6 gxf6 7.Qc3+ Kd8 8.gxf6 Re4 9.Kg5 Re6 10.Kg6 Ra6 {Black could take the pawn, trading both his pieces for the Queen and a pawn. But then White Queens the h pawn. } 11.h5 Ra4 12.Kg5 Ra2 13.h6 Rg2+ 14.Kf5 Rh2 15.Kg6 Rg2+ 16.Kf7 Rh2 17.Qa5+ Kc8 18.Ke7 Nb8 19.Qf5+ Kb7 20.Qb5+ Ka7 21.f7 Na6 22.f8=Q Rc2 23.Qf6 Rc7+

Yep, that's pretty computer-tactical. But what you see is White pushing the King away from the pawns, and then relentlessly pushing the pawns. As an aside, it would take quite a player to separate their King from the Rook without losing the Rook to a queen tactic. Not recommended!

Here's what Stockfish thinks about the sacrifice.

[FEN "8/2k1r1p1/5n2/5PK1/6PP/3Q4/8/8 w - - 0 46"]

1.Qc3+ Kd8 2.Qxf6 gxf6+ 3.Kxf6 Re4 4.h5 Rxg4 5.h6 Rg1 6.h7 Rh1 7.Kg7 Rg1+ 8.Kf6 {Draw by repetition.} )


Does 1) d4 Nc6 have a name? 1) e4 Nc6 is Nimzowitch Defence.

The 1) d4 Nf6 defences are classed as Indian Systems (King's Indian, Queen's Indian, Bogo Indian, Old Indian, etc.) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Defence

But does 1) d4 Nc6 have a name?

I recently played somebody who according to my research almost invariably replied to 1) d4 with Nc6. After 2) ... d5 they often transposed into a Chigorin but he often ended up in strange variations of other openings. I have never faced this and decided I needed to do some preparation so I could have some understanding of what kind of positions I should be aiming for and what kinds of traps to avoid.

I could find very little information about possibilities other than Chigorin's and decided that on the night I would chance my arm with 2) d5 aiming for a kind of queenside Alekhine's. Again I couldn't find anything published about this.

On the night he surprised me by replying with 1) ... Nf6 avoiding my last minute prep but falling into my much more extensive experience and knowledge of playing against this. Still, I'm curious.

According to wikipedia:

  The Queen's Knight Defense (also known as the Nimzowitsch Queen Pawn Defence or Bogoljubow–Mikenas Defense) is a chess opening defined by the moves 1. d4 Nc6

From the same article, there are 3 named variations:

  2.d5 Nb8 (Montevideo Retreat)
  2.c4 e5 3.d5 Nd4 (Cannstatter Gambit)
  2.c4 e5 3.d5 Nce7 (Lithuanian Variation)


Where is there a mate in four (pawn moves)? From Fine's BCE:

I can only see the pawn getting to a2 after 1.d6+ Kd8 2.e6 a4 3.Kf6 a3 4.e7+ Ke8 5.Ke6 a2 6.d7#. That's three pawn moves, not four.

What is the more resistant defence I missed?

1.d6+ Ke8

2.e6 a4 (pawn move 1)

3.Kf6 a3 (pawn move 2) [Note: 3.e7 Kf7!]

4.e7 a2 (pawn move 3)

5.Ke6 a1=Q (pawn move 4)

6.d7 mate


Strategic challenge #1 - C.Hansen - J.Hellsten This is the first of a series of strategic challenges. The answers are supposed to provide a move (or sequence of moves) and the right plan for the corresponding player. In this occasion we have the following diagram:

[fen "r3kb1r/1p2qp1p/p1p1npp1/2P5/3P4/4BN2/PP3PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

I took this position from Mastering Chess Strategy by Johan Hellsten. This position arose in a game between Curt Hansen and the author in 1996. The author says about the position:

  Black just need a few moves like Rd8, Bg7 and 0-0 to achieve safety. However, it is White to move ...

What is the right move and plan for White in this position?

To me d5 would be pretty much an automatic move. There might be a better idea in the position, but I don't see it.

The reasoning is as follows:

Longterm black is more than ok, with Bg7, 0-0, Rd8, f5 …
d4 is a weakness which also limits the Be3 and the Nf3.
I don't have to worry about losing c5, because black is way too underdeveloped to grab a pawn like that.

Based on that I would be inclined to just play it without calculating anything. Then I would force myself to at least calculate one or two lines:

1.d5 cxd5 2.Qxd5 Nxc5 3.Bxc5 Qxc5 4.Re1+ and black loses her queen.
1.d5 cxd5 2.Qxd5 Rd8 3.Qc4 (black still can't take on c5 and I'm ready for c6, when blacks queenside falls apart.) 3…Qc7 4.Rac1 and I don't know how much this is, but black has to solve some problems (c6 is a threat. Qc6 Nd4 doesn't look good).

Basically, given that black needs at least two more tempi to get his king into safety, if you open the position with white nice things will happen.

Edit: Then I would make the move, write it down, get up from the board and look at the positions of my friends and then suddenly realise that black can also immediately take on c5, without taking on d5 first. That would give me a little jolt, but wouldn't worry me too much, because after all "black is way too underdeveloped to grab a pawn like that". But I would still hurry back to my board and calculate stuff like 1.d5 Nxc5 2.dxc6 bxc6 3.Bxc5 Qxc5 4.Re1 Be7 5.Rc1 Rd8 6.Qe2 Qb4 7.a3 Qb7 8.Rxc6 and relax.


Can you solve this unique chess problem of white's two queens vs black's six rooks? [FEN "3Q4/7Q/3rp3/2rkr3/2rrr3/7K/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

I found this interesting and unique chess problem online, 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 made by Filip Bondarenko and published in Feenschach in 1960, although this version is cut one move short.
White to move. Can anyone solve this?

It's checkmate in 20 moves. White's queens circle around the board giving checks, and Black interposes horizontally/vertically moving pieces. Black only has one choice because the other piece is pinned from the previous check. That goes well, until the pawn needs to move sideways:
[FEN "3Q4/7Q/3rp3/2rkr3/2rrr3/7K/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qb7+ Rc6 2. Qa5+ Rc5 3. Qb3+ Rc4 4. Qd2+ Rd4 5. Qf3+ Re4 6. Qg5+ e5 7. Qf7+ Re6 8. Qd8+ Rd6
9. Qb7+ Rc6 10. Qa5+ Rc5 11. Qb3+ Rc4 12. Qd2+ Rd4 13. Qf3+ e4 14. Qg5+ Re5 15. Qf7+ Re6 16. Qd8+ Rd6
17. Qb7+ Rc6 18. Qa5+ Rc5 19. Qb3+ Rc4 20. Qd2# 1-0


Plan against QGD Janowski variation (3...a6) This is the so called Janowski variation of the QGD is the following

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "6"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 a6

It's quite rare, even if sometimes played at top level.

White usually plays cxd5 (right away or after Nf3). Then, the bishop usually comes to f4 (in this case, Black tries to exchange its dark-squared bishop with Bd6), sometimes g5 which may be the most interesting.

What would be the plan for White? This type of position tends to be dull, and I'd like to gain a small edge or a way to spice it up at least, avoiding to trade the whole board after 12 moves.

Indeed, the line is relatively rare, but the move 3....a6 seems to become more and more popular the last couple of years. Even Magnus Carlsen has played it twice in blitz recently, against Aronian and Grischuk.

The move 4.cxd5 is the most popular move and arguably the only way to fight for an advantage. After 4.Nf3, black has the choice to transpose to a favorable version of the QGA by 4....dxc4. As the knight is already on c3, black avoided the most critical lines of the QGA.

After 4.cxd5 exd5, in Mamedyarov-Vallejo Pons, white went for the aggressive 5.Nf3 c6 6.e4!? dxe4 7.Ng5 Be7 8.Bc4. Now, 8....Bxg5 would be a mistake as white regains the piece by 9.Qh5, with a strong initiative. Instead, black played 8....Nh6, defended correctly after 9.Ngxe5 Nf5 and made a draw.

Another try to spice up the game is 5.Qb3!?, which was played recently by the Russian top GMs Nepomniachtchi, Matlakov, Vitiugov and Svidler. After the logical 5....c6, white obtains a dangerous initiative after 6.e4 dxe4 7.Bc4 Qe7 8.a4! (to prevent ...b5), which was played by Svidler. In the three other games, after 5.Qb3, black continued with 5....Nc6. After 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.Bf4, white is probably slightly better, as the black knight on c6 is somewhat misplaced.

