What books and videos would you recommend to an absolute beginner of Chess? The entirety of my current chess knowledge consists solely of the valid moves which the pieces can make. I've played a few matches, but my moves tend to be aimless, by this I mean they lack any purpose. What books and video series would you recommend so that I can bring some structure to my chess game? I'm looking for something of an absolute beginner's difficulty that goes on to an intermediate level.

Absolute beginner? My best advice to you would be getting/buying Chess Master Grand Master Edition game. Install the Josh Waitzkin Academy (it will ask you while you're installing it's easy to notice) and go through his tutorial.

It's an interactive tutorial that teaches you how to start thinking as a chess player, it's completely voiced and will have puzzles and questions as it goes from one level to another forcing you to put what you just learned into practice. When you finish the entire tutorial, you should have at the end at least basic knowledge about openings (including some traps and how to avoid them!) middle game tactics and some sacrifices and last but definitely not least basic understanding of end game.

At the start it will even have you slightly practice memorizing the chess board annotations (like where b4 is or any other square) which definitely helps in the long run when you go into higher levels of chess.

After you're completely done with this tutorial and master it (you will most likely watch it more than once throughout your chess career to understand everything completely 100%) there is another course, which is less of a tutorial and more of a high level analysis between a GM and a ferocious Chess machine.

I advise you to not just watch and finish these tutorials but to also go out and play with other people... If there's a chess club out there near you or at least you can reach by bus or something, definitely go there and play against stronger players and you'll improve even faster.

Hope I helped :)


Useful solving composed mate-in-2 problems? I'm solving mate-in-2 puzzles from the Polgar 5334 problems book.

Many of these are composed problems, and are hard (for me) to solve. Often I have to spend 10-15 minutes before finding the solution. Many time I don't find the solution in a reasonable time, and give up.

How useful are these problems for improvement, compared with solving more "normal" puzzles? And if they are useful, how much time should you spend on trying to find the solution? Are there some general procedure you should follow in order to find the solution fast?

I am going to re-post my exact answer to the question "Improving the observation skill & making less blunders" with this preamble, because if you use them in this manner, you can cut down on mistakes early in calculation. Of course, this can be very helpful. If you learn to do this effectively, and as a matter of course in tournament games, you should see improvement.

In addition, you will see common patterns repeated, even if finding the first "key move" is difficult. I think scanning all possible moves, and not necessarily calculating deeply, depending on your current skill level, can lead to your solving these more quickly.

Here is that answer:

I will go back to what Artur Yusupov, three-time World Championship Candidate, former top-10 player,  and one of the greatest living trainers recommends in the first book of his 10-volume series. In volume one, "Boost Your Chess - Build Up Your Chess", chapter 9, which is two-move mates, including composed problems:

  The aim of this lesson is to improve your calculation of short
  variations. It is more important to find a lot of options in the
  first few moves than to calculate moves long variations. Most mistakes occur in the early moves in variations. What
  is the use of calculating a long and correct variation if your
  opponent has a much better reply on move one?

  You must develop your skill at calculating short variations, while at the same time taking into account the possibilities available to
  your opponent. This skill should reduce blunders.

  Exercises with mate in two moves are very well suited for training in
  the art of calculating short variations with great accuracy.
  Emphasis as written, not mine.

I will take this one step further with my own suggestion. Try to train yourself that before you make every move, look at EVERY move your opponent has. I am not saying that you are calculating anything. You are simply looking at it so you consider it. It will do two things: If you are hanging a piece, just looking at it will usually "hit you in the face like a brick", and second, I have done many combination problems over the last 40 years, and sometimes, when I cannot figure it out, and look at the answer, I realize immediately that had I just LOOKED at the move, I would have seen the combination.

So, again, you are not trying to calculate, just consider every move. You will be amazed at what you register immediately.


How to create a file in Scid-vs-pc; new chess pieces? I am a Linux hobbyist and I would like to know if someone could help me understand what steps I should follow to create this chess piece file in scid-vs-pc:
http://gorgonian.weebly.com/scid-vs-pc.html

NOTE: piece data is contained in a text file which should be saved in
the \ bin \ pieces sub-folder of the main SCID vs. PC directory (it
needs to be created).

When I open the page there is nothing that can direct me to 'save' anything, it is just a text that the most I could do is to copy and paste ... in a file that I can previously create in my 'home' ... but, in bin? -- they give a different path: bin / pieces, I don't understand, I'm a dilettante.
Could someone please briefly indicate the steps ...? Thanks.

The info is here: http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/doc/Board.htm

Create a pieces folder in ~/.scidvspc (~ means your home folder in linux).

Create a file fritz.txt with the content of http://gorgonian.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/2/2/17221082/fritz.txt

Save fritz.txt in  ~/.scidvspc/pieces

Restart your scid-vs-pc

Enjoy


Is there a refutation of the Muzio gambit? Is there a 'refutation', i.e. a defense for black that leads to a guaranteed advantage assuming perfect play, against the Muzio gambit?

[StartPly "11"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3

First of all, I should point out that it's actually simplest to avoid the Muzio altogether with Black; i.e. meeting 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 with 4...Bg7 (the Hanstein Variation) or 4...Nc6! (transposing to a line of the Bishop's Gambit which is probably favourable for Black.

But that doesn't really answer your question, does it? :)

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4?! g4!? 5 0-0 gf 6 Qxf3 Qf6! 7 e5!, Black almost always plays 7...Qxe5, which has been analyzed for centuries, and the verdict is still unclear. However, in his recent book, John Shaw puts forth the view (supporting by the strongest engines) that 7...Qf5! leaves White with doubtful compensation for the piece.

Conclusion : 4...Nc6! and 4...Bg7 give Black good prospects to play for an edge in a relatively simple position (which is a good practical choice given the rarity with which Black meets this variation). Speaking about the Muzio proper, things are much less clear, but 7...Qf5 should be better for Black (albeit complicated).


Chess Problem: Reset The 50-Move Rule! While chess problems and such are usually meant for Puzzling Stack Exchange, I thought that this one should be an exception since it’s more relevant IMHO.
Resetting the 50-move rule, i.e. restart the 100 ply cycle, requires either a pawn push or a capture. Checkmate does not restart it of course.
[Title "Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe, MatPlus.net Forum 8/14/2013, White To Move"]
[FEN "1K6/2p5/p5pr/q2k3n/P1pPp1rP/1pP1PpPR/1P3P1B/3N3N w - - 0 1"]

Given that White is playing to reset the 50-move rule and Black is trying to avoid it, how many moves will it take to for White to reset the 50-move rule?  Or, in layman’s terms, after how many moves can White make a capture or a pawn moves while Black avoids doing or allowing that to happen?

Since no one has managed to solve this problem entirely, here is the answer. Credit goes to @NoseKnowsAll and @Scrounged in the comments for identifying the mechanism White uses to force the reset. This answer merely shows how White can avoid a perpetual check by Black.
[Title "Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe, MatPlus.net Forum 8/14/2013, White To Move"]
[FEN "1K6/2p5/p5pr/q2k3n/P1pPp1rP/1pP1PpPR/1P3P1B/3N3N w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc8 Rh8+ 2. Kd7 Rh7+ 3. Ke8 Rh8+ 4. Kf7 Rh7+ 5. Kg8 Nf6+ 6. Kf8 Nd7+ 7. Ke8 Nf6+ 8. Kd8 Nh5 9. Bg1 Rh8+ 10. Kd7 Rh7+ 11. Ke8 Rh8+ 12. Kf7 Rh7+ 13. Kg8 Nf6+ 14. Kf8 Nd7+ 15. Ke8 Nf6+ 16. Kd8 Nh5 17. Rh2 Rh8+ 18. Kd7 Rh7+ 19. Ke8 Rh8+ 20. Kf7 Rh7+ 21. Kg8 Nf6+ 22. Kf8 Nd7+ 23. Ke8 Nf6+ 24. Kd8 Nh5 25. Rg2 Rh8+ 26. Kd7 Rh7+ 27. Ke8 Rh8+ 28. Kf7 Rh7+ 29. Kg8 Nf6+ 30. Kf8 Nd7+ 31. Ke8 Nf6+ 32. Kd8 Nh5 33. Bh2 Rh8+ 34. Kd7 Rh7+ 35. Ke8 Rh8+ 36. Kf7 Rh7+ 37. Kg8 Nf6+ 38. Kf8 Nd7+ 39. Ke8 Nf6+ 40. Kd8 Nh5 41. Rg1 Rh8+ 42. Kd7 Rh7+ 43. Ke8 Rh8+ 44. Kf7 Rh7+ 45. Kg8 Nf6+ 46. Kf8 Nd7+ 47. Ke8 Nf6+ 48. Kd8 Nh5 49. Re1 Rh8+ 50. Kd7 Rh7+ 51. Ke8 Rh8+ 52. Kf7 Rh7+ 53. Kg8 Nf6+ 54. Kf8 Nd7+ 55. Ke8 Nf6+ 56. Kd8 Nh5 57. Re2 Rh8+ 58. Kd7 Rh7+ 59. Ke8 Rh8+ 60. Kf7 Rh7+ 61. Kg8 Nf6+ 62. Kf8 Nd7+ 63. Ke8 Nf6+ 64. Kd8 Nh5 65. Rc2 Rh8+ 66. Kd7 Rh7+ 67. Ke8 Rh8+ 68. Kf7 Rh7+ 69. Kg8 Nf6+ 70. Kf8 Nd7+ 71. Ke8 Nf6+ 72. Kd8 Nh5 73. Rc1 Rh8+ 74. Kd7 Rh7+ 75. Ke8 Rh8+ 76. Kf7 Rh7+ 77. Kg8 Nf6+ 78. Kf8 Nd7+ 79. Ke8 Nf6+ 80. Kd8 Nh5 81. Ra1 Rh8+ 82. Kd7 Rh7+ 83. Ke8 Rh8+ 84. Kf7 Rh7+ 85. Kg8 Nf6+ 86. Kf8 Nd7+ 87. Ke8 Nf6+ 88. Kd8 Nh5 89. Ra3 Rh8+ 90. Kd7 Rh7+ 91. Ke8 Rh8+ 92. Kf7 Rh7+ 93. Kg8 Nf6+ 94. Kf8 Nd7+ 95. Ke8 Nf6+ 96. Kd8 Rh8+ 97. Ke7 Ng8+ 98. Kf7 Nh6+ 99. Kg7 Rg8+ 100. Kxh6


In Chess, are there simple "mechanics" that amateurs can learn to improve their game? In the board game Go, for instance, it is often of great importance whether or not a stone can be captured in a so-called "ladder" (an often complicated formation). One of the things that separates professionals from beginning and intermediate players is that professionals can solve with a glance a problem that others struggle with.

