Is it always a good idea to trade a bishop for a knight if the enemy has castled and is forced to disrupt his castle's pawn structure? I want to thank you beforehand for taking your time to read and (hopefully) answer this. My question is a bit ambiguous, so I'll give an example. Let's say I'm playing white, the enemy has castled king-side so his king is on g8, with his rook on f8, and his knight is on f6. Also, he's got his three castle pawns at their original positions. My dark-square bishop is fianchettoed and I can thus trade it for his f6 knight. If he can only take the bishop with the g7 pawn, opening up his king, when is it a good idea to trade (i. e. what other factors affect if it is a good idea or not)?

[FEN "5rk1/5ppp/5n2/8/8/8/1B3PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

As always with such questions, the correct answer is "It depends on the position!".

For example if your opponent doesn't have an e-pawn, you will create isolated doubled pawns, which are generally quite weak. But in a 4 vs 3 rook endgame, with all pawns on the kingside this structure is actually better for black than f7-g7-h7 because it is harder for white to create a passed pawn.

Taking gxf6 will often weaken the black king, but only if you are actually able to attack him. If you have all your pieces on the queenside he might just play Kh8, Rg8 and start an attack on your king!

So, this is a weakening of his structure, but you have to be able to take advantage of it. Otherwise a bishop might just be more useful than a knight.


How big a rating difference between TOP GM and a patzer would be equivalent to odds games? How big a rating difference would be needed to justify odds games of:

1 pawn and move

2 knight

3 rook

These are odds that Morphy gave to weak players.

Has chess improved that much since Morphy that the odds would not be feasible to give to anyone other than absolute beginners?

Has chess improved that much since Morphy that the odds would not be feasible to give to anyone other than absolute beginners?

This is certainly not the case. Kasparov played a master-level player in 2001 giving move and two pawn odds, and won 2.5-1.5.

In 2008, Larry Kaufman wrote:

  ...the Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.

Kaufman also wrote in a 1999 article that a pawn was worth about 200 rating points at master level, and a knight in the opening position was worth about 700, meaning "a FIDE 2115 (USCF 2165) player would be a fair opponent" to Kasparov given knight odds.


Who has the biggest chess library? I once had 1800 chess books before I sold off about 600 of the least-good ones and doubles (I used to buy entire collections from people, so you get some stuff you do not want).

I know an IM friend of mine has thousands of books, and that Karpov is said to have a massive library (although I cannot find confirmation of this, or how many), but who has the largest library of chess books?

Even the top few would be interesting to me.

According to Wikipedia:

Public

  The three significant public chess libraries are:

  The John G. White Chess and Checkers Collection at Cleveland Public
  Library has the largest chess and draughts [chequers for those in the
  US] library in the world, with over 32,000 chess books and over 6,000
  bound volumes of chess periodicals. It was started with the donation
  of a quarter of a million dollars and 11,000 books from John G.
  White's private library upon his death.

  The Chess & Draughts collection at the Bibliotheca Van der
  Linde-Niemeijeriana (part of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, the National
  Library of the Netherlands). The second largest public chess
  collection in the world is built on the donations of the private chess
  libraries of Antonius van der Linde, Meindert Niemeijer and G.L.
  Gortmans. It contains about 30,000 books.

  The M.V. Anderson Chess Collection held at State Library Victoria
  (Melbourne, Australia) is the largest public chess collection in the
  Southern hemisphere. This contains in excess of 12,000 books and many
  journal and newsletter titles. Additional titles are added each year.
  It is based around M.V. Anderson's personal collection of 6700 volumes
  donated between 1959 and 1966.

Private

  Grandmaster Lothar Schmid of Bamberg, Germany reportedly owned the
  world's largest private collection of chess books and memorabilia. In
  1992, Hooper and Whyld stated that Schmid's chess library "is the
  largest and finest in private hands, with more than 15,000 items". In
  2008, Susan Polgar stated that Schmid "has over 20,000 chess books".
  Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam states that Schmid "boasts to have amassed
  50,000 chess books.

  David DeLucia's chess library contains 7,000 to 8,000 chess books, a
  similar number of autographs (letters, score sheets, manuscripts), and
  about 1,000 items of "ephemera". DeLucia's library contains such items
  as "a 15th-century Lucena manuscript, score-sheets ranging from
  Fischer's Game of the Century against Donald Byrne to all the games of
  the 1927 New York tournament, eight letters by Morphy, over a hundred
  Lasker manuscripts, Capablanca's gold pocket watch, [and] the contract
  of the 1886 Steinitz-Zukertort world championship match". Ten
  Geutzendam opines that DeLucia's collection "is arguably the finest
  chess collection in the world".

  Former World Champion Anatoly Karpov has a large chess stamp
  collection. He has a private chess library of over 9000 books.


How to know how good an opening/defense scores? I play Philidor defense, Lolli attack, Fried Liver attack... Other people choose to play well known openings/defenses, so i decided to ask the following questions.

Everyone learns the Najdorf defense because it scores well. (or because Kasparov and Fischer played it). The Philidor isn't as popular as other defenses on the other hand. I have a few questions about that:

if you wanted to know how well an opening/defense scores, is there an online database that  keeps track of all the games ever played and gives you the overall rating of an opening by calculating the average score, or do you take for granted what other players told you?
How to know if the Najdorf for example is a good opening, maybe Fischer and kasparov won, because they are good players, not because the opening is good. Same question about bad opening and defenses, I mean in the middle game if the player is bad, no opening will let him win, I mean how much can you memorize? How many variations? At some point you have have to rely on your intelligence.
Don't good openings become bad opening when they become well known? I mean lets use the Najdorf again as an example, because everyone wants to learn it, it is so well known, doesn't that make it a bad opening? The opponent will be well prepared for it.
And lastly, is it better to play openings/defenses that score well (French defense. Indian etc..)  or is it better to play an opening that is not well known and that your opponent didn't learn?

if you decided to know how good an opening/defense scores, is there an online database that keeps track of all the games ever played, or do you take for granted what other players told you?