      [StartPly "6"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.cxd5 (4.Nf3 dxc4) exd5 5.Qb3 (5.Nf3 c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.Ng5 Be7 8.Bc4 Nh6 (8...Bxg5 9.Qh5) 9.Ngxe4 Nf5) 5...Nc6 (5...c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.Bc4 Qe7 8.a4) 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.Bf4


Fried Liver Attack in the Scotch Gambit - Two Knights Defense? [fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Nxf7 Kxf7 8. Qf3+ Ke6

Now the usual move in the Fried Liver Attack is 9. Nc3 attacking the knight on d5, but the d-pawn heads this off. Is the Fried Liver Attack still viable in the Scotch Gambit/Two Knights Defense?

Given the moves in your post, the position favors White.  I think most White players would enjoy the seeing the Black King out there, suffering a pin, sitting on an open file, and flapping in the breeze on move 8 with Queens on the board.

Here's what Stockfish thinks after a reasonably long think:

[fen ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qf3+ Ke6
 9.O-O Ne5 10.Re1 c6 11.Bf4 Bd6 12.Qg3 Qf6 13.Nd2 Re8 14.Nf3 Kf7 15.Nxe5+ Kg8 16.Nd3 Rxe1+ 17.Rxe1 Bf8 18.Be5 Qh6 19.Bxd4 Be6 20.Bb3 a5 21.a4 Bf7 22.h3 Rd8 23.Ne5

...with a small advantage for White.  I see both players having a good game here.  However, I suspect Black is walking a tightrope.  That is, to maintain parity, Black must play much better than White.


Moving f6 pawn in Max Lange Attack In the position at 14:28 of this video, why can't black just make the move f6? I wish to know as it was stated in the video that black will lose the other rook.

[FEN "2k3r1/ppp1qpPp/2n1b3/2b3B1/2ppN1P1/8/PPP2P1P/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

After f6 White takes with the bishop and Black loses a piece (bishop on c5 since d6 square is attacked by the white knight and f8 is attacked by the white pawn; no other piece is protecting the bishop).


Writting of a tournament game Why is it compulsory to write a game in classic chess tournaments? If the purpose is the validity of the moves, then  why not in quick games?

There are several reasons having to write down the moves in standard chess games:

as a document, proof of the game and result (in some cases but not always the players also have to sign)
in order to confirm 50-move and 3-fold repetition rules
in order to count the number of moves which can be relevant for the time control (e.g. sometimes you have say 2 hours for the first 40 moves plus 1 hour for the next 20 moves plus 30 min for the rest)
to prevent cheating (players changing position of pieces, etc), though this is usually not much of an issue
for storage (so that you can later analyze your game or sometimes it might even be entered into a database)

With short time controls there is simply no time to write down the moves. Also with some longer time controls, it is sometimes allowed not to write down moves when the remaining time drops below some limit.

Just for information the technicalities on how to record (and how not to) moves are laid out in article 8 of the FIDE laws of chess


What is the correct way to play this endgame? [FEN "4k3/1pp2ppp/p1p5/8/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

I win this position vs the computer sometimes, and sometimes not. But I assume there is a principal way to play this endgame that always wins such as fixing the pawns,  centralizing the king, etc. Doing so would guarantee that I always win this endgame. I want to know the "theory" of how to win this position.

In the starting position you give it is easy for white to create a passed pawn on the kingside and more difficult for black to do the same on the queenside. To guarantee that black cannot create a queenside passed pawn you need to aim for this position:
[fen "4k3/1pp2ppp/p1p5/8/P1P1P3/1P6/5PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

From here the win is still not easy or guaranteed but black has no prospects whatsoever and just has to try and find a way to draw.
White can ignore all black queenside pawn moves apart from captures. If black captures on the queenside then white recaptures leaving, again, a structure which does not allow the extra pawn to generate a passer. Otherwise white doesn't touch the queenside pawns and can concentrate on creating a kingside passed pawn.
Once a passed pawn is created white tries to push it as far up the board as possible before abandoning it to capture the queenside pawns while black captures the passer. Black's job is to stop this plan.


Evans Gambit variation The generally very useful and interesting book Bologan's Black Weapons suggests the following line as a practical way to meet the Evans Gambit.

[FEN ""]
[Title "Evans Gambit"]
[Startply "12"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 b5!? 7. Bxb5 Nxd4

The line continues 7. Bxb5 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 (8. Nxe5 is less good, see analysis in the book) exd4 9. Qxd4 Qf6 with reasonable play for black.

However, the book doesn't mention the move 9. O-O !?.

[FEN ""]
[Title "Evans Gambit"]
[Startply "17"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 b5!? 7. Bxb5 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 exd4 9. O-O!? (9. Qxd4 Qf6) dxc3 10. Bc4!

In a blitz game I played as black, I thought I should prevent white from building a big center with cxd4, so I played 9... dxc3. But then after 10. Bc4! I had a very bad position.

So my question is, what should black play after 9. O-O !??

After 9.0-0, 9....dxc3 is indeed too dangerous. After 10.Bc4! black cannot finish his development as white's threats Qd5/Qh5/Bxf7+ are too strong.

However, 9....c6 seems to be a good move. White's strongest reply is probably 10.Bc4, as both 10.Ba4 Ba6 and 10.Be2 dxc3 are fine for black.
After 10.Bc4, black can play 10....Ne7 and continue his development with 0-0 and d5. For instance, 11.cxd4 0-0 and black shouldn't be afraid to sacrifice a pawn after 12.Ba3 d5! 13.exd5 cxd5 14.Bxe7?! Qxe7 15.Bxd5 Rb8 because black's bishop pair and development are more important than the weak pawn on d4. Instead, white should play 14.Bd3 and after 14....Re8, the position is more or less equal.

  [StartPly "17"]

  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 b5 7.Bxb5 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.O-O c6 (9...dxc3 10.Bc4!) 10.Bc4 (10.Ba4 Ba6) (10.Be2 dxc3) 10...Ne7 11.cxd4 O-O 12.Ba3 d5! 13.exd5 cxd5 14.Bd3 (14.Bxe7?! Qxe7 15.Bxd5 Rb8) 14...Re8


Can you recommend a variation in the English opening for a technical player? I'm looking to study the English opening. To cut down my homework, I would like to focus on one or two variations.

Why am I interested in the English opening, I hear you cry? Mostly because I want to vary my games a bit*. I'm a fan of 1. d4 and 1. c4 has transpositional possibilities to 1. d4 openings.

Can you recommend a variation of the English opening that suits my playing style?. Any references to books, videos, top players who employed the line etc. are appreciated too.

Player background

Rated 2100 Elo
Technical playing personality. Preference for positional, intuitive moves and the endgame
Currently using queen pawn openings, e.g. Slav Mainline Dutch, Queen's Gambit Accepted: 3. e4, Queen's Gambit Declined: Lasker Variation
As Black I use the Caro-Kann and Slav
Have experimented with the English Botvinnik system, but I don't like how Black can get easy equality

*Oh, I'm also English too...

It's a good question. Just a quick answer with some thoughts to give you some starting ideas, hopefully to be improved later.

I've always liked the English exactly for its rich transpositional possibilities, they're endless aren't they?