Are there similar "mechanics" in chess (most likely the end game), that amateurs would do well to learn to greatly improve their game? Examples might include the ability of a king, or other piece to "catch" a passed pawn; the ability of a king to gain the opposition against the opposing king halfway across the board; the minimum number of moves needed for a bishop or knight to reach a certain critical square, etc.

Good question, and I think that there are a lot of different common patterns/tactics that improving players would do well to learn:

(very roughly ordered from simplest to most difficult)

"Simple" tactics and endgames

knight forks and bishop forks - get in the habit of just seeing the squares that would be forked instead of needing to spend time looking
rook and queen forks - very similar to the above, but sometimes these are more difficult to see for some reason (i.e. white king on g1, knight on g3, Rg2+ would fork the two if the rook is defended)
king and pawn endgames - as mentioned in your question, the rule of square is crucial.  At the end of a long variation leading into a king and pawn endgame, just knowing whether or not the pawn will queen is often the difference between a win and a loss, and this trick will save a lot of time, often during time pressure.
drawn bishop and rook pawn endgames - again, if you know that a rook pawn and the wrong colored bishop will only draw, this will enable you to save time and half points.
drawn knight vs pawn endgames - sometimes a lone knight can fight successfully against the enemy king and pawn, sometimes not.  At a certain level (1900+?) it's important to know when the king and pawn win and when they only draw.  That's probably a separate question on its own...

Rook endgames

Lucena position - the Lucena position is the most common method of winning with a rook and extra pawn vs rook.  It's not terribly difficult to commit to memory either - spend 5-10 minutes and learn how to win when you get your king in front of your pawn!
Philidor position - the Philidor position is the most common drawing method if you are down a pawn.  Again, doesn't take much time to learn the basic position, and a good investment if you want to save a few draws in your games.
cut off king - if the enemy king can be cut off along a file or a rank, usually the stronger side will win.  However, learning the exceptions to this rule is important as well.  This is far less common than other winning rook endgames though, so less important if you just want practical knowledge.

Piece relationships and domination

bishop dominates knight - a picture is worth 1000 words...

king dominates knight - similar to king and pawn vs lone knight...

More complicated endgames

queen endgames - learning how to win with an extra pawn in a queen endgame can be valuable, as can learning how to defend.  There are few very common tricks (walking your king close to the enemy king to allow for cross-checks, deciding which corner to run to when you are on the weaker side, etc.) that are useful.  Again, this might be worth its own question.
bishops of opposite color - many times bishops of opposite color are a quick draw.  Not always though!  Learning some of the patterns used to get a win with an extra pawn or two in this endgame will allow you to win as the stronger side, and avoid losing as the weaker side.  Common patterns/tricks include two pawns vs no pawns separated by a single file (many times a draw), learning how to win with two pawns separated by 3+ files (hint: king helps the pawn barricaded by the enemy bishop), and learning how to draw these positions.

Tactics and mating patterns

Learning some basic mating patterns or typical tricks can be useful as well:

Greek gift Bxh7+ sacrifice - if black doesn't have a knight on f6 and white has a knight on f3, queen on d1, and a bishop that is attacking h7, it's imperative to at least check this sacrifice.  The Art of the Attack has a whole chapter dedicated to this common theme.
Checkmate patterns - spend an hour learning patterns - the wikipedia article is a great start, but Art of the Checkmate is the authoritative book and it is available fairly cheap on Amazon...

Well, that was a lot, please feel free to add or embellish this answer if you think of more patterns and tricks!


What is the process for amending the rules of chess? I read the whole document issued by FIDE containing the Laws of Chess, but nowhere does it say how (or even if) the rules of chess can be amended.
Is every change to the rules supposed to yield a new variant? But then, what about minuscule changes like allowing the king to castle out of check, or slight tweaks on how en passant works? If, for example, the double-advance rule for pawns had never been invented, would there really be no way of introducing it into chess now? Would we just end up with "standard" chess and "pawns-can-move-two-squares-forward-on-their-first-move" chess?
Plus, a way of changing the wording of the rules must exist—when the rules where amended to explicitly disallow vertical castling with a pawn that had just been promoted to a rook (which the rules accidentally allowed previously), someone did manually rewrite a portion of the rules in a way that was binding for everyone else.
So what is this way, and who can do so? Is it FIDE? Are there any meetings that take place according to a regular schedule where potential changes can be submitted and discussed? Who can submit these proposals, and once they are approved, are they binding for all national federations?

FIDE has a Rules Commission (https://rcc.fide.com) which reviews the Laws of Chess every four years according to their FAQ. I don't know about the process itself, but if I had to guess I'd say it involves lots of committee meetings and emails. :-) One interesting detail, though, is that they have a form you can fill out with suggested changes to the Laws: https://rcc.fide.com/form-of-loc-change-proposal/
But like the FAQ also says,

Considerable changes were made in the 15th century. The scope of the queen and bishop in particular were increased then. This made it a much faster game. The Laws are reviewed every four years, but these are either just tidying up, or changes to the Tournament Rules.

So don't expect any changes to things like how the pieces move, other than possibly closing of loopholes like the one about vertical castling which you mentioned (are there any loopholes left? That's a separate question).


Can 5D chess be solved? An interesting new variant of chess has emerged, showing that chess will always be fresh-5D chess.
I mostly play the 5x5 version, but the positions do not rocket out of control like in the standard 8x8.
Given its uncomplicated nature, with current computing power, could it be possible to solve this variant of chess?

This link explores a way that white can force a draw. Perhaps this is game-breaking and makes the solution process much easier.
I am only an casual chess player and I’m mainly transcribing “5D Lexi”’s analysis.
My attempt at transcribing it (there’s no standard notation for 5D chess)

e3 Kf6
Bb5 c6
c3 ...

The idea is for white to go for Qb3 and then Queen to f7 to move 1. Black should not play cxb5 because he needs active counter play against this idea.

... Qc7
Qb3 d5 (defending this timeline)
Qf7 to turn 1 (check) Kxf7 (the following is all in this new timeline)
Kf3 Kf6
Ke5 one move back in the same timeline (critical move)

Note: the new timeline is an inactive timeline, so Black doesn’t have to play here. This might be the reason that it’s a forced draw, not a win.
Now, black has difficulties creating another timeline without losing. Because if Black time-travels to a location after move 2, then the present is shifted to move 2, but white’s Knight is checkmating Black’s King on the adjacent timeline.
Black can conceivably travel further back, to turn 1, to defend.
Honestly just watch the video :)


Maximum number of ways to get out of check What is the maximum number of legal moves in a legal position, given that the player is in check?

It's easy to see that 43 is an upper bound. Let's suppose the white K is in check along a diagonal by a Q or B (other cases are similar or easier). Then White has at most 7 legal K moves; a white Q has at most 3 moves (interposition or capture); a white B of the right color has at most one move; and a white R, N, or P has at most 2 moves. Even if White has lost no pieces and has promoted all his pawns to queens, he has no more than 1*7 + 9*3 + 1*1 + 4*2 = 43 legal moves.

In fact it's easy to see that 43 cannot be attained. If White has 7 legal K moves, then one of them must be to capture the checking piece. But in that case no interposition is possible, the only legal non-K moves are captures, so White has at most 21 moves total.

Of course we can do better. We can always do better. 42 legal responses with a little trick.

[FEN "3rB2k/2P1P3/1NQ1QN2/2Q1QN2/2Q1Q3/1R3R2/3K1B2/8 w - - 0 1"]

My previous attempt, 40 legal responses:

[FEN "8/4N2R/3QQQQ1/1K5r/3QQQQ1/BB1NN2R/8/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

And 39 legal responses with a bishop check (and the position is legal, black's last move was ...h2-h1=B+):

[FEN "7k/1K6/4RN2/5QN1/B1R3QN/3Q3Q/3NQ3/4NQ1b w - - 0 1"]


A nine pieces opposite color bishop endgame In the below position, the black pawn in g4 is weak, yet White do not seem profit from the situation. The position is
[FEN "8/P1B5/4k3/2Kb4/4p1p1/6P1/4P3/8 b - - 0 0"]

with black to move. My modesto Houdini 6.02 give fixed score as far as d=61(three quarters of a hour), but it may be necessary to go as far as d=70, if not even higher, with a tablebases enhanced engine(mine is not) to be completely certain it is actually a draw, or find the win.

This position is almost certainly a draw. Black's next move could be Ba8, blocking the a7 pawn and putting the bishop out of harm's way. So how would White proceed from there?
One possible White plan is to promote the a7 pawn. But the promotion square is light-colored, so it cannot be supported by the White bishop. To get support from the king, White needs to get their king to c7 and then b8. (b7 and c6 are guarded by the Black bishop, so the White king cannot use those squares.) But how? If they move the c7 bishop and then play Kb6, Black simply plays Kd7 (or possibly Kd6 or Kd8 if they need to waste a move, depending on the position of White's bishop.)
Another possible White plan is to take the g4 pawn. It's on a light square, so it cannot be taken by the bishop, so that means the king has to do it. But that doesn't work either. White's's king would need to get to f4 (perhaps via e3), but Black can easily move their own king to f5 (or e5 or g5) in time to prevent this.
I don't see any other possible plans. The Black bishop cannot be captured (we've established that the White king cannot get to b8 to threaten it) and the e4 pawn is protected by the Black bishop. Since the White king cannot penetrate into Black's position, the pawns are blocked, and the White bishop cannot make progress on its own, the game is drawn.
[FEN "8/P1B5/4k3/2Kb4/4p1p1/6P1/4P3/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Ba8 2. Kb6 Kd7 3. Be5 Kd8 4. Bb2 Kd7 5. Kc5 Ke6 6. Kd4 Kf5 7. Ke3 Kg5 8. Kd4 Kf5 9. Kc5 Ke6 10. Kb6 Kd7


Recommendation of a book for learning strategic concepts I am looking for a book to help me with strategic concepts, how to exploit small advantages in the long term and long term plans in general. I would like it to have as much exercises as possible. What would be a good book for this?

I am rated around 1800.

There are two new and well received books in that direction:

Winning Chess Manoeuvres
Chess Structures

At least the latter contains 50 exercises as well.

Strategic Play by Aagaard is very close to your specifications, it contains a lot of exercises and is pretty much about 'the long plan'. Unfortunately it's extremely difficult. (I gave my book away to a friend, who is close to his last GM-norm).