Your intent to divert towards d4 lines via the English is very common. For example Magnus Carlsen often employs it to avoid main theory lines (it's very hard to prepare against 1.c4). So make sure you look into his games on 1.c4. Some exemplary games off the top of my head:

One of the 2013 world championship matches (specially because you're a d4 player and you seem to like endgames): Notice how by move 7 we've reached a completely off-book position, though very natural to play for white:

[FEN ""]
[Event "WCh 2013"]
[Site "Chennai IND"]
[Date "2013.11.15"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D31"]
[WhiteElo "2870"]
[BlackElo "2775"]
[PlyCount "115"]
[EventDate "2013.11.09"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "IND"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2013.11.18"]

1. c4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 c5 7. a3 Ba5 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ng4 12. O-O-O Nxe3 13. fxe3 Bc7 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Qxd8+ Bxd8 16. Be2 Ke7 17. Bf3 Bd7 18. Ne4 Bb6 19. c5 f5 20. cxb6 fxe4 21. b7 Rab8 22. Bxe4 Rxb7 23. Rhf1 Rb5 24. Rf4 g5 25. Rf3 h5 26. Rdf1 Be8 27. Bc2 Rc5 28. Rf6 h4 29. e4 a5 30. Kd2 Rb5 31. b3 Bh5 32. Kc3 Rc5+ 33. Kb2 Rd8 34. R1f2 Rd4 35. Rh6 Bd1 36. Bb1 Rb5 37. Kc3 c5 38. Rb2 e5 39. Rg6 a4 40. Rxg5 Rxb3+ 41. Rxb3 Bxb3 42. Rxe5+ Kd6 43. Rh5 Rd1 44. e5+ Kd5 45. Bh7 Rc1+ 46. Kb2 Rg1 47. Bg8+ Kc6 48. Rh6+ Kd7 49. Bxb3 axb3 50. Kxb3 Rxg2 51. Rxh4 Ke6 52. a4 Kxe5 53. a5 Kd6 54. Rh7 Kd5 55. a6 c4+ 56. Kc3 Ra2 57. a7 Kc5 58. h4 1-0

But it must be admitted that Magnus makes these endgames look easy when for us it's a nightmare to convert.

Personally I really like the Catalan and Larsen transpositions, so I would definitely recommend those. The Catalan and all its variants are very natural to play (with sound endgame structures, because you always have a choice how you commit your central pawn strcuture, unlike most other d4 lines).

Two other examples that come to mind, are the two times Magnus employed 1.c4 vs Nakamura in classical chess:

One leading to a Catalan with a delayed d4:

[FEN ""]
[Event "8th Tal Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2013.06.22"]
[Round "8.5"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Nakamura, Hi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A13"]
[WhiteElo "2864"]
[BlackElo "2784"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "2013.06.13"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[EventCategory "22"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2013.06.24"]

1. c4 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Nf3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 b5 7. Qb3 Bb7 8. O-O Nbd7 9. d4 a6 10. Ne5 Qb6 11. Be3 c5 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. d5 e5 14. a4 b4 15. Nd2 Bd6 16. Nc4 Qc7 17. f4 O-O 18. Rac1 exf4 19. Bxf4 Bxf4 20. gxf4 a5 21. e4 Rae8 22. e5 Ba6 23. Rfe1 Kh8 24. Nd6 Re7 25. Qe3 Qd8 26. b3 g5 27. Kh1 Qb8 28. Qf2 gxf4 29. Qxf4 Bd3 30. Re3 Bg6 31. Rf1 Rxe5 32. Rxe5 Qxd6 33. Re8 Qxf4 34. Rxf8+ Kg7 35. Rxf4 Kxf8 36. d6 Ne5 37. Bf1 Bc2 38. Bb5 f5 39. Kg2 c4 40. Bxc4 Be4+ 41. Kg3 Nxc4 42. bxc4 Ke8 43. c5 Bc6 44. Rxf5 Bxa4 45. Re5+ Kd8 46. Re7 Bc6 47. Rc7 1-0

The second leading to a Larsen (1.b3) type of middlegame: (with black playing the Dutch)

[FEN ""]
[Event "2nd London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2010.12.11"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Nakamura, Hi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A10"]
[WhiteElo "2802"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "2010.12.06"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2010.12.13"]

1. c4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e3 Bg7 6. Nge2 O-O 7. O-O e5 8. b3 Nbd7 9. d3 c6 10. Ba3 Qc7 11. Qd2 Re8 12. Rae1 Nc5 13. h3 e4 14. dxe4 Nfxe4 15. Qc2 Nxc3 16. Nxc3 Be6 17. Rd1 Rad8 18. Bb2 Bf7 19. Rd2 a5 20. Rfd1 Be5 21. Ne2 a4 22. b4 Nd7 23. Bd4 Nb6 24. Bxb6 Qxb6 25. Rb1 Qc7 26. Nd4 Rc8 27. Rc1 Qe7 28. Rd3 c5 29. bxc5 Rxc5 30. Qxa4 Rec8 31. Rb1 Rxc4 32. Qd1 b6 33. Nb5 R4c5 34. Nxd6 Bxd6 35. Rxd6 Bxa2 36. Ra1 Rc1 37. Rxc1 Rxc1 38. Rxg6+ hxg6 39. Qxc1 Qd6 40. h4 Bf7 41. h5 Kh7 42. hxg6+ Kxg6 43. Qc2 b5 44. g4 Qe5 45. gxf5+ Kg7 46. Qe4 Qd6 47. Qh4 Bc4 48. Bf3 Qf6 49. Qxf6+ Kxf6 50. Be4 Ba2 51. f4 b4 52. Kf2 b3 53. Bd5 Kxf5 54. Kf3 Kf6 55. e4 Kg6 56. Ke3 Kh5 57. Kd4 Kg4 58. f5 Kg5 59. Ke5 1-0

Here's another 1.c4 into Catalan, though it was only a rapid: Notice how white intentionally delays the pawn to e3 committment until black has made a decision with the b4 bishop (8...Bc5 now you repond with e3. Otherwise, with the black e4 pawn, a preemptive e3 would weaken your light squares). This is a good example of what I meant earlier with "not committing too early" with the pawn structre you want to achieve.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Amber Rapid"]
[Site "Nice FRA"]
[Date "2008.03.22"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A20"]
[WhiteElo "2733"]
[BlackElo "2799"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "2008.03.15"]
[EventType "rapid"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[EventCategory "21"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.24"]

1. c4 e5 2. g3 c6 3. d4 e4 4. d5 Nf6 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qe7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. a3 Bc5 9. e3 d6 10. Nge2 cxd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. cxd5 Nd7 13. O-O Nf6 14. Bc3 Bg4 15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. b4 Bb6 17. Bxe4 a5 18. bxa5 Rxa5 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qb1+ g6 21. Qxb6 Rfa8 22. Qd4 Qf3 23. Nc3 Re8 24. h3 Bf5 25. Qf6 Kg8 26. Rab1 Rxe3 27. Rxb7 Bc8 28. Qd8+ Kg7 29. Qxc8 Rxc3 30. Rxf7+ Kxf7 31. Qd7+ Kf6 32. Qd8+ Kf5 33. Qxa5 Rxa3 34. Qb4 Ke5 35. Qd2 Rd3 36. Qg5+ Qf5 37. Re1+ Kxd5 38. Qxf5+ gxf5 39. Kg2 Ra3 40. h4 Kd4 41. h5 d5 42. h6 Ra7 43. Kf3 Rh7 44. Re6 Kc3 45. Rc6+ Kd3 46. Kf4 Rf7 47. Kg5 Ke2 48. Rd6 1-0

Here's a crazy one: a 1.c4 turning into a Caro-Kann leading into a IQP middlegame:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Corus A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2009.01.31"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Smeets, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B10"]
[WhiteElo "2776"]
[BlackElo "2601"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "2009.01.17"]
[EventRounds "13"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2009.02.02"]

1. c4 c6 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. cxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 e6 8. O-O Be7 9. d4 O-O 10. Re1 Bd7 11. Bd3 Rc8 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. Ne5 Bf6 14. Bf4 g6 15. Qb3 Na5 16. Qb4 Be6 17. Bh6 Bg7 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. h4 Re8 20. h5 f6 21. Nf3 b6 22. Bb5 Re7 23. Re2 Rcc7 24. Rae1 Kf7 25. Qd2 Qf8 26. Qf4 Bf5 27. g4 Bc8 28. b4 Nb7 29. Bc6 1-0

The list can go on, but it's up to you to carefully study these games and figure out which ones really suit your style of playing, no one can know it better than yourself.
As for the English-Botvinnik system, I'm surprised you don't like it, it's a sharp weapon specially in faster time controls, just watch how Nakamura plays it frequently in blitz. I recently read this article on the Botvinnik variation on chess.com, it may change your mind.

Another very interesting use of the English is to dodge the Grünfeld, as it is also pointed out on the wikipedia page, e.g.: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4... But there are many such examples and that's why the English is so much fun to play.
Finally, there's one response that I dislike the most vs 1.c4, and that is 1...e5 leading sometimes to a reversed Sicilian...This is an example of black making use of the versatility of the English. But even if black decides to not play the Sicilian, a simple plan with e5 Nf6 Bc5 d6 a6 and tucking the bishop back to a7 is not obvious to face as white. So make sure you have a line (or at least some ideas) vs this.

This was just to give you some ropes. You will have lots of fun playing the English opening, and the more you play it the more resourceful you'll become with it, and hopefully you'll grow to appreciate its unique potentials. Enjoy!


Is it common to reverse the rank and file in chess notation? I was watching an episode of Sesame Street that had to do with playing chess.  In a short film, there is a chess master that was going over some moves with school kids and I remember one of the kids said something like 7f Queen to 3g.  This threw me off because the rank and file were reversed.  I am used to hearing Qf7 to g3.  Is reversing the rank and file common or is this more of an isolated incident?

It's not common (I've never heard of it), and it's certainly not an official notation.  Without further information, I have no idea why the chess master would have accepted the strange notation.  Perhaps he didn't think it worthwhile to argue at the time.
Edit: as Tony Ennis notes, the notation for shogi is quite similar to what you are describing.

The method used in English-language texts to express shogi moves was established by George Hodges in 1976. It is derived from the algebraic notation used for chess, but differs in several respects. It is not used in Japanese-language texts, as it is no more concise than kanji.
A typical move might be notated P-8f. The first letter represents the piece moved: P for Pawn. (There is also L lance, N knight, S silver, G gold, B bishop, R rook, K king, as above.) Promoted pieces are indicated by a + in front of the letter: +P is a tokin (promoted pawn).
[...] For example, the start of a game might look like this:

1. P-7f   2. P-3d
3. P-2f   4. G-3b
5. P-2e   6. Bx8h+
7. Sx8h   8. S-2b

Perhaps that is what the child was thinking of.


Why does FIDE recommends using German numbers and piece names for blind and visually impaired? While reading FIDE version of the rules, I stumbled upon Appendix E: Rules for play with Blind and Visually Handicapped.
There, in E2.1:

The moves shall be announced clearly, repeated by the opponent and executed on his chessboard. When promoting a pawn, the player must announce which piece is chosen. To make the announcement as clear as possible, the use of the following names is suggested instead of the corresponding letters, algebraic
A - Anna, B - Bella, C - Cesar, D - David, E - Eva, F - Felix, G - Gustav, H - Hector
Ranks from white to black shall receive the German numbers:
1 - eins, 2 - zwei, 3 - drei, 4 - vier, 5 - fuenf, 6 - sechs, 7 - sieben, 8 - acht
Castling is announced “Lange Rochade” (German for long castling) and “Kurze Rochade” (German for short castling).
The pieces bear the names: Koenig, Dame, Turm, Laeufer, Springer, Bauer.

So, FIDE recommends using German for announcing moves when tournaments with blind/visually handicapped participants take place.
A quick search did not allow me to answer the question of why is it like that and why German (not, say, French) was chosen. I also wonder, since when did those recommendations are present in the rulebook.

Not sure but maybe it is because International Braille Chess Association headquarters are in Germany, also as far as I know ( My knowledge is on the basis of Chess Base India's videos ) players are free to announce their moves in any language as long as both of them agree, German names are used only if the players are not able to reach any mutual agreement.


Candidates for the longest 8 man checkmates? Are there proven 8 men checkmates that have a good chance to be the longest checkmates? How were they proven and why are they good candidates?

One might try adding an extra piece to the well-known mate in 549, thereby adding at least a move or two. But although these may be plausible to Stockfish, these are not proven. In other words, they are not 100% exhaustively verified by a tablebase engine.
In that sense, the longest proven sequence I know of is a mere 64 moves long. This was given by Guy Haworth in his 112 page online PDF about the longest tablebase checkmates.
[Title "KBBBB-KRR, 1-0, 2014/2/27, 8m, 5-3m, KBBBBKRR= KB4KR2, GBR 0690.00_40/22: SV+C,-/SV+C, +, Annotations By Guy Haworth"]
[FEN "6r1/8/B4rB1/8/1B6/5k2/7B/K7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bh5+ Ke3 2. Bbd6 Rd8 3. Bc5+ Kd2 4. Bae2 Re6 5. Beg4 Rc6 6. Bf4+ Kc3 7. Be5+ Kd2 8. Bcd4 Rd5 9. Bb2 Rb6 10. Bbc3+ Ke3 11. Bf7 Rd8 12. Ba2 Rb5 13. Bf6 Rd6 14. Be7 Ra6 15. Bcb4 Rb8 16. Bbc5+ Kd3 17. Bf3 Kc2 18. Ba3 Kc3 19. Bad6 Rbb6 20. Bc5 Rb5 21. Bh1 Rb8 22. Bed6 Rb5 23. Be4 Raa5 24. Ba3 Kd4 25. Bf3 Ra7 26. Bab4 Ra4 27. Be1 Kd3 28. Bd1 Ra7 29. Beb4 Rab7 30. Ba3 Kc3 31. Be2 Ra5 32. Bf3 Rbb5 33.  Be7 Ra7 34. Bfd5 Raa5 35. Bb2+ Kc2 36. Be4+ Kd2 37. Bc6 Rb8 38. Bd5 Kc2 39. Bba3 Kc3 40. Bed6 Rbb5 41. Be5+ Kd2 42. Bf4+ Kc3 43. Bb2+ Kc2 44. Be4+ Kd1 45. Kb1 Rb4 46. Bc2+ Ke2 47. Bd6 Rh4 48. Bba3 Rb5+ 49. Bab3 Rh3 50. Bd1+ Kf1 51. Bdb4  Rh4 52. Be7 Rc4 53. Ka1 Rc8 54. Bg4 Rc7 55. Bge6 Kf2 56. Bbc4 Rh5 57. Bd8 Rh1+  58. Kb2 Rg7 59. Bc5+ Kg3 60. Bd6+ Kf2 61. Bb6+ Ke1 62. Kc1 Rg2 63. Bb4+ Rd2 64. Bxd2#


What are the merits of Anand's exchange sacrifice in game 9 of 1995 World Chess Championship? From various sources (some of which I have mentioned below) I have heard Vishy Anand's 27th move in game 9 of 1995 world chess championship match against Gary Kasparov , which was an exchange sacrifice is considered to be one of his greatest moves.

Link to the game.

Kasparov accepted the sacrifice, but had to resign game  8 moves later.

Obviously due to my incompetence, I fail to see the merit of the move.
I checked with engines, neither stockfish is recommending the move nor engine is giving any significant improvement in evaluation of the position in favour of white after the move compared to before the move.

What are the merits of this move?

What improvements does this move bring for white?

Sources:

Anand's new book "Mind Master" mentions this game and the move. (I have not read book)
Chessbase India has a series of YouTube videos asking different top grandmasters to guess some of Anand's famous moves by showing the position.
This game and position is featured there in the videos.
Link to Magnus Carlsen's video is here and this position is discussed around time 1:10
Popular Chess YouTube channel of Agadmator covers this game and infact this position is the thumbnail of the video. But still don't explain why this move is important or how it improves things for white.

Well, the obvious answer is that taking it leaves white with two connected passers (possibly after a future a6). That is incredibly strong since they control so many central squares, and threaten to advance strongly at any moment. This keeps the opponent tied down, and constantly worried about their advance.

I once saw Joel Benjamin sac a whole piece just for connected passers on the 5th. I think it was at the 1985 World open versus Sandeep Joshi, a prodigy at the time. It has been a long time, but they were so strong, i don't think that he never moved them.

Frankly, the other point behind it is that white is going to double rooks. Kasparov was wrong, at least practically, to take. In his notes to the game, Anand give Nxd5 two question marks, and recommends waiting with 27...h5.


Why does castling in the Four Knights: Double Spanish opening inadvertantly stop Bxc3? So I am currently working through Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca and he said something I find opaque: following 1.e4, e5 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.Nc3, Nf6 4.Bb5, Bb4 "5.0-0 an indirect way of preventing 5...Bxc3, which more experience or more study will show to be bad."
I have been trying to figure out why, if for whatever reason white does not castle (lets say 5.d3), then why is taking better for black? I looked all over for ways to exploit the king in the center, or ways to take away the white king's castling rights, but I have found nothing.