Positional Play is much easier, but still tough for an 1800 player. And of course the focus is more on correct piece placement and the like.

And Techniques of Positional Play is supposed to be quite good as well.


Sites to understand errors There are several sites where one can analyse his/her game. I often use lichess at the end of a game to see where I made mistakes. What I miss, though, is some kind of explanation of why a certain move was a mistake and why another one was better. Where can one find this kind of feedback that is not limited to good/bad but includes a reason?

https://decodechess.com/ advertises this kind of service but I doubt if it's really useful.


Why is it said that beginning with 1. Nf3 2. c4 avoids the Benoni but beginning with 1. d4 2. c4 does not? I have read a lot of messages on different Forums about the merits of beginning with 1.Nf3 or beginning with 1.d4.

And a very big number of people said essentially this:

One of the advantages of starting with 1.Nf3 2. c4 is that it avoids the Benoni while starting with 1. d4 2. c4 does not.

But I just don't understand why that is the case.

.

After 1. Nf3 2. c4, if White wants to try to avoid the Benoni he should delay d4. At some point Black will play ...c5. But White will play d4 anyway sooner or later, and when White does play d4 Black will answer with ...cxd4.

For example, from a Symmetrical English move order:

Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 (3. Nc3 Nc6 4. g3 will transpose; while 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 instantly gets into roughly the same position) g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. d4 (7. d3 is inferior and scores very poorly for White) cxd4 8. Nxd4

Or from a King's Indian Defense move order:

Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O (5. d4 c5 transposes) c5 6. Nc3 (6. d4 cxd4 transposes) Nc6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4

These seem to be White's best tries to try avoid the Benoni (or I should probably say "to delay entering in a Benoni") by beginning with 1. Nf3 2. c4. White has many other possibilities, but they end up reaching roughly the same position as above even quicker than in 8 moves (and the only moves that White can play to get a different position are rare and weaker).

I'm not sure if this position is considered as a Benoni or not (one database calls this an "English Benoni formation", another source calls this an "Anti Benoni"), but it doesn't matter if it's really a Benoni or not, the only important question is: does it make a difference if White begins with 1. d4 2. c4 instead?

d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4

Play can continue:  4... Nc6 5. Nc3 g6 6. g3 Bg7 7. Bg2 O-O 8. O-O

And we reach the exact same position!

Since I don't know if this position is considered as a Benoni or not, I don't know if White can or cannot avoid the Benoni by starting with 1. Nf3 2. c4, and I don't know if White can or cannot avoid the Benoni by starting with 1. d4 2. c4.

But this doesn't matter, because the point is: beginning with 1. Nf3 2. c4 or with 1. d4 2. c4 does not seem to make a difference if White wants to avoid the Benoni, since White ends up in the exact same position regardless of if he starts with 1. Nf3 2. c4 or with 1. d4 2. d4.

So the statement "one of the advantages of starting with 1.Nf3 2. c4 is that it avoids the Benoni while starting with 1. d4 2. c4 does not" should be false.

But obviously I must be wrong, I must be missing something, because I've seen dozens of people (some were very high rated) say that 1. Nf3 2. c4 avoids the Benoni while 1. d4 2. c4 does not.

With both move orders white can avoid the Benoni. The difference is all about which sidelines you allow and which ones you don't.

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 is generally considered the most flexible move order for white since they can wait and play d4 at the moment of their choosing.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 on the other hand gives black extra options, for instance the interesting gambit

    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cxd5 Bc5

Have a look at the following game where I was the victim: Madsen-Hodgson.

Another option black has after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 is to play like Kramnik did against Kasparov.

   [FEN ""]
   [Event "Braingames World Chess Championship"]
   [Site "London"]
   [Date "2000.10.19"]
   [Round "7"]
   [Result "1/2-1/2"]
   [White "Garry Kasparov"]
   [Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
   [ECO "A31"]
   [WhiteElo "2849"]
   [BlackElo "2770"]
   [PlyCount "21"]

   1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g3 Qc7
   7. Qd3 (7.Bg2) Nc6 8. Nxc6 dxc6 9. Bg2 e5 10. O-O Be6 11. Na4 1/2-1/2

To get an advantage in this variation, white might have to sacrifice the c4 pawn instead of covering it with 7. Qd3.

A third option black has is to enter the Hedgehog with

    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 b6 (4... b6 5.g3?)

In this move order white should not fianchetto the bishop with 5.g3 since black's bishop is first on the long diagonal.


King's Indian Attack - Middle game ideas I've searched everywhere, however, I couldn't find what are ideas in KIA. I know about Neil McDonal "The King's Indian Attack: Move by Move" book. This book covers KIA against different openings. However, I'm struggling when my opponent stops playing opening moves, I find myself in situation where I don't know how to continue.

What is general idea in KIA? Launch kingside attack, queenside attack? Or something else?

The best way to learn the KIA is to study master games. White attacks on the kingside, and black attack on he queenside. Study Fischer's KIA games as well as the KIA games of others.


Why not fight off a bishop on row 5 with pawns? Oftentimes a bishop will move to b5 or g5 early in the game.

I personally never do this because I see a6 coming, and if I move the bishop back to a4, then b5, nearly trapping the bishop, and certainly having made it a waste of time to move it to b5 in the first place.

However, when I watch games by top-level players, bishops get moved to the 5 row all the time, and nobody ever fights them away with pawns like I think they will. Why not?

Here are a couple of relevant questions and answers that might help to explain why the bishop move happens:

Morphy Defence in Ruy Lopez
Why is the Ruy Lopez such a common opening?

In summary the main points seem to be that:

Black loses as much time chasing the bishop as White does retreating it
White can gain a long-term advantage from Black's weaker Queen side pawn structure

As you might expect in such a popular opening though it's very finely balanced for both sides.

If as you say you are not seeing a6 and b5 in the games you're looking at, you might be looking at games where Black plays the Berlin Defence: 3... Nf6. This is quite popular at the moment in very high level games.

If you want to see some games where the pawn move a6 is played, "putting the question to the bishop", here's a link: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=C70


What's the point of early a2-a4 in the Modern Italian? It seems that just every top GM is now playing the modern interpretation of the Italian Game (with c3 and d3) with an early a2 to a4 Pawn move, something that only a few years back was considered a waste of time in the best of cases. The first "important" game with this idea is, if I am not wrong, the Carlsen - Karjakin game from 2016 World Championship. So what is the point of this early Pawn a2 to a4 move? Just gaining space on the queenside?

White obviously doesn't want to give light square bishop for knight. He can waste two moves with Bb3-c2, which is the old main line. Or he can just create escape on a2, after which Na5 doesn't make much sense. It gains space while it doesn't have to be so bad to exchange the bishop after Be6, if it didn't make additional moves.


How to install stockfish on ubuntu? Is there an easy guide how to install stockfish on ubuntu?

From the main site I can not find any information and github repository does not provide many details.

I would really appreciate if someone who already installed and started to run it would share the steps.

Just for completeness, I would like to add more explicit instructions for using stockfish in Scid, because sometimes it is a little confusing how to get stockfish to function in an actual chess program.

sudo apt-get install scid
sudo apt-get install stockfish

Load Scid
In Scid Click:

Tools -> Analysis Engine (click twice) -> New
    Set Name to ‘stockfish’
    Command is /usr/games/stockfish (use ‘which stockfish’ if not)
    Directory : Click the ~/.scid button
    Hit OK and select the stockfish engine

Hopefully this is straightforward enough that anybody could replicate it.


Searching for a position in the mega database 2020 with ChessBase 15 The setup is ChessBase 15 with the mega database 2020. I look in it for the Najdorf starting position

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/1p2pppp/p2p1n2/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

as follows :

I double click the Mega Database 2020 to open it
When done I click on filter list, which opens the window :

I click on position to get :

I click on "OK", and then I get : "No games found".

What am I doing wrong ?

PS : I know that I can play the position and look into reference (after having selected the mega database 2020 as reference database) to get all games having this position, but I don't want to do it that way. (Imagine a position resulting after 32 moves for instances, don't want to play them all.)

I am not sure what you are doing wrong. I get plenty of games that way. It is possible you did a previous search that still has some residual information in the "search mask" (this is what ChessBase traditionally called the search feature).

I will first show you how to do that and get results, and then I will show you one or two better ways. First, as you noted, it is important to make sure that the Mega 2020 database is the "reference database". I am going to include full instructions since you may not be the only person to read this.

To set Mega 2020 as the reference database, right-click on it, and open the properties. Click the the "Reference-DB" box", and click "OK"

Next, rather than set the position in the search mask, I suggest that you open a blank board and enter in your Najdorf position. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6.

Now, open the search mask, and click "Reset" first, and then "Copy Board". Then click "OK. This returns 200,471 games for me.

That said, I really only use this feature when I am looking for generic positions. For example, all positions with pawns on f2, g3, and h4, etc. If I am looking for all Naijdorfs, there are much better ways to get them.

First, you could use the opening keys, and drill down, and open the specific ECO keys that you are looking for.

Next, from any opening position, you can use the "Find Novelty" function. To use this feature, you right-click the board, and click "Find Novelty" or the shortcut is "Shift+F6" (the picture I added is in German as I took it from the help file...it is hard to get a screenshot because the menu closes). You can then sort by the "Notation" column. For many years, this was the best way, but they have since added a much better way if you are looking for a specific position. You mentioned that you do not want to do this, but I have no idea why that would be. I am still going to add this in for others, who may read this.

Enter the position, and simply click the "Reference" tab. You can then refine it by the next move, or just go down to the games at the bottom, and start clicking. It also gives you information about the scoring percentages, and notable players, who played it. For me, this has become the best way to search for specific positions.

I have also been using this method as I watch the "Method in Chess" videos on chess24.com. GM Dorfman mentions the names of the players when he starts, but often it is hard to know the name he said. So, I plug in the starting position, click "Reference", and if you go in far enough, it has limited the number of names enough that you can pick them out of a list even if you could not spell them, and enter them.


Is it too late for me to get into competitive chess? I am 24 years old, and only recently got my interest in chess back. I used to play it on and off as a child, but never took it seriously.
Is it too late for me to start playing competitively? I'm not aiming to be GM or anything, and neither am I planning to make chess my life. I am just wondering if I can still qualify to participate in some tournaments here and there, maybe get a few awards, maybe have a ranking of some sorts, and possibly call myself a competitive chess player.
Thanks!