One hundred years ago grandmasters, even the great Capablanca, were given to making sweeping judgments about opening positions without supporting evidence, often condemning moves that have been shown to be quite playable. In fact 5...Bxc3 is now considered a "book" move, though 5...O-O is probably slightly better. And as to 5.d3 making the exchange good, after 5.d3 5...Bxc3 is now considered roughly equal to other reasonable moves like 5...O-O or 5...d6.
BTW the Four Knights Game is often casually dismissed as a "drawish" opening, again without supporting evidence. If you study it and try it you'll find that many opponents who expect the more usual 3.Bb5 or 3.Bc4 are unprepared for it.


What are some activities besides chess which help improve chess play? What activities, be they physical or mental, do you use to improve your chess? Have you recently taken up something and noticed a positive change in your game?  One thing I can think of is exercising such as walking or swimming. Are there any others?

There's probably no better way to improve chess than to study chess.  I did seem to make an improvement by getting obsessed with Shogi, however.  But this is a close relative of chess.

Actually, I would recommend a more physical hobby (rugby, rodeo clown, being a double-naught spy) to give yourself a break from the game.  If you don't get burned out, you'll probably enjoy the game more and improve naturally.


What's this mate called? I've blundered and had this played on me before. Is there a specific name for the mate?

[FEN "8/8/8/8/1n6/8/qPP5/1KR5 w - - 0 1"]

It does not have any special name. I have been playing for 40 years, and I have never seen it given any specific name.

Here is a very good list of named mates, and as you can see, your position is not among them.


Duplicating the game analysis output on lichess I'd like to automatically generate move by move analysis (based on my past games) like they have on lichess for imported games.  My guess is that I need to run a full stockfish analysis for each move (via UCI) and then glue those outputs together.   I was just wondering if I was missing an easier way?  Is there a "full" analysis option that let's you get all of the scoring/annotation in one go?

If you know a little python or shell programming you could try and use uci for each move and grab stockfish output, I will try and see if I can get this sorted at some point and share the code.

If just being offline is your concern, then try the stockfish app, there is offline analysis.

Again, from a programming angle, there is trying to add such a feature to scid.


A mysterious mate in one Here's a question that's a little off the usual format, but problem questions like this have been done before and are on topic, so here we go!
Question: Can you find the mysterious mate in one? The trick is not board rotation, removing a piece, retracting any moves, completing a move, or an illegal move-there is but one solution. Have fun solving!
 [Title "White checkmates Black in one move"]
 [FEN "5nRQ/6PR/1p6/p2P4/p1B5/3Pp3/8/1b1K4 w - - 0 1"]

Looking at the problem as if the black King is currently invisible...

gxf8=Q#
All squares are now covered. So where ever the black King is hiding, the game is over.


How has the Grandmaster title evolved? The wikipedia article is a good starting point, but I'm also interested in how the specific regulations have changed over the years.

Currently, 3 norms must be achieved1 in tournaments that adhere to specific guidelines including foreign players, titled players, and a certain performance rating must be attained.

What was the origin of the current rules, and what were the earlier rules?

1. Usually...  there are exceptions to this however.

One way it is evolving is with the informal 'super-GM' title.  At one time, there weren't many GMs.  Being a GM was being in an elite club.  Now there are a lot of GMs and the differences in their strengths are beginning to show.  (I'm not talking about a GM's performance degrading due to age...)

From the wiki linked below:

  In 1972 there were only 88 GMs with 33 representing the USSR. The
  current FIDE ratings list includes over 1000 grandmasters.

Perhaps 20 years ago, a GM rated 2600 was a 'super GM'.  Now 2700 could well be that mark, with some GMs peaking at 2850 or so.

Also from the article:

  December 2008 saw a record number of GMs (1,192) and IMs (2,916)
  causing some FIDE officials to suggest that FIDE should consider an
  "elite grandmaster" title.[17] The unofficial title, "Super
  Grandmaster", is often used by players to refer to those with a 2700+
  rating to distinguish the most serious world champion contenders.

Read more here.  This article also includes a synopsis of how GM and IM norms are earned, including rules changes by year.  It's very interesting.


Achieving Catalan-like structure against Slav response Being primarily a 1. d4 player, I often face Slav defense. However, I have much more experience and understanding of Catalan structures and would like to get something similar against the Slav response.

Consider:

 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 4"]
 [StartPly "6"]
 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6

In this position, only two moves, in my opinion, lead to Catalan-like structures: 4. g3 and 4. Qc2. The other options, including 4. Qb3, are more going towards typical Slav positions.

 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 4"]
 [StartPly "6"]
 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 (4. Qc2) (4. Qb3)

In this question, the discussion was between 4. Qc2 and 4. Qb3, and I am not sure I am too fond of 4. Qb3 (simply based on the positions I like to get).

After 4. g3, the following is possible and quite likely:

 [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 4"]
 [StartPly "8"]
 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 e6 (4...dxc4) 5. Bg2

and via a very popular 4. .. e6, we are in a typical Catalan structure where dxc4 just has not happened yet, or via 4...dxc4 directly with the same 5. Bg2 reply for white.

Are there strong responses different from 4. .. e6 for black against 4. g3 that avoid the Catalan? Are there better ways to achieve Catalan or Catalan-like structures with white against Slav?

Are there strong responses different from 4. .. e6 for black against 4. g3 that avoid the Catalan?

4...Bf5

One interesting alternative is 4...Bf5, with very original play. Before playing e6, Black wants to develop and exchange its "bad" bishop; a move favored by top GMs such as Nakamura, Karjakin or Inarkiev.

[fen ""]
[title "Mamedyarov (2760) vs. Nakamura (2772), Gashimov Mem 2014"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Bf5!? 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 Be4 (6...Bg4 {was played by Karjakin}) (6...dxc4 {see next game}) 7.f3 Bg6 8.Qb3 Qb6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.c5 Qc7 11.e4 Be7 12.Bf4 Qc8 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.O-O-O Nc6 16.Kb1 g5 17.Be3 f5 18.g4 f4 19.Bf2 Kf7 20.Re1 b6 21.Qa4 bxc5 22.Ba6 Qc7 23.Bb5 Rab8 24.Rxe6 Kxe6 25.Bxc6 Rhd8 26.dxc5 Bf6 27.Bd4 Kf7 28.Rd1 Kf8 29.a3 Bxd4 30.Rxd4 Qe5 31.Rd2 Qe1+ 32.Rd1 Qe2 33.b4 Qxf3 34.Kb2 Qxg4 35.Qc2 Qe6 36.Ba4 Kg8 37.Bb3 Kh8 38.c6 Rd6 39.Rc1 f3 40.Qc5 Qf6+ 41.Ka2 f2 42.c7 Rc8 43.Rf1 d4 44.h4 Qf3 45.Bc4 Rc6 46.Qxd4 R6xc7 47.Rxf2 Rxc4 0-1

[fen ""]
[title "Halkias (2552) vs. Inarkiev (2693), Sunway Sitges Op 2018"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.g3 Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 dxc4 7.Nxf5 exf5 8.e3 Nbd7 9.Qf3 g6 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Bb3 Bd6 12.h3 h5 13.Bd2 Qe7 14.Kf1 Ne4 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.Qe2 h4 17.g4 O-O-O 18.Rc1 Kb8 19.Ba5 f5 20.Bxb6 axb6 21.Ke1 Rhf8 22.gxf5 Rxf5 23.Qg4 c5 24.dxc5 Bxc5 25.Rc2 Qd6 26.Bc4 Bb4+ 27.Ke2 b5 28.Qxe4 bxc4 29.Qxc4 Rxf2+ 0-1

4...g6

Another response is 4...g6 also played by top GMs including Caruana, Grischuk, or Giri.  Caruana and Grischuk play this line with Black and also White! But sometimes after a transposition (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.Nf3 d5)

A recent example:

[fen ""]
[title "Caruana (2819) vs. Giri (2779), Croatia 2019"]

1.c4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nbd2 a5 8.b3 Bf5 9.e3 a4 10.Ba3 Nbd7 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Qc1 Nc7 13.Nc4 Nb5 14.Bb2 Be4 15.b4 Nb6 16.Nxb6 Qxb6 17.a3 Qd8 18.Nd2 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qd5+ 20.Kg1 Nd6 21.Qc2 e5 22.e4 Qe6 23.dxe5 Bxe5 24.Bxe5 Qxe5 25.Rae1 Nb5 26.Nf3 Qc3 27.Qxc3 Nxc3 28.Re3 Nb5 29.Ne5 Rfd8 30.Nc4 Rd4 31.Rc1 Nd6 32.Nxd6 Rxd6 33.Rc5 Rad8 34.b5 cxb5 35.Rxb5 Rd3 36.Rxd3 Rxd3 37.Rxb7 Rxa3 38.Ra7 g5 39.Kg2 Kg7 40.e5 Kg6 41.Ra6+ Kg7 42.h4 gxh4 43.gxh4 h5 44.f4 f5 45.exf6+ Kf7 46.Ra5 Kxf6 47.Rxh5 Rb3 48.Ra5 a3 49.h5 Kg7 50.Ra6 Kh7 51.Kf2 Rh3 52.Kg2 Rb3 53.Kf2 Rh3 54.Kg2 ½-½


Looking for free online chess engines that have (roughly) known ratings In short, I am looking for an online free chess engine that has either:
a.)  multiple engines with multiple ratings, some as low as 1500-1600, and some as high as 2200 or better,
or
b.)  is a single engine with adjustable difficulty ratings from about 1500-1600 and up.