Sure why not! The important thing is to enjoy the game and learn whatever life lessons you can take from it along the journey. Chess offers tremendous companionship and fun and that is what is more important than focusing on results (which will inevitably follow as you keep improving learn from your mistakes).
Make sure you keep a database of the games --- especially your victories! --- you play on online using softwares like SCID, and then submit it to computer analysis (via Stockfish available on lichess).  Learn where you went wrong during the game. I have improved tremendously myself over the past few months by following this process (having returned to chess only 2 months ago).
Focusing on improving a specific precisely defined skill like chess, I feel instills a growth mindset and set of habits that permeate other areas of life automatically.
And speaking of becoming a top player at a "late age" (if by that you mean physical age rather than mental age) then there is precedence! https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-famous-chess-player-or-grandmaster-who-started-late-like-in-their-20s-or-30s
The important thing however I repeat is focusing on making sure that chess offers you enjoyment, a place to practice a growth mindset, companionship and a chance to make friends in both meatspace and cyberspace.
You might come across players online who have some sort of ego issues but these are precisley the players who only want to show off and will never improve past whatever miniscule talent they think they might have. It is one thing to be proud of your accomplishments but another thing to denigrate another person for playing worse chess. Stay away from people like these and build a healthy community of friends that you enjoy playing with and will help you improve.
Hope this helps!


Does the Lomonosov Tablebase (and others) include extra material positions such as KQQvKQQQ? Lomonosov Endgame Tablebase says it includes all endgames with 7 pieces. But does that include things like KQQ v KQQQ? At every possible position?

Such things seem highly unlikely, but theoretically possible. I recently watched a Fischer-Petrosion game that went to 4 queens in the endgame that also included a bishop v knight and some pawns. They eventually agreed to a draw.

Other unlikely things: KBBvKNNN, KQRvKQQ, KRvKBBBB. Have any of these been evaluated?

So I guess the general question would be, have all 7-or-less endgames been evaluated where at least one side has 2+ queens, 3+ rooks, 3+ bishops, or 3+ knights?

The Lomonossov tablebases include all 7-man positions with the exception of 6 pieces vs lone king.

Most material distributions you consider "ridiculous" are in fact required to evaluate "interesting" positions because of possible pawn promotions. This works recursively, so if you want to solve e.g. KPPPvKPP, you need (among others) the table KPPQvKPP first. To solve KPPQvKPP, you need (among others) the table KPPQvKPQ first, &c.

Ultimately, you need KQQQvKQQ and all other 4-man vs 3-man tables to solve the endgame KPPPvKPP. So it is necessary to have all possible material constellations, even those who seem to be uninteresting.


How can one improve their over-the-board analysis skills? I think of analysis as the ability to mentally move through variations, recognize tactical ideas in those variations, and draw accurate conclusions regarding the fitness of the resulting positions.

I have heard it said that the ability to perform proper analysis is the greatest factor in chess strength up to the USCF 2000 level. How can one improve this skill?

Edit:

Based on Tony Ennis' and Goerge Jempty's answers I have devised the following training plan.

Using CVT Online I am performing board vision drills on a daily basis.
I am solving K+P ending problems using progressively complex problems (i.e. increasing the number of pawns) from a variety of sources in my head.
I am using Chess Success: Planning After the Opening and a set of blank boards to go through the games "blindfold" - meaning in my mind. Once I get to a diagram I am drawing the position in my head using the blank board and then comparing it to the one in the book. I am also doing this with any variations that don't have diagrams. But that requires a manual check.
When I am solving my typical tactic and other puzzles I am making an effort to move through my variations with my eyes closed and also performing my check of the final position for checks, captures, and threats without looking at the board as well.
I am also doing quick drills using the Fritz software from chess base to quickly recognize checks, captures, and threats. This training material is under the "Training" tab of the CHessBase user interface of their engine software.

In the next 90 days I will edit with any thoughts or considerations that I have regarding the results of this training plan. Thank you to all who answered.

Related thread: How to get out of "Hope" chess into "Real" chess

There are no shortcuts.

Work tactical problems
Read highly regarded books to learn why you should make moves.  I wouldn't necessarily read, "GM X's Best 50 games", but instead would seek out books about tactics or positional training.  "My System" is an example, though probably dated.
Get an instructor.  He can tell you what you're doing wrong and how you can fix it.  Figuring this out yourself is time consuming at best.
Play a lot, working to apply what you're learned.  Don't play for rating points, or even to win, as such. Play to learn.
Analyze your games with a machine to see what you - and your opponent missed.  Work hard to figure out why the machine thinks your moves were substandard, and how it's suggested moves prevent the problems caused by your moves.


How do I stop blundering my queen? I have a particular bad habit when I play chess. I play reasonably well (at least by the standards of people I play with), and am quite careful with my pieces. But in about 80% of games I play, once I get into a good position - one or two pieces ahead and in control of most of the board - I nearly always move my queen to attack something and then lose her. This is usually due to an unappreciated threat (sometimes I've even seen the threat a turn or two before).

Is this a recognised problem for many players, or is it just me? If it is recognised, are there any recommended strategies to overcome it?

It's certainly not just you. While you describe a particular blind spot involving your queen, the more general phenomenon of throwing away sizable advantages is a very common one in chess, and it can be tough to kick. Here's a well-known saying that seems to be due to longtime U.S. champion Frank Marshall (and I'm paraphrasing):

  The hardest thing in chess is to win a won game.

I've read folks like Vladimir Kramnik echo this very point as well (as have thousands of others, I'm sure). So this kind of thing is something that affects the very best out there, not just you. There can be many reasons behind this kind of difficulty (e.g. stubborn, defiant resistance from the player on the losing end), but the primary factor that the winning player can remedy himself is simply to avoid "relaxing" too soon. After all, as your experiences show, even a huge material advantage can disappear if you let your guard down even a little bit and blunder away a queen.

Something I noticed long ago in my own games is that if I allow myself during the game even just to briefly imagine a future in which I've already won (e.g. hypothetical thoughts of who I'll be playing in the next round of a tournament once I've won), then things often become much harder the rest of the way, even if I immediately catch myself after the fact and refocus on the game. Is that real, or all in my head? It doesn't matter, because if it's in my head that's enough to affect my chess play.

Refusal to consider any game won until it's actually over, coupled with constant tactical vigilance, will go a long way to avoiding the pitfall you've described. Exactly how to arrange for that in your own head will vary from person to person, of course, but that general approach is important. Basically, what I'm saying here goes hand in hand with the nice point Wes makes in his answer (slow down, take a breather before moving); take every move in the game just as seriously as any other, whether it's the first move of the game, or you're up three pieces, because the cruel truth of chess is that an entire game's worth of brilliant moves can be ruined with a single bad one.


I am looking for a chess game on nintendo ds that is suitable for beginners I am not a experienced player, just a beginner, I want a easier computer opponent that I can beat.

Through search engin I found below two game titles that emphasize the suitability for beginner, which is"chessmaster the art of learning" and "learn chess". Of these two games which one is better for a beginner? Or does any one has other recommendation?

I had a look at the various options a long time ago, and the two I would suggest would be Chessmaster and Fritz DS. Both of these allow you to set the strength of the opponent and don't distract you with "fun" graphics jumping all over the screen. If you don't have the means to test them out and just want a purchase recommendation, I found Chessmaster to be a more complete package.

However, both of these share the problem that is present in all chess programs, which is that at a lower strength level they play in a very un-human-like manner. They'll occasionally make really good moves and occasionally make terrible ones, only the scale is tipped towards the latter as you set the rating lower and lower. As a result, if you are planning to use this as a way of learning the game to play against other humans be away that a real person will play very differently.


Which is the most CPU efficient chess engine? I am learning artificial intelligence and chess programming. I want to analyze the architecture and read the code of existing chess engines. But I am confused between multiple choices. There are several free chess engines available, for example:

Crafty
GNU Chess
Stockfish
IPPOLIT
Fruit 2.1
(Add your chess engine here)

I am wondering which chess engine is most efficient in terms of CPU cycles used.
For example, if Crafty achieves 3300 ELO by thinking for 30 seconds on each move, and GNU chess achieves 2500 ELO by thinking 1 second on each move, I would consider GNU Chess to be more efficient.

So which engine is most efficient? What would lead me to choose one over another?

If I were going to do this, I'd choose Stockfish, Fruit 2.1, and Crafty for no reason other than their high quality is proven.  Then I'd compare and contrast the techniques, algorithms, and choices made by each.

These aren't easy programs; it would be a lot of work to gain a true understanding.


Transposition Tables Bug, implementation produces different results I've been writing my chess engine for 2 months now, and I've come across this bug that I can't manage to solve. Basically, when I disable my transposition table, the engine plays fine and the minimax search selects one of the best options every time. With that said, when I enable them once again, it results in the selection of different moves than the optimal, which should not be happening (as their purpose is efficiency oriented).
    if maximizing_player:

        max_eval = -1*10**5

        for state in possible_states:

            node+= 1
            eval = hawkins.minimax(self, state, depth-1, alpha, beta, False, castling_chance, last_move, quiet)
            if eval[0] > max_eval:
                max_eval = eval[0]
                chosen = state
            alpha = max(alpha, eval[0])
            if beta <= alpha:
                cut += 1
                break
        transposition_table[mx] = (max_eval, chosen)
        return (max_eval, chosen)

    else:

        min_eval = 1*10**5

        for state in possible_states:
            node += 1
            eval = hawkins.minimax(self, state, depth-1, alpha, beta, True, castling_chance, last_move, quiet)
            if eval[0] < min_eval:
                min_eval = eval[0]
                chosen = state
            beta = min(beta, eval[0])
            if beta <= alpha:
                cut += 1
                break
        transposition_table[mx] = (min_eval, chosen)
        return (min_eval, chosen)

This is a simple minimax search implementation. When the depth reaches zero, I have a separate call to return a static evaluation. With that said, in my mind, I'm recording the best move possible and its score into a transposition table that has "mx" (the string that contains my game state) as a key. A little bit above the code snippet embedded, I wrote the following:
        if mx in transposition_table.keys():

        return transposition_table[mx]

So when we would find our "mx" once again, it would not spend resources trying to the best move possible. Could you please help me find what wrong with my implementation?

I am not sure I understand your exact code but my guess here is that you return a transposition table result, no matter the depth of the entry. So if you encounter a position and calculate it one ply deep, store it in the transposition table, and then the next iteration you want to search two plies deep but instead retrieve a one ply deep evaluation from the transposition table. The way around this is to store the depth in the transposition table entry and then only accept an entry if its depth is greater or equal than the required depth.
Another issue to take note of is that with an alpha beta search, for most nodes you won't know the exact evaluation, only an upper or lower bound. So if you store something in the transposition table you also have to remember whether the evaluation is an upper or lower bound, and then when retrieving have logic accordingly.


Which binary of Stockfish 7 should I use? Stockfish 7 for Windows comes with 3 64-bit binaries:

stockfish 7 x64 bmi2.exe
stockfish 7 x64 popcnt.exe
stockfish 7 x64.exe

All 3 of them work on my system. Which one gives the best performance?

Open a terminal/console. Run the stockfish program, if the engine crashes move to the next one.

Type bench for the working binaries, and pick the one with best nodes/second.


Books/Videos for the Caro-Kann I just started playing the Caro-Kann recently and have seen a variety of moves on white's third move.  Are there any good "all-in-one" resources to examine the different variations?  I consider the opening to be the weakest part of my game and want to strengthen is as much as I can.

The Caro-Kann: Move by Move is a good resource for the Caro-Kann. The repertoire covered has winning chances but is very solid. (Just make sure your rating is at least 1500; below that, learning opening is not ideal.)


Increase in pawn value towards endgames I’m writing my own chess engine where I’ll be implementing something called a tapered eval which is one that evaluates the position with an endgame specific evaluation function and a middle game specific evaluation function. Then it will interpolate between these two depending on the amount of material on the board.
I don’t know if this is the right forum, but I thought since it is not related to programming itself and more related to actually playing the game, I would ask chess players themselves.
My question is then: If the value of a pawn is set to ~100 (centi-pawns, or hundredths of a pawn) in the middle game and opening, what should it be in the endgame?
I would think that it needs to be higher because they are more important in the endgame, and thus being one pawn up should create a bigger imbalance. I know that this value changes dynamically depending on promotion ability, but what would you think a general value should be?
Any input is much appreciated!

I've tried programming with the relative values of pieces changing with relation to material.  I've found that a maximum value of 110 centipawns*, without bonuses, was a fair value.  (FYI, the knight's value decreases as material is reduced, so this dynamic adjustment of value decreases for the knight.)
A square value, where the pawn gets a bonus the farther advanced pawn is worth more, is useful for both promotion and attacking values.  (The promotion square has a value of 800, so there's huge gain to get to the eighth rank.)  The gives the engine an incentive to aim for a promotion and encourages aggressive pawn moves in front of the opponent's king.  However, another function is written to prevent a general weakening in front of our king.
Good luck in programming your engine.
-To fine tune the program, I set the normal value of a pawn to 2000.  The highest value was a little over 2200, so I adjusted to the normal 100 value used in most programs.


Is castling good in Chess960? The overall arrangement of the pieces in Chess960 seems so weird that I have a question about it Should be castling at all?

Yes, castling is good, especially when you are about to be attacked by say, a knight and queen, a king castling to the other side is very good.


Is there a name for non-pawn pieces? I'm trying to describe chess to a person, and one of my sentences was:

"Two rows, one with pawns and another with [non-pawns]"

What would the collection of King, Queen, Bishops, Knights and Towers be called?

As you probably know, sometimes the word "pieces" itself is used for that (you can say for example: white has two pieces and three pawns left). But that isn't very practical to use.

The only solution I can think of is using light pieces, heavy pieces and a king.

Not a one word, but at least it can be used in your sentence.


Accelerated Dragon, Modern Bc4 Variation (B35) 10.Ndb5! After:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 a5 9.O-O d6

It appears 10.Ndb5 is difficult for Black to play against.  I only found some games from 2008.  Is it still the case that Black is avoiding this line at high levels?

The line 8.Bb3 a5 9.0-0 d6 still occasionally occurs in games of IMs and GMs, and the results are actually quite ok for black. For example, Hou Yifan-Yu Yangyi, Kudrin-Diamant, Vishnu-Vazquez Igarza and Saric-Damaso.

However, at the highest level, it indeed seems that black is looking for alternatives. At the latest FIDE Grand Prix, Palma de Mallorca 2017, Gelfand tried 8....d5 against Vachier-Lagrave and 8....d6 against Vallejo Pons, but lost both games.

A remarkable alternative is 8....Re8, first played by Zvjaginsev in 2013. This move has been repeated in several GM games, e.g. Leko-Vitiugov and Sanal-Dubov.
EDIT: In the first round of the Gashimov Memorial 2018, the theoretical discussion on 8....Re8 is continued in the game Navara-Mamedov.

Recently, a new repertoire book has been published: The Hyper Accelerated Dragon by IM Raja Panjwani. According to a book review on Canadian Chess Newsfeed, the author analyzes two variations against 7.Bc4.

  If White avoids the Maroczy (c2-c4), then the only other way to stop the ...d7-d5 equalizer is 7.Bc4, which is the subject of Chapters 2 and 3. Black could allow the game to transpose into a Yugoslav attack (Bc4, f3, Qd2, 000, and a kingside pawn storm) but Raja wants to avoid that, and offers two antidotes: 7...Qa5 (ch.2) and his own system ("My System") which is a hybrid of the Dragon on the kingside (e7, f7, g6, h7/h5) and a Taimanov on the queenside (...a6, ...b5, ...e6). That's the subject of Chapter 3, and the excerpt in the game player below.

      [StartPly "15"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 a5 (8...d5)(8...d6)(8...Re8) 9.O-O d6


Why is Qe2 stronger in this position? I just finished reading Logical Chess Move by Move (should have read it before) and I just started with the Classic My System. I'm still on the beginners' part that talks about the center (can't wait to get to the positional chapter) and Nimzowitsch posts a game in which he says Qe2 is stronger. Here is the game.

 [FEN ""]
 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qe6 5.fxe5 Qxe5 6.Be2

Nimzowitsch says that in the arising position Qe2 is stronger, why? Because we would have a development advantage of one piece? That doesn't look too of an advantage to me? (Note that Qe2 is referring to white's 6th move.)

Be2 makes no threat, leaves g2 undefended, and seals in the Queen.  Black has Bg4 which prevents 6... Bg4 7.Nf3 Bxf3 8.gxf3 as this leaves White with crummy pawns.

Black also has Be7 followed by Bh4, exploiting White's weak black Kingside squares.

Finally, Black also can move either Knight. Black simply has no problems.


French (white) loss to a master - where could I have improved? [FEN ""]
[Date "6/16/2018"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "Opponent"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1874"]
[BlackElo "2286"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Be2 f6 10. O-O fxe5 11. Nxe5 cxd4 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Bxd4 c5 14. Bf2 Rb8 15. Rab1 Qa5 16. a3 d4 17. Ne4 Qxd2 18. Nxd2 Rxf4 19. Rfe1 Rf6 20. Bg3 Rb6 21. Nc4 Ra6 22. Ne5 Rb6 23. Nc4 Rc6 24. Na5 Rb6 25. Bc7 e5 26. Bc4+ Kf8 27. Bxb6 axb6 28. Nb3 Bb7 29. Bb5 Rg6 30. Bxd7 Rxg2+ 31. Kf1 Rxh2 32. Nc1 Bh4 33. Nd3 Bf3 34. Nf2 Rxf2+ 35. Kg1 Rg2+ 36. Kh1 Bg3 0-1

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2286

I felt that I was much better in this game and let some big tactics slip in the end. I have a few questions and few annotations here. Feel free to address the following points or anything else that jumps out as important throughout the game:

I know that 9.Be2 is a common move, but at some point I felt that 9.dxc5 or 10.dxc5 should have been played to sidestep this pressure that black exerts with 9...f6 and 10...fxe5. I also found a repertoire book for white recommending 9.dxc5.
11.fxe5 looked like it was dropping a pawn with the threats of ...d4 forking or ...Bc5 pinning the white queen.
12.Nxc6 seems like the only way out, but seems to gradually strengthen black's center. So, this points to 10.O-O as possibly dubious.
I couldn't find anything better than 16.a3 (can you?). In many scenarios after ...d4 I could either drop the a2 pawn or the f4 pawn after an exchange of queens, and I figured I'd have counterplay on the h2-b8 diagonal if the f4 pawn falls.
19.Bg3 seemed not as strong to me due to black's ability to exchange rooks, and I also wanted to exert some pressure on the e-file.
After 20...Rb6, black's rook seems like it's starting to run out of squares. Perhaps black should consider giving back the pawn with 20...e5 21.Bc4+ Kh8 22.Bxe5 Nxe5 23.Rxe5, simultaneously eliminating white's powerful bishop.
With 23.Nc4, I couldn't find much better than a repetition, and was wondering if my higher rated opponent would risk the game in order to avoid it.
I felt that 24.Na5 through 28.Nb3 were more or less forced moves.
I felt 29.Bb5 was strong to encourage an exchange of bishops with ...Bc6, but my opponent went for 29...Rg6!?.
I think 30.Bxd7 was a blunder. I think I saw a defense that wasn't there. This is a common thing for me to do in the past, seeing a defense that wasn't there (whether I'm on the attacking or defending side). I'm pretty sure I have the ability to calculate/use intuition to see how dangerous taking this knight is, but I felt in this situation it may have been more of a psychological mistake as well as I had an advantageous position against someone 400 points higher than me. Afterwards, he said he thought I was winning before this.
With 32.Nc1 I wanted to somehow hold everything together with Nd3 and also purposely block in the b1 rook to avoid some eventual skewer tactics. Everything else I was calculating ran into some other problem. Maybe 32.Kg1 instead?
And after 32...Bh4 I sadly realized that 33.Rxe5 runs into 33...Rh1+ 34.Ke2 Re1+ winning the rook.
And after 33...Bf3 I felt completely lost.

Also, please no computer analysis unless it's absolutely necessary to explaining something. Thanks!

11 Nxe5 looks bad to me ... White has a spatial advantage and is strongpointing d4. Nxe5 reduces the spatial advantage by allowing an exchange of knights and weakens d4. Fortunately the opponent did not capitalize correctly and played cd allowing Nxc6! but after an exchange of knights and then cxd4 I think your opening has gone wrong.

I also didn't understand why you played Qd2 and then Be2 and O-O. Why was Qd2 the most important move to play there?


How good is this variant of the Sicilian defense? I am relatively new to chess SE, so I am not sure how to include the chessboard thing.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Bc4?! Nxe4
6. Bxf7+ Kxf7
7. Qh5+ ...
8. Qd5+

and wins back the Knight after that.  I am a ~1900 rating player on chess.com, and I play it frequently.  I win almost most of the matches and it is evident white settles for a good positional advantage by the end of this opening, leaving black unable to castle.  I would actually call this a trap that loses black his ability to castle.  Is there a name for this?  Is there any counter to this variation perhaps (I have never encountered one before)?  If not why is this rarely seen in world championships?

I would actually call this a trap that loses black his ability to
  castle.