To clarify, someone once recommended that when playing alone against the computer, I should find a difficulty setting that I can beat roughly 2/3 of the time, and another that I can beat only about 1/4 of the time.  Of course I'd rather play OTB (the best practice) but life/job/family commitments don't allow for too much of that these days.

I can readily beat Microsoft's Chess Titans at all levels, including level 10 (or I should say I can beat it at least 3 out of 4 times). Thus, Chess Titans doesn't fit the bill of being able to beat me somewhat more often.  I realize that most purchasable standard chess software has adjustable ratings, but I don't feel like buying any right now.

Lastly, I am aware that Elo ratings for chess engines are a fuzzy subject -- given that they don't make the same kinds of blunders that real humans do, don't give up, play at different levels in different situations, etc.  I am not demanding a highly specific rating.  I merely would like to vaguely know the general level of my computer opponent while I play.

At any rate, any recommendations for a free online chess engine with adjustable difficulty levels, whose elo ratings are roughly known?

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040 gives you a huge list of engines with their CCRL rating. Please note CCRL rating is not directly related to the human FIDE rating, but it's a reasonable estimate in any case.

I recommend you my engine apps. They're free and very popular. Please visit my site to try my chess apps:

http://www.smallchess.com

You'll find a Stockfish app with adjustable playing strength. You'll also find my own chess engine in the SmallChess app. There is also a Chess Mini app, that plays interesting chess at around FIDE 1800 to 1900. Apart from simply just playing, you'll also receive useful feedback, for example:

It's obvious the great Nimzowitch had been winning most of the game. The graph will tell when and how you blunder.

Now, back to the rating. While the SmallFish app (Stockfish engine integrated) allows adjustable playing strength, the rating reported in the app isn't very accurate. The confidence interval is roughly about +-200 Elo. The rating range given in the SmallChess app is much more accurate, because I'd paired it against human players on the FICS server.

I'm sure you'll learn and improve your chess by playing my apps.


Why did Bobby Fischer resign his title? I was wondering about this question for a while. Why did Bobby Fischer resign his title?

Bobby Fischer did not resign the title, although it may have looked that way.
As the New York Times reported at the time:

The International Chess Federation stripped Mr. Fischer of his title and gave it to the challenger, Anatoly Karpov of the Soviet Union, because the 32‐year‐old American failed to meet the deadline for formal acceptance of federation rules for a championship match this year.

To add further to the confusion according to Wikipedia:

In response to FIDE's ruling, Fischer sent a cable to Euwe on June 27, 1974:
As I made clear in my telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were non-negotiable. Mr. Cramer informs me that the rules of the winner being the first player to win ten games, draws not counting, unlimited number of games and if nine wins to nine match is drawn with champion regaining title and prize fund split equally were rejected by the FIDE delegates. By so doing FIDE has decided against my participation in the 1975 World Chess Championship. Therefore, I resign my FIDE World Chess Championship title.
Sincerely,
Bobby Fischer.
The delegates responded by reaffirming their prior decisions, but did not accept Fischer's resignation and requested that he reconsider. Many observers considered Fischer's requested 9–9 clause unfair because it would require the challenger to win by at least two games (10–8). Botvinnik called the 9–9 clause "unsporting".

So, FIDE said "We don't accept your resignation. You're fired!"
Basically, just as in 1972, Fischer made demands that the rules be changed. FIDE and Karpov accepted one of his two proposed rule changes but rejected the other.
According to the NYT:

The federation last month agreed to his demand for an unlimited match, instead of one with a 36‐game limit, with draws not counting and the winner being the first to take 10 victories. However, it rejected his demand for having the champion retain the title in the event of a 9‐to‐9 tie.

Fischer was essentially not just demanding draw odds but, because of the other stipulations, was demanding that his opponent had to beat him by 2 clear games to take the title. This was rightly rejected as giving him an unfair advantage. FIDE gave Fischer an original deadline to accept the conditions and then when he didn't reply they gave him an additional day. When he still didn't reply they did the only thing they could and defaulted him.
It sounds as if Fischer was just being stupid and some people said he deliberately made an unreasonable demand because he was frightened of Karpov but that fails to take account of Fischer's poker-like approach.
In 1972 he made demands that put the match at risk and they paid off.
He might reasonably have expected the same to happen in 1975. The key point being that there was $5 million dollars at stake if the match went ahead, with the winner getting the larger share but the loser still getting a large sum of money. Granted the Soviet chess federation would have taken a large chunk of Karpov's share but Karpov would still have been rich. No match, no money!
Bottom line Fischer's gamble didn't pay off and his bluff was called.


4-2 vs 3-3 (only pawn) endgames arising from Sicilian/Anti Sicilian I play Sicilian (mainly Najdorf) against e4. Sometimes (in anti-Sicilian or Sicilian openings) I end up with exchanging everything except 6 pawns.
So it becomes a 4-2 pawn (4 on the kingside) versus 3-3 end game. I am the side with 4-2 and most likely a6-b5 being the two.
I remember losing a few such games that I could have drawn or perhaps won.
Can you help me with the main strategies for black and and the opposing side white? Also in the specific game that I attached below, we reach to that position at move 28. But I appreciate any advice before move 28 as well.
[Event "Rated Blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/wVcYyus2"]
[Date "2020.09.02"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2020.09.02"]
[UTCTime "18:34:04"]
[WhiteElo "2174"]
[BlackElo "2033"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+3"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-3"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]
[ECO "B22"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: Alapin Variation, Barmen Defense"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "54"]

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bxe2 10. Qxe2 Be7 11. Rd1 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 Qc6 13. Nd2 O-O 14. Nf3 Rfd8 15. h3 Rac8 16. Ne5 Qc7 17. a4 Nd7 18. a5 Nxe5 19. Qxe5 Qxe5 20. Bxe5 a6 21. Kf1 Kf8 22. Ke2 f6 23. Bd4 Ke8 24. Bb6 Rxd1 25. Rxd1 Bd8 26. Rxd8+ Rxd8 27. Bxd8 Kxd8 28. Kd3 Kd7 29. b4 Kc6 30. c4 g6 31. Ke4 b6 32. axb6 Kxb6 33. f4 h5 34. g4 hxg4 35. hxg4 Kc6 36. g5 f5+ 37. Ke5 Kd7 38. c5 Kc6 39. Kxe6 Kb5 40. Kf6 Kxb4 41. c6 a5 42. c7 a4 43. c8=Q 1-0