I would call it a double blunder, first by white with 5. Bc4 then by black with 5. ... Nxe4.

  Is there a name for this?

It is unusual for blunders to be given names although it does happen in special cases. This isn't special.

  Is there any counter to this variation?

... Qa5+ is the obvious one after which white looks to be in a lot of trouble to me.

Deliberately playing bad moves in the hope that your opponent will blunder is called "hope chess". If you want to improve then you have to try and stop doing that because it won't work against good players.


Why did Magnus Carlsen drop out of World Championship in 2011? I heard from a friend of mine that Magnus Carlsen did not play the Candidate Matches in 2011. Why did he do that?

Magnus Carlsen drops out of World Championship cycle (contemporaneous chessbase.com article)

Largely he didn't like the format (knockout matches rather than round-robin tournament).

Carlsen wrote a letter to FIDE explaining why he skipped the Candidates Matches, quoted in part below:

  After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the
  ongoing 2008–2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently
  modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a
  lengthy process of preparations and matches and to perform at my best.

  Reigning champion privileges, the long (five year) span of the cycle,
  changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates)
  that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling
  ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match
  concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion.

  In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future
  World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the
  best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to
  the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when
  there are several players at approximately the same level in the world
  elite.

  One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player
  World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events.


The genders of the pieces and pawns Historically, what, if any, are the genders of the pieces and pawns?  Is the king male and the queen female, etc?   What about promoted pieces?

Chess originated in India and in the Indian armies of those times, it was common to have elephants, camels, horses and the like. Even now in rural India, the rook is the "elephant", the bishop is the "camel" and the knight is the "horse". The king is still the king, the queen is the "wazir" or vizier, and pawns are foot soldiers. In fact there was a recent Indian movie called Wazir, themed on chess and the Wazir was portrayed by a male character.

Traditionally, the armies fought mostly with men, however, even Indian history has had female warrior queens (for example Rani of Jhansi). The Wazir, however, is not a queen, but a powerful minister in the kingdom, maybe even the king's prime minister or right-hand-man (person?). Traditionally, this would be a male. Similarly, the elephant riders, camel riders, horse riders and foot soldiers would traditionally be male with females being the exception to the norm. The king is obviously male.


Change of venue of 1972 match In 1972, when Fischer and Spassky played the championship tournament, Fischer demanded to play the games in a ping pong room stating too much distractions as his reason. Later (if I am not wrong) he returned to the main hall to play the rest of the games. What was all this about? I mean weren't there distractions then? What kind of psychological warfare was this?

Fischer objected to the proximity of the spectators, the intensity of the lighting, and the noise of the cameras. He did not request a separate venue. It was the organizers who suggested the ping-pong room as a compromise to address his objections.  They then set to work modifying the conditions in the main playing hall to meet his demands.

By the start of Game 3, they had been able to reduce the lighting, rearrange the seating of spectators, and relocate the cameras so their noise would not be heard by the players.


Is there a multiplayer Chess GUI that allows you to choose the starting position? With a human vs. computer, simply set Stockfish to depth == 1 and play it. Or, you can choose another (weaker) engine.

With a human vs. human online, is it possible to set the starting position? If so, what is the website?

You can play it in https://lichess.org/editor.
Chose your default opening, or just customize it, then click in 'Continue from here'.
You can chose if you want to play with with engine or with a friend.


What is the origin of this breakthrough combination? If you've spent enough time in the world of chess, it's not unlikely that you've come across the following position, with white to move and win, or an essentially identical one. You'll see plenty of hits for it, for instance, if you google: chess breakthrough combination. And if you hadn't seen it before, now you have:

[FEN "6K1/ppp5/6k1/PPP5/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.b6! cxb6 (1...axb6 2.c6! bxc6 3.a6) 2.a6! bxa6 3.c6

The exact position can vary; the point is that the black king is far enough removed from the pawns that white can create a queen starting with 1. b6!, when one of the white pawns will get a clear path to promotion, and black's pawns are too far from the finish line to survive.

Botvinnik uses this position to illustrate the very concept of combinations in his "What is a 'combination'?" That short piece first appeared in Russian in a 1939 edition of the magazine Shakhmat v. S.S.S.R., and it can be found in English as an appendix to his One Hundred Selected Games. In it, he labels the given diagram simply "An old Position," suggesting that to him it was a piece of chess folklore, without any specific known origin. So it might be too much for me to ask where/when this combination truly first arose. Instead, I am only wondering:

  When did this breakthrough combination first appear in the chess literature?

One can hardly ever be entirely sure that something's really the first appearance of a thing like this, so I'd be happy with any answers pointing to earlier sources than Botvinnik's. It doesn't seem too unreasonable that there's something pretty old to be found, when things like the classic Bxh7+ sacrifice are known to appear at least as far back as Greco's chess manual of the early 1600s.

I just saw it in one of Yusupov's books, he has it credited as "Cozio 1766".

His 1766 book "Il Giuoco Degli Scacchi" is actually digitized by Google books: http://books.google.it/books?id=aCcCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=thumbnail&q&f=false

Unfortunately, neither diagrams nor notation were invented yet. You're on your own to find out where he describes the position...


How to create a good practice routine? I'm looking to create a structured chess practice routine.  So far I have been solving some puzzles, played some games and watched some lessons every day. I emphasize some because it has not been very structured, which is what I want to change

I'm planning to practice 30 minutes each weekday and an hour every day in the weekend. What exactly I should do in those minutes is what I am wondering about.

How do you recommend I structure my chess practice?

Thanks

Edit: My blitz rating on chess.com where I play the most is 936.

For now, I am going to assume that you are a somewhat weaker player.

If that is the case, virtually 90% of your time should be spent on tactics for now, but you want to find them grouped by category, so you are constantly solving similar problems. Try to do 50 per day, spending no more than two minutes per problem.

In addition to that, you want to find a good endgame course, like "Silman's Complete Endgame Course". At times, when you want a break from the tactics, start reading through that book page by page. Frankly, do not try to deeply study it at first. You should prefer to just see many, many, examples played out, and try to absorb as much as you can by osmosis, rather than deeply studying at first. There are a few things that need to be memorized, like how to draw K+P vs. K when your lone king is in front of the pawn, or the Lucena position to win certain rook endgames, or Philidor's position to draw certain rook endgames.

Lastly, you can also spend some time with opening pawn structure books, like Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess". There are analysis mistakes in it galore, but the overall ideas are sound, and will teach you HOW to play chess rather than trying to memorize opening theory.

Spend most of your time on the tactics, but take breaks, and dabble in the other two. As you get stronger, things will change.

You can also read my answer here for more advice.


Scotch gambit: 4... f6 [fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6

How should I play from here? This move seems to head off the main ideas of my kingside attack; what is the best way to proceed with the plan of quickly developing and attacking?

I think f6 is an uninspiring move.  It doesn't force anything, blocks the Knight on g8, and exposes the King.

365chess.com says that Black's win percentage is wretched after f6; in fact it's the weakest reply with Black winning only about 16% of the games.

Good continuations include the trade of Knights in the middle with 5. Nxd4 Nxd4 6. Qxd4 or 5. O-O.

Stockfish sees

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6 5.O-O Nge7 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Nc6 8.Qd1 Ne5 9.Bb3 Bc5 10.Nc3 c6 11.Na4 Be7 12.a3 b5 13.Nc3 a5 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh6 Bf8 16.Qe3 Ba6 17.Rd1 Qc7 18.Qf4

...with a pawn-plus advantage to white.

Here's a sample game from 2001, Wolfgang Kuhn is White, Heinrich Lehr is Black.  I don't know the strength of these players.

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 f6 5. O-O Nge7 6. Nxd4 Ne5 7. Be2 N7g6 8.  f4 Nf7 9. Nc3 Bc5 10. Be3 c6 11. Na4 Qe7 12. Nxc5 Qxc5 13. Nf5 Qf8 14. Qd3 d6  15. Nd4 Bd7 16. Rad1 O-O-O 17. Qb3 Qe7 18. Bc4 Rhf8 19. Be6 Rde8 20. f5 Nge5  21. Bxd7+ Nxd7 22. Ne6 c5 23. Nxf8 Nxf8 24. Bf4 Qxe4 25. Qxf7 1-0


Are there any (free) programs that utilize Chessmetrics or Glicko-2? I'm looking for a program that is capable of keeping track of player ratings while taking in the game data, and hopefully outputting rankings based upon those ratings in some form.

I've found ELORater, which is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for, but I don't think ELORater is necessarily suitable enough. I think the ratings would possibly be skewed due to some "new" players actually being more skilled than the default value, and while I can change that for any given player I'd rather not make that judgement myself if a program can solve that problem. I also want something that takes into account inactivity, or something that actually supports participation, which I don't think ELORater does.

So while looking into this I came across Chessmetrics and Glicko-2, both of which seem to solve those problems. Chessmetrics sounds like exactly what I want in terms of how it handles the data, while Glicko-2 seems close enough as well.

The problem is I haven't found any kind of program or place to utilize those systems on my own, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in coding (or the formulas) to come up with a way to do so.

For Glicko-2 I've come across these:
https://npmjs.org/package/glicko2 and https://github.com/proglottis/glicko2

But I'm not sure how to implement them into use. I've found nothing that utilizes Chessmetrics that's actually usable. Again, I'd like something that hopefully functions like ELORater, even if it is a little more rough around the edges.

Any help would be appreciated.

Sorry for the lag in answering this question; I just stumbled upon this post. If you want a better response time, then you should contact me through the e-mail given in the help file.

Frankly, as the author or EloRater, I take issue with you declaring that EloRater is rough around the edges, especially since according to your post, you are unable to implement your own. Those who have had the courage to contact me directly, have found me amenable and friendly in resolving their issues. Derogatory remarks posted publically demeaning one's work is not an act of kindness, nor do I take it as such. Consequently, I have chosen to respond brusquely and completely.

Now to answer the question, and to clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader:

Elorater's player input screen allows you to properly place advanced players, this is described in the help file under adding players with the following description:

  Set Initial Rating

  After entering the name, you must select the option of initial rating.
  -Default Adult assigns 1300 as the initial rating (as per USCF rules) -Default Child assigns a rating based on the child's age (as per USCF rules) The formula for computing the rating is 300 + age * 50. You may
  only select the ages listed, which are 4 to 20. Note that 20 or more
  yields the default adult rating. -Level allows you to specifically set
  the perceived skill level of the player this is comparable to
  tournament directors giving a provisional rating to a known chess
  player of some skill. Keep in mind that you should be familiar with
  the relative strengths of players in the common chess community. Most
  apparently advance players, who are not already rated fall between
  advanced beginner and intermediate players. If you are not sure, use
  the default adult setting, which is comparable to advanced beginner.
  -USCF allows you to enter known USCF ratings directly into the system. Use this option if you are entering a USCF rated player.

Furthermore, the USCF rating system, which is available in the program, will move the player more during the first 20 games or so, in an attempt to locate the person accurately. This period is called provisional ratings, and is a feature of the USCF rating system to prevent skewing of the ratings. All the equations for implementing the system, and the logic behind them, including provisional ratings, is described in great detail at the site of Professor Mark E Glickman of Boston University.  The help file provides this link as well as additional notes regarding the program. For your information, the provisional rating mechanism is fully supported by the program.

In short, the program, EloRater, does exactly what it claims: it implements rating system for your club using the USCF rules for rating. This rating system is good enough for the USCF. It should be good enough for your club.  It works great for my club and the majority of the clubs who have opted to utilize my software, judging by the responses of gratitude that I continually get from the users of EloRater over the last 8 years.

Good luck with your club, and good luck finding software that fully meets your expectations.

Jim Garner
(author of EloRater)


Is always possible to win King + Queen vs. King + Rook? Does every situation (except where the Queen team gets mated or the Queen is captured immediately) result in a win for the Queen team? Or can the Rook team, by perfect play, force a stalemate?

Mate is always possible, except in the cases you've outlined already. From Wikipedia:

  A queen wins against a lone rook, unless there is an immediate draw by stalemate or due to perpetual check (Nunn 2002a:49) (or if the rook or king can immediately capture the queen). ... With perfect play, in the worst winning position, the queen can win the rook or checkmate within 31 moves (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:400).


Is it possible to play multiple games with Stockfish simultaneously? I am asking this because Stockfish was accepting different FEN strings through the terminal inbetween a game, of which it is giving best moves. I have compiled Stockfish in the Ubuntu 19.04 terminal.

In Chessbase you can have Stockfish analyzing/playing in multiple boards. It's definitely possible to do this, but it slows Stockfish down since it's being overworked. So it'll take longer to search ahead in each game.


Is there an archived video with commentary of Norway 2015 blitz tournament available on the official or other websites? They have many of top 10 players of the world, two teams of commentators on two different continents, but it seems impossible to (easily) find the archived broadcast on any official websites...

Blitz video now seems available at http://livestream.com/chess24/norwaychess2015


How to determine the value of a piece from scratch? Assume we have a standard chess set setup, but we make a slight change so that (for example) pawns can now move two squares forward on any move rather than just on their initial move. Even assuming that we can still use the established point values for the pieces (Knight=Bishop=3 Rook=5 Queen=9 or whatever system you wish to use), how would one go about finding out how much our modified pawn would be worth?
My initial thought would be to (re-)program a chess engine with the modified piece ability, change the internal values for it in several different ways, and then hold a series of engine tournaments until an approximate value can be narrowed down. This would work (as all point values are approximate and situational anyway), but point values for pieces have been around longer than computers, so there must be other methods available.
Any ideas?
Note: I am not actually looking for software recommendations, etc. to do this. I'm just curious what the best way of doing this would be.

It's possible to use logistic regression (a statistical method) to estimate the predictive values. This way, you wouldn't need anyone to try the game at all.

http://www.sumsar.net/blog/2015/06/big-data-and-chess has the details. I personally tried the method, and it was a good start.

The method estimates the value of each piece by predicting how they relates to  the log-odd of winning.


What is the simplest method to win Queen vs Knight endgame? What method requires the least amount of memorisation (doesn't have to be shortest path to victory) for the queen vs knight ending?

I have looked at tablebases but the moves are somewhat bizarre and it would be nice to have some simple logic to follow (even if it takes a few more moves to checkmate).

This is assuming the opponent is expert and will not make simple mistakes.

I have looked at tablebases but the moves are somewhat bizarre

That's the problem with tablebases; they're efficient but they can't 'play' human chess. This particular endgame is one-sided enough that it's almost never required to play the best move.

Just drive the opponent's king to the edge of the board, as you would do with king+queen vs. king; just be careful that you don't end up in a knight fork. If the knight gets too far away from its king, you can probably fork it yourself after a few checks. Once on the edge of the board, the reduced mobility of the knight and mating threats will eventually lead to defeat.

Here is an example (from Shredder Chess):

The 'human' move here is Qg6+ (or Qa6+) followed by Kd5; it doesn't matter that Qe2, Qe3 and Qe4 are one move faster.


Play pawn-only chess vs a friend I am teaching a youngster how to play chess, remotely.  I've seen suggestions to start with pawn-only chess, where we start with the initial setup for all 16 pawns, but no other pieces on the board.  I would play to play an online live game vs my friend.  Is it possible to do that on lichess?

I've tried going to the board editor, deleting all pieces other than the pawns, and using the 'From Position' variant, but that doesn't work: I can't create a game.

The 'From Position' variant seems to require that both sides have a king.  So, keep the kings on the board.  In particular, create a new game with a friend, select Variant: From Position, and paste '4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/4K3 w - - 0 1' into the field for the FEN text.

4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/4K3 w - - 0 1


How should I play after, or refute, the Tennison Gambit? I played a game as Black in which I fell victim to a gambit trap and soon resigned. Stockfish labled it as the "Tennison Gambit."
[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Ng5 Nf6 4. d3 exd3 5. Bxd3 h6 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Bg6+ Kxg6 8. Qxd8 Nc6 9. Qxc7 Nd5 10. Qg3+ Kh7 11. O-O e5 12. Qd3+

How should I play on after I accept the gambit, and how can I refute the gambit?

It looks like your position fell apart pretty early on, a symptom of poor opening theory.  Your King and Queen were exposed to attack within the first few moves, and White ruthlessly exploited that opportunity.

The first move that Stockfish classifies as a blunder (yes, there's more than one) is 5. … h6?? where you attempt to directly attack the advancing knight.  But the knight's threat is not countered by that attack, because it can just continue as planned to threaten your queen, pulling your king out of his home square in an emergency defence.

White then sacrifices his bishop to gain your queen anyway - a net material gain of 3 points if you include his lost knight.  While you then move your knight to attack the White queen, it's too late as he can simply move it away to safety.

The suggested move is 5. … Nc6 which pre-emptively protects your queen, turning the above sequence into a losing proposition for White; the game would then develop along a different line.

This is in general the better way to defend against attacks - protect the threatened squares which the attacking pieces want to move to, rather than where they currently stand.  To do this effectively you must think at least a couple of moves ahead, which takes practice.


Static position analysis This may well be too broad of a question.  I'm currently in the process of programming a chess engine, but this is difficult for me as I'm not actually that good of a chess player.  I'm having trouble coming up with 'rules' that can analyze a board and give a positive/negative score.  Currently I have the following:

penalty for knights on edge
bonus for further developed pieces
bonus for farther advanced pawns (closer to promotions)
different score for kings in the endgame
bonus if the player has the bishop pair
bonus if castled
assess layout as per these tables (some scrolling required)

I have access to all the information about a game; and functioning move validation.  The part I'm getting stuck on is coming up with more of these 'rules' that make the analysis engine better.

I think the best way to get yourself acquainted with chess evaluation schemes, is just by looking up the documentations of some of open source (or GNU) chess engines out there, after all such questions have been asked/tackled for many years now, and there are many good answers out there that you need to explore before coming up with your own (hence all the variety of good engines today).

Of course as things stand today, most of chess engines rely on evaluation systems that are (for the most part) heuristics-based. What is important before getting into some of the possibilities is to note that, there's no one single evaluation function that would solve chess, so what we really need (all we can hope for really) is a well weighted combination of many different evaluations, some of the main (usually mentioned) ones:

Pawn structure: if your engine is capable of noticing connected pawns, doubled pawns, blocked pawns, isolated pawns etc, then you're already doing pretty good.
Material: Probably the easiest part to implement, just get a total piece count for both sides and compare. Then compare by piece-type (how many bishops vs. how many knights etc)
King safety: Again pretty easy to implement evaluators such as: open lines/diagonals heading towards the king, likelihood of checks (within next 2-3 moves for simplicity), rights to castle, and so on.
Individual piece evaluation: For each piece type, you should have a different evaluator, that measures its activity, e.g. by counting different possible moves the piece can make (total of 8 for the most active knight as example), openness of diagonals for bishops (also whether own-piece is blocking it or opponent piece, should be weighted differently), available squares for queen etc.
Mobility: A simpler version of the above if you will, i.e. just count the number possible moves each piece can make, and try to maximize it, i.e. the evaluator should add positively to the total evaluation function if from one move to next one (or more) of your pieces is gaining additional move possibilities.
Piece exposure: Just count how many of your pieces can be captured within a well defined ply (within next 2 moves e.g.). Such evaluators bring dynamics into your whole evaluation scheme, as based on them, you will then re-prioritize each of the previously mentioned evaluators (by re-distributing the weights initially assigned), you see it's a lot of fun implementing a chess engine ;)
Central control: Can be simple or very complex, the simple approach would be: defining a set squares that define what you call "center", then count how many pieces can potentially jump to those squares within next 1-2 moves, such approach should give you an estimate for central control.
More advanced features would be: Tempo considerations, to define such concepts in your engine, you need to have already covered all the basic evaluators. Connectivity or coordination of pieces come next, and so on.

Hope the few mentioned elements give you some rope already, of course there's a long way to go, but it's really important to first find out what's already been done and tried before you stumble on your own ideas. There's a must-check website for programming chess engines, have a look, you'll find tons of ideas and implementation suggestions: chessprogramming on wikispaces. If you need further clarifications, don't hesitate! Have fun implementing!


How to win using Lucena position? For the ones that never heard of the Lucena position, it a position where we have a KRP+KR ending, and the side with the extra pawn has his king in front of the pawn.

The problem is that when you try to move the king out of the pawn's way, the enemy rook will deliver annoying checks that will not stop unless you are familiar with the Lucena position and setup your rook in a certain way that will eventually be able to block the checks from the enemy rook.

(example of not knowing how to Lucena)

[fen "1K1k4/1P6/8/8/8/8/r7/2R5 w - - 4 1"]

1. Rd1+ Ke7 2. Kc7 Rc2+ 3. Kb8 Ke6 4. Ka7 Ra2+ 5. Kb6 Rb2+ 6. Kc6 Rc2+ 7. Kb5 Rb2+ 8. Kc6 Rc2+ 9. Kb6 Rb2+ 10. Ka7 Ra2+ 11. Kb8 *

How do I use the Lucena position in my favor?