EDIT: Brian’s answer well addressed the case when my king’s position was inferior but I am actually more curious about the strategies in the case when they are the same or mine is superior. In the game below, I have a superior king position, but then I blunder. What should be the strategy of black in that case? Instead of pushing the a-pawn, I guess I should have done f6 to avoid g5. Then should I try pushing e5 to make it a passed pawn? But then wouldn’t it be an isolated, hence a vulnerable pawn? Again any comment before the start ply will be also useful.
To put it another way, considering the respective start plies in those games,in the first game, what to do to hold a draw, and in the second, what to do to win strategically?
EDIT 2: After Evargalo and David’s comments, I am more or less ok with the first game in the sense that there is no much more to say.
But as Evargalo pointed out in his comment, I don’t quite see why I had +0.9 in the very last position of the second game. To compare, I think both sides violated the second principle of Brian (don’t play in the minority side) and I think I had a better king position. My guess is that it could be due to losing the opposition or the g pawn blocking both f and h. But a deeper perspective could be better.
EDIT 3 After Brian’s great answers and my analysis with Stockfish, I seem to get an idea. But even then pawn endgames are very sensitive to mistakes that might be hard to spot. Thanks to all the contributors.
[Date "2020.09.02"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2018"]
[UTCTime ""]
[WhiteElo ""]
[BlackElo ""]
[WhiteRatingDiff ""]
[BlackRatingDiff ""]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl ""]
[ECO ""]
[Opening ""]
[Termination "Normal"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "70"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O b5 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. a3 Be7 10. Be3 O-O 11. f3 Nbd7 12. Qe1 d5 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Nxd5 Bxd5 15. c3 Qc7 16. Rd1 Rad8 17. Qf2 Ne5 18. Be4 Qb7 19. Bxd5 Rxd5 20. Ne2 Rfd8 21. Rxd5 Rxd5 22. Nf4 Nd3 23. Nxd3 Rxd3 24. Bd4 Qd5 25. Qg3 g6 26. Re1 Bd6 27. Qh4 Bc5 28. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 29. Qf2 Qxf2+ 30. Kxf2 Kf8 31. Re3 Rd2+ 32. Re2 Rd5 33. f4 Ke7 34. Ke3 Kd6 35. Rd2 Rxd2 36. Kxd2 a5 37. g4 a4 38. g5 Kd5 1-0

King and pawn endgames are much easier than ones where each side also has a rook. The key principles are fairly simple. You want to try and queen a pawn. With pawns on both sides of the board and an imbalance as here there are two key points:

Getting your king to the middle of the board is very important.
The only pawns you are likely to queen are ones on the side where you have the majority. If the kings keep away then the further up your pawns get the easier it is to get a passed pawn and queen. So, don't move pawns on your minority side unless you absolutely have to! Doing so makes your opponent's task easier. Move pawns on the side where you have the majority.

In the position you show after move 27 you are already behind in the race to centralize your king. Whether that means you were already losing I doubt but it does make things difficult and it was your choice. Your king has taken 3 moves to go from g8 to d8. In the same number of moves you could have gone from g8 to d5 and that would have been a very different story.
Your transition into the endgame was very poor. Perhaps 20...a6 was already a mistake. You are breaking rul2 by advancing a pawn on your weak side. Better would have been f6 which as well as being a free move, because it kicks the bishop, frees f7, which is a much better square for your king than f8, and moves a pawn on your majority side.
After 24. Bb6 you are in too much of a rush to get all the pieces off with RxR and Bd8. You exchanged pieces in a way which was good for your opponent and bad for you. Bd8 was particularly bad. Your rook on c8 paralyzes white's queenside pawns.
Suppose instead it had gone something like this after move 20:
[fen "2rr2k1/pp2bppp/4p3/P3q3/3B4/2P4P/1P3PP1/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxe5 f6 2. Bd4 a6 3. Bb6 Rd6 4. Rxd6 Bxd6 5. Rd1 Rc6 6. Kf1 (6. b4 Bc7) Kf7 7. Ke2 e5

After 5...Rc6 you have a simple plan of bringing your king quickly to the center with Kf7, e5, Ke6. If white tries immediately to kick your rook away from the defence of the bishop by rushing forward the queenside pawns starting with b4 then Bc7 is a good response.


Historical origin of the queen as a chess piece As far as I know, chess was introduced at Europe from Arabia by a Spanish king: Alfonso X.

I recently read an article in Spanish press saying the queen was also introduced as a piece in Spain.
The article says historians Govert Westerveld and Marilyn Yalom confirm it is a tribute to Queen Isabella of Castille.

I wonder if this article is biased (the title of the article affirms "The chess queen is Spanish"), as it is from my country, and there are other theories about the origin of the queen in chess than being a tribute to our known medieval queen Isabella.

A basic problem is to define terms and criteria.  What is needed to 'have introduced chess' in Europe? Is it enough to find chess men mentioned in donations or bequests?  Or do we need proof that the rules of the game were known?  Or perhaps even that they were used to play according to those rules?  Is an introduction that we find one mention?  Or do we need to have a significant number of people with chess pieces, or playing chess or whatever?

Murray's  A History of Chess mentions wills from the family of Counts of Barcelona, at least one of is dated to early 11th century, thus before Alphonso X. So Alphonso appears to be out as point of origin. He also notes multiple mentions of the game during the 12th century (i.e. in the 1100's), adding to the problem of having Alfonso introducing the the game, except in very limited sense. (The nordic game 'skak-tafl', which is usually taken to be chess, was played in 11th and 12th century -- which may be an added problem in connecting Alphonso X with the game.)

There are also indications that the games was known to Europeans even earlier, outside Europe.  If that is correct, it certainly opens for other vectors of transmission into Europe than through Spain.  Even though the game is more likely to be found mentioned in writing in relation to royalty, high nobility or priesthood, (as they were mainly those who left written documents) there seems to be no clear reason why tradesmen and sailors anywhere necessarily must have been ignorant of the game.

As to the name of the queen itself ... I'll leave that for others. Murray suggests that the name of the piece we call Queen was part of the Europeanization of the game: in Europe, a queen was perhaps the only generally recognized piece to have a natural place beside the king. Besides 'Queen', version of 'ferz' were also used -- there seem to be Spanish sources using the term 'alfferza' as well as connecting it to the idea of a standard-bearer.  If Spain could be shown to be the sole or main point of entry of chess into Europe, then the naming of the queen would probably originate in Spain as well.  But until that has been shown definitely, origin of terminology is probably best treated carefully.

But again, perhaps, the question of what the question really is may need to be asked.  Yalom connected the modern queen, with its added powers of movement, with Isabella, not the old queen piece.


Sufficient mating material, less a king? As an extension to this question about can a rook and knight without a king stalemate a opposing king, and the traditional minimum-mating-material question, I had a puzzle question:

What are the minimum combinations of material (without a king) required to forcibly mate an opposing king?

R + R/Q is clearly sufficient
R + N + N/B maybe, as an extension from the above stalemate question

On the other hand, there are some sets that fail without a king:

B(w) + B(b) (but 3 bishops should work, so long as one is on a different color)

Assuming opponent has no pieces:

4 or more knights
4 or more bishops, at least 2 per side
At least 2 pawns, but it also depends on where the pawns are
2 or more major pieces
Queen and a minor piece
Rook and 2 minor pieces
4 minor pieces
Pawn+Minor pieces/2 Minor Pieces(depending on where the pawn is or a major piece

If opponent have pieces:

Queen(maybe rook)+Minor Piece vs 1 pawn
Queen(maybe rook)+2 pawns vs Rook+Bishop+Pawn
Q+R vs Rook and bishop or 2 minor pieces(for most positions)


understanding evaluation function I am developing a chess program. And have made use of an alpha beta algorithm and a static evaluation function. I have successfully implemented both but I want to improve the evaluation function by automatically tuning the weights assigned to its features. At this point am totally confused about the policy suitable for updating the weights of the function. One policy I have in mind is to check whether a move is good or bad before updating weights but I don't really know how to implement it. Thus I need ideas and pseudo code please.

In Chess, you use SPSA and CLOP. Those are the algorithms used by Stockfish in Fishtest to tune its parameter. The algorithm worked so well that it made Stockfish be the strongest engine in the world.

Please note that the algorithms are very complicated mathematically. One could write a PHD thesis on this topic. In SPSA, you start from a best guess from the value. Then play games, use those games to derive a better gradient for the next series of parameters.

The maths is very hard, but it all boils down to some statistics - you play games, and use those games to derive a distribution to update the parameters you want to tune.

Please read:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=50823&topic_view=flat

and

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/fishcooking/SPSA/fishcooking/WNrxeXAJ6VI/ZkCnRv4I_qEJ


Simple (not deep in theory or moves) Openings for White and Black? I am at the point where I want to learn some simple openings for White and Black.  By simple, I mean, openings that do not have a deep theory and don't take a lot of moves to get into.  Currently, I have been playing the Evans Gambit and Smith-Morra Gambit whenever I get a chance.  I have heard that the Colle System and London System are good beginner openings (I am confused by the word "system" here, are these actual openings?), so if anyone can elaborate on this, that would be helpful.  If I don't get a chance to play the Evans Gambit or Smith-Morra Gambit, I just play to the opening principles.