The Lucena is one of the most important endgame positions to know, and the nickname for it helps a bunch when trying to figure it out over the board. Remember this phrase - "Building a Bridge."

The idea is to get your rook to the fourth rank. Although the move looks rather odd, the idea is simple. Once you bring your king out, he needs to be protected. Your king can advance all the way to the fifth rank, and after the check the rook can block and your pawn can queen. Allow me to use your example to demonstrate the Lucena:

[fen "1K1k4/1P6/8/8/8/8/r7/2R5 w - - 4 1"]

1. Rd1+ Ke7 2. Rd4! Rb2 3. Kc7 (3. Ra4 Kd7 4. Ka7 Kc7 5. b8=Q+ Rxb8 6. Rc4+ {works as well, as referenced by @dfan in the comments}) Rc2+ 4. Kb6 Rb2+ 5. Kc6 Rc2+ (5... Rb1 6. Rd5! Rc1+ 7. Rc5 Rb1 8. Rb5) 6. Kb5! Rb2+ 7. Rb4

And the pawn queens easily. The very first check is important because it forces the opposing king an extra file away from the queening square. As you can see, in the final position the black king is one tempo too slow to stop the pawn from reaching the eighth rank.


When is Deep Fritz 15 release date? I try searching the release date, but I couldn't find it. How much later do the deep version of a chess software come out?

According to the website for This Week In Chess, the release date for Fritz 15 is November 27, 2015. Also note that now they only sell one version of the product. There no longer is a separate Deep version.


English opening exchange-sacrifice compensation Evaluation of exchange sacrifice: How good is White's compensation after the exchange sacrifice on move 19?  Seems the position is about even to me but Black might have more issues to solve.  I am thinking it is Whites best winning chance as opposed to having just liquidated the queen-side pawns.

[FEN ""]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 c5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d3 a6 9.h3 Rb8 10.a4 Ne8 11.Be3 Nd4 12.Rb1 Bd7 13.b4 Ne2 14.Nxe2 cxb4 15.Rxb4 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Qb1 Nc7 18.Rc1 Na6 19.Rb5 Bb5 20.axb5

This exchange sacrifice would be good if you could coordonate your pieces in order to support the passed b-pawn. In this given position, however, it looks like you are one tempo short and the pawn will be a target: 20...Qa5 and then

21.Nd4 [21.Nc3 is quite the same] Bxd4 22.Bxd4 Rxb5 and Black should win.

21.b6 Nc5 22.Bxc5 dc5 23.b7 [I see nothing else to hold on the pawn] Qa7 [or 23...e5 to prevent the opening of the g2-b7 diagonal] 24.e5 Bxe5 and the big passer gives practical chances but Black is clearly for choice.

Probably White would have reached a much better version of the game with 18.Nd4!? instead of 18.Rc1.


Why is 1.e4 e5 2.d4 Qh4 a blunder? In Lichess, this sequence is rated as a blunder. However, black can take the pawn afterwards without white being able to prevent it (3.Nf3 Qxe4), so it seems like a good move to me.
Furthermore, if white makes the mistake to move 3.g3, black takes the rook (3.Qxe4+ 4.Qe2 Qxh1).
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Qh4 3. Nf3

This (Blitz) game of mine caused my confusion.

I would not go so far as to call it a "blunder", but White is getting lots of compensation for the pawn. They get a big lead in development and Black's queen can be attacked.
Here's one way it could go:
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Qh4 3. Nf3 Qxe4+ 4. Be2 exd4 5. O-O Nc6 6. Re1 Be7 7. Na3 Nf6 (7... a6 8. Bxa6) 8. Nb5 O-O 9. Nxc7 Rb8 10. Bb5 Qg6 11. Bxc6 Bd8 12. Ne5 Qf5 13. Bf3 Bxc7 14. g4 Nxg4 (14... Qe6 15. Ng6) 15. Bxg4 Qf6 16. Nd3 *

It's also worth pointing out that White can keep things nice and simple if they choose, and not give up the pawn:
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 Qh4 3. dxe5 Qxe4+ 4. Qe2

Furthermore, if black makes the mistake to move 3.g3

The computer is never going to care about what happens if your opponent makes a mistake - it always assumes your opponent will play the best move.


Pros and Cons for black in Queen's Gambit Accepted I'm a beginning chess player and still learning the opening. If white's first move is 1.d4 and black counters with d5 (closed or semi-closed games), and white's second move is c4 bringing the Queen's Gambit, black counters with dxc4. What are the pros and cons for black? Thank you for your answer.

A super-abridged guide to the QGA (Queen's Gambit Accepted) is that Black temporarily cedes the center with dxc4, and hopes to develop rapidly while White recovers the pawn (you'll want to look up some key lines where Black suffers because he is greedy and tries to hold on to the pawn; personally, I found it instructive to look at the main line of an entirely different opening called the Noteboom Variation, where Black has better chances to hang on to the pawn, but White's tricks still recover it), and then—just before White can start to cash in on his central advantage—play c5 in an attempt to nullify the center.

For example, a sample line (not necessarily main line; it lacks some "professional subtleties" that, as others said, you really don't need to memorize as a beginner):

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/4pn2/8/2Bp4/4PN2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Nf6 (3... b5? 4. a4 c6 5. axb5 cxb5 6. Qf3 {Winning White material}) 4. Bxc4 e6 5. Nf3 c5 6. O-O cxd4

In the above ending position, White has the option to either cede the center himself with Nxd4, or give himself an IQP (isolated queen's pawn) where he accepts what could turn out to be an endgame weakness (an isolated pawn) in exchange for a middle game catalyst (the White pawn will serve as a powerful battering ram and outpost provider that Black must stop at all costs).

However, Black will have his work cut out for him trying to actually gain the upper-hand over White, whose spatial advantage allows him to develop relatively more comfortable than Black. If you want something that's a bit less of an "exposed" opening for Black, I might recommend the French or the Caro-Kann which has the same idea of ceding the center only to counterattack with c5 (unfortunately, of course, neither of these are likely with 1. d4).


Does a chess position exists where one player has insufficient material, and at the same time has a forced mate in 2? I was thinking about the USCF and FIDE rules on flagging when the opponent has insufficient material. I think I came up with a scenario with the USCF-rule where the best move would be to let the clock run out. However, I'm unsure if such a position actually exists or not.
Here's the scenario (with USCF rules):
Assume white has insufficient material (KN or KB), but at the same time has a forced mate in 2 due to the placement of black's pieces. After white plays the first move in the forced sequence, black's best move (with USCF rules) would be to let the clock run out because it would be a draw.
Does such a position exist, or is it impossible?
Edit:
A bit more info on the rules I am talking about (in my own words):
According to USCF rules, if a player runs out of time when the opponent has insufficient material, the game is ruled a draw.
According to FIDE rules, if a player runs out of time when the opponent has insufficient material, the game is ruled a loss as long as there exists a legal sequence of moves that leads to check mate.

After white plays the first move in the forced sequence, black's best move (with USCF rules) would be to let the clock run out because it would be a draw.

No, it wouldn't be a draw if there was a forced mate and the losing side ran the clock out. Under USCF rule 14E:

The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists as of the most recently determined legal move:

14E2. King and bishop or king and knight. Opponent has only king and bishop or king and knight, and does not have a forced win.

Since in your scenario the opponent does have a forced win, this does not apply, and the side that runs the clock down will lose.


How to check mistakes, blunders and missed wins on Chess.com? On Chess.com, when you play live chess, when the match is done, on your right hand, above the view analysis button, it says something like this

How to check my mistake and can I do that without being premium member?

Click on view analysis or computer analysis button


Does anyone know if there is an English translation of this book? It is a book written by Boris Zlotnik. I found some books from him in search, but I'm not sure whether the same book. Some titles with chess course vol.1, vol2., etc..

It is hard to prove that something does not exist, but I read and speak Russian, and I just looked at that book in Russian. It deals a lot with tabias of various openings, and resulting middlegames.

The only book of his in English I could find is "Chess : Knowledge, Training, Mastery", and that is definitely a different book, as I also have that in Russian: "Шахматы - Наука, Опыт, Мастерство (1990)" (strictly translated as "Chess: Science, Experience, Mastery").

Lastly, I found a site that seemed to say that it was only available in Russian, which I tend to agree with after researching it. Interestingly, he has a two-volume series in Spanish though, and one more in Spanish.


Magnetic chess question I'm a maker and I'm doing my own chess board.

I want the board to be able to sense where are the pieces located, so my idea is to use magnetic sensors and magnetic pieces.

I would like to just ask a simple question: In the existing magnetic chess sets that one can find everywhere, is the board magnetic and the pieces just contain metal or the opposite (each piece has a magnet and the board is just a metal layer)?

Could somebody who has a magnetic chess set check?

Thanks.

Magnetic chess sets have a metallic board and small magnets in each of the pieces.


Where did this Emanuel Lasker quote come from? In the book by the late master Irving Chernev "The Chess Companion" he gives a list of chess quotes. My favourite one was:

"The student can learn more in ten hours of properly tutored instruction than in 10 years of trial and error" : Dr Emanuel Lasker.

I might not have this quote absolutely right. If not this is very close; it might be the student 'would'...rather than the student 'can'. Anyway, I have never managed to trace this quote. Was it in Lasker's books, chess lectures such as the London lectures, or in his chess annotations? Or did he just say it? If so was it at a chess tournament or somewhere notable?

I'd like to know. Not out of skepticism. I have faith in Chernev. Rather, because it's my favourite quote! I also wonder if it was in German - Dr Lasker was German. If it is a translation then please keep in mind that I only understand English.

The correct wording is "properly taught, a student can learn more in a few hours than he would find out in ten years of untutored trial and error". The oldest reference to the quote I found is in this newspaper article of 1973.


What is the most controversial opening or variation? I often read that the Sicilian Sveshnikov is "the most controversial of all chess openings", then I read the same for the Sicilian Poisoned Pawn... and then same for the Botvinnik Variation of Semi-Slav. What is the most controversial opening or variation?

There's no quantifiable answer to this. In my subjective experience, the most controversial openings would be the Dutch Defense and the King's Indian Defense.

I have heard strong players (Sam Shankland, multiple times, including in some of his chess.com videos) heavily disparage the Dutch, but it is still defended occasionally at the top level, most prominently by Nakamura.

The KID is a more frequent guest in super-GM play, and Vladimir Kramnik has a low opinion of it.

At a meta-controversial level, the Berlin Defense causes some debate due to its drawish tendencies and popularity in top-level round robin events.