There aren't really any good openings without theory, but that doesn't matter -- you don't have to know the theory.

As white, I think you should play 1.e4. The Morra and Evans gambits seem fine to me at low levels, although the latter can be avoided. If 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6, you will play against the opening I recommend you to use as black below. The game is likely to be quite equal for a while and the best player will win. Against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6, there are a lot of gambits to play along the lines of 4.d4 or 4.0-0, 5.d4 that may be interesting.

Against the French and Caro-Kann you can get experience with isolated queen's pawn positions, more or less the most important of open positions at all levels. Isolated queen's pawn positions are tactical and show up in lots of openings. Play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 and 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4, and develop quickly (knights first, castle short, etc).

As black, play classically -- answer 1.e4 with 1...e5, and 1.d4 with 1...d5. Against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 and the like you can usually play 1...e6 and 2...d5 to get something similar to your 1.d4 lines. The idea of the classical openings is to get a good foothold in the center, trying to get an equal game first and worry about getting a better position later.

Against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, why not the Petroff 2...Nf6. Black doesn't have many problems in the lines after 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5, and can try to keep his knight actively placed on e4.

Against 1.d4 d5 2.c4, play 2...e6. The goal is to stay strong in the center and develop, e.g. by Nf6, Be7, 0-0, Nbd7, b6, Bb7.

There are of course many many more lines, but I won't put more in a single answer to a really broad question...


What is the process for becoming a FIDE rated chess player? I am new to chess. I read about FIDE so my question is: How can I
can play in a FIDE tournament or become a FIDE-rated player?

Is there any online process for that, or something else? Right now I only know
about FIDE and not much about their process. Someone told me about FIDE but he was not very clear about them.

How can I can play in a FIDE tournament

In exactly the same way you would a non-FIDE rated tournament. First enter. Then play.

  How can I can become a FIDE-rated player?

To get a FIDE rating you need to score at least one draw against at least 5 FIDE rated opponents in FIDE rated tournaments with a performance rating of at least 1000 over a period of not more than 26 months.


Is "Rdxd2" algebraic chess notation valid? Is the algebraic notation Rdxd2 valid?

If there is a problem with this notation, then how can it be corrected?

If you have two rooks, standing on different files (one of them on the d-file), that could capture on d2, then Rdxd2 is the correct notation.
If you have two rooks on the d-file, and both can take on d2, then use the rank number to disambiguate, for instance R1xd2.
This is according to the Algebraic System required by FIDE's Laws of Chess (see appendix C, paragraph C.10).
In the very, very rare case that you have more than two pieces of the same kind that can capture on the same square, it might be necessary to use both rank and file to disambiguate. This could theoretically be needed for queens, bishops and knights, but never for rooks. As Martin Bonner explains in the comments, for this to be necessary you would need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another of the same kind and the same file as a third of the same kind, and all three attack the same square. That is not possible with rooks.


Stafford Gambit Accepted - Qe2 - What to do? Today I have been playing some new lines I haven't tried before. I am quite fond of the Petrov (Russian) Defense and I found some interesting lines particularly the Stafford Gambit seemed to peak my interest.
I had 2 games today with this line and in both instances white did 6. Qe2. This I found interesting as the expected continuation in this position is for move 6 for white is d4. I found that countering with Bc5 seemed to work ok but I was curious as to some thoughts about what the best move following Qe2 would be and potential development ideas.
[FEN ""]
[Date "2020.08.24"]
[White "Him"]
[Black "Me"]
[ECO "C42"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Nxc6 dxc6 5. e5 Ne4 6. Qe2 Bc5 7. Qxe4 *

Rats. I thought I had a 5. Qe2 somewhere... Crap, that colllection of Stafford  games was on the stolen laptop.
...Bf5 was a suggestion earlier, right? Then if d3 kicks you back to c5, and d4 hits you again, you can drop back to e6 without blocking the bishop, or go in for ...Ne4 f3 Qh4+ Qf2 (what a mess) .


In what way is it allowed to alter tournament pairings in favor of a player? The FIDE Rules for Swiss Systems state:

  C.04.2 A It is not allowed to alter the correct pairings in favour of any player.

and then further state:

  Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made to help a player achieve a norm or a direct title, a report may be submitted to the QC to initiate disciplinary measures through the Ethics Commission.

What I can get from this is that (for example) if my friend, who is one point away in the final round to achieve a title, is a player in a tournament, and I am the arbiter of that tournament, I can alter the pairings in such a way that he plays an 1100 player and have an easy title shot.

Is this what can be concluded from the above section of the rules? If not, what is meant by "modifications" there?

It says the exact opposite.

  C.04.2 A It is not allowed to alter the correct pairings in favour of any player.

So no, you can't.

  Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made to help a player achieve a norm or a direct title, a report may be submitted to the QC to initiate disciplinary measures through the Ethics Commission.

FIDE could try to punish the player or you.


iOS app that calculates multiple lines Does anyone know of a chess engine for iOS that calculates and gives multiples lines when analyzing positions? I currently use Stockfish, but it only gives one variation.

My strong SmallChess iOS app. Multi-lines is supported:

You can also try each variation on a variation board:


Anki Deck for Tactics Traning Does anybody have Anki decks for tactics training?
If anyone has such decks, can you share them with me?

I am trying to improve my tactics and I heard that space repetition is one way to do that, so I want to have some decks to give it a shot.

I've been searching for chess tactics decks but I couldn't find any.

Truth is there isn't a lot out there for chess. The best I could find was this from the Ankiweb site - https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/1176122148 There aren't many free decks for chess but it does guide you into how to make your own which you can do using puzzles that you find and like in books and the web.

For getting started with Anki Alex Vermeer's site has some useful stuff - https://alexvermeer.com/anki-essentials/


About unusual forced mates Are there 'legitimate' chess positions were say white can force a mate by sacrificing  4 of its pieces in succession one after the other? Can this be done even if white has less material than black?

There are many beautiful sacrificial games out there and if you look at composed position you will find even more sacrificial combinations leading to mate. This is one of the most famous games, Anderssen-Kieseritsky from 1851, called "The immortal game":

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 b5 5.Bxb5 Nf6 6.Nf3 Qh6
7.d3 Nh5 8.Nh4 Qg5 9.Nf5 c6 10.g4 Nf6 11.Rg1 cxb5 12.h4 Qg6
13.h5 Qg5 14.Qf3 Ng8 15.Bxf4 Qf6 16.Nc3 Bc5 17.Nd5 Qxb2 18.Bd6
Bxg1 {It is from this move that Black's defeat stems. Wilhelm
Steinitz suggested in 1879 that a better move would be
18... Qxa1+; likely moves to follow are 19. Ke2 Qb2 20. Kd2
Bxg1.} 19. e5 Qxa1+ 20. Ke2 Na6 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 22.Qf6+ Nxf6
23.Be7# 1-0

There surely are games out there that concur even more exactly to your specifications, but generally sacrificing pieces to mate the enemy king is a normal occurrence in chess games.


Are there starting positions in dobutsu shogi that are farther from a win/loss than the standard one? In dobutsu shogi, the usual starting position is a loss for the beginning player in (at most) 78 turns (from first move until (and including) lion capture or ascension).

But are there perhaps other (starting) positions that are farther from win/loss than the standard one? I would be most interested in positions with all (starting position) or most of the pieces on the board and on the back rank.


Queen placement in the Dragon [FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 O-O 8.Bc4 e6 9.O-O a6

Here is a line from a game of mine. I made the movee 10. Qd3, but my computer program says Qd2 would have been a much better move. Why is that?

One of Black's development plans will include moves like Nd7 intending Ne5 hitting the Q and Bishop if the Q is on d3.
This will cost White an important tempo in this dynamic opening.
Black's plans revolve around control of the c4 square hoping to place a piece on this square. Depending on White's particular move order Black may play b5, Bb7, Nd7, Nb6, Nc4, Rc8.
To counter this Q side action of Black, White needs to get active on the K side: Qd2 allows the B to h6 plan to exchange off the key defensive Black B. In due course after completing development White can plan a pawn storm against the B King.