For instance if you buy Chessbase, it will deliver a big database with some games. There you can look up for the openings, which were played by the big players. I like to hear and take tips from my trainer, rather than believing in some game from two players with > 2400 Elo. They play completely different, than most of the players. You don't really understand their plans and moves, unless someone comments the game and explains everything. They are not fighting for pieces / pawns, they just fight for one square, which is weak and then in the end-game they will win it eventually, because of this one little weak square.

  How to know if the Najdorf for example is a good opening, maybe Fischer and kasparov won, because they are good players, not because the opening is good. Same question about bad opening and defenses, I mean in the middle game if the player is bad, no opening will let him win.

Fair enough question. If the opening isn't good, wouldn't someone else beat them there (some other good players or an engine)?

The last point is also true. I had many games, where I dominated in the opening but lost it in the middle / end game.

  Don't good openings become bad opening when they become well known? I mean lets use the Najdorf again as an example, because everyone wants to learn it, it is so well known, doesn't that make it a bad opening? The opponent will be well prepared for it.

That's partly true. If your opponent is prepared, you have to be prepared too, but this doesn't mean that it is a bad opening. Especially in Najdorf there are so many variations, you have to know them, when you want to play it.

  And lastly, is it better to play openings/defenses that score good (french defense. indian etc..) or is it better to play an opening that is not well known and that your opponent didn't learn?

This depends on how / what you want to play. I like to play some aggressive stuff. I used to play French defense, but it wasn't my opening. I was losing nearly every game, then I changed to Sicilian and now I win about 25%, draw about 50% and lose about 25%.

If you play something that's unknown, your opponent could still beat you in the opening, because he knows how to play chess (maybe he is also better) and will just spend some time during the opening and analyzing it.


What do the engine annotations 0.53/24 mean? I am anaylizing my games with Fritz to get better, but there is an annotation in the analysis that I do not fully understand. Here is an example:

What do 0.53/21 and -0.25/24 mean?

The score 0.53/21 means the chess engine evaluates the position after 6... Ng8-f6 at 0.53 pawns (or 53 centipawns) in White's favour after completing a search depth of 21 ply (or half-moves). It means White has a slight advantage.
Similarly -0.25/24 means the engine evaluates the position after 6... e7-e6 as 0.25 pawns (or 25 centipawns) in Black's favour after a search depth of 24 half-moves.


Does Black have a win in this position? I was playing a game as Black against computer and came up a tactical move that defends me from pressure. I have expected a normal retreat of the queen yet computer kept sacrificing the knight like it was lost anyway, therefore this question :

Did I miss a win for Black or the position is just fine for White?

Here is the position:

[Title "White to move"]
[fen "4r1k1/3q1ppp/pp6/2QN1n2/1P6/8/P4PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

White kept playing Nf6+ or Qxb6 but I believe that any retreat of the queen is fine, what did I miss?

My suspicion is that the computer is calculating at a depth of 3-ply. At 3-ply depth, it sees that the following variations are winning -

1. Nf6+ gxf6 2. Rxd7 and

1. Qxb6 Qxd5 2. Rxd5

winning material.

If it was at 4-ply or more, it would have seen 2...Re1# in both lines and rejected those lines.

To answer your question, no, Black doesn't have a win in this position. White can play 1. Qc1 and white is fine.


What are the goals for white and black in the Caro Kann exchange variation? [FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Nf6 6. Bf4 Bg4 7. Qb3
Qd7 8. Nd2 e6

From this position what is black/white in broad terms attempting to do. What are some clear goals?

From that position, both sides will finish development and most likely castle kingside. Then...

White's goals/plans:

Put pressure on the e-file in the interest of forming a kingside attack. This is often done by playing Rfe1 (or Rae1), followed by Ne5. White could then move the d2-knight to f3, bringing it closer to the kingside. After that White will try to continue building up the pressure around the kingside, perhaps even with a Rook lift (i.e., Re3).

Another possible plan of White's is to play c4, accepting an isolated d-pawn in order to open up the game. This plan isn't so common, but it could work if Black's unprepared in the centre.

Black's goals/plans:

Begin a minority attack on the queenside by playing ...Rb8, ...a6, ...b5, and eventually ...b4. By doing this, Black plans to exchange on c3, leaving White with a backwards pawn after White captures back.

Black may also play ...e5, which is the converse of the aforementioned plan for White of playing c4. Black rarely plays the ...e5 plan though, mainly because White just has too much control over that square.

Finally, an important defensive motif for Black often involves maneuvering his light-squared bishop to the g6 square. From here, it blocks the b1-h7 diagonal, neutralizing White's d3-bishop and safeguarding the Black king from attacks.


Why does Hikaru Nakamura avoid Carlsen? I like watching Hikaru's youtube videos.

His commentary on the games is very descriptive, unlike other players that stay quiet for most of the game. Hikaru's always talking, letting you know what's going on.

However, one strange thing I've noticed is the COMPLETE absence of any sort of online interaction with Magnus. He's uploaded hundreds of videos, yet none contain matches against Carlsen.

I thought this was strange, since I know Carlsen plays a lot online too, and Hikaru's got matches with a lot of other top players, but never Carlsen.

The other day, I noticed a youtube comment in his video that said "play Carlsen", and somebody responded with "we don't mention that name here", and it got tons of upvotes.

So I am clearly out of the loop here: what's going on? Why is Hikaru actively (seemingly) avoiding Carlen online?

There was there match in the 2017 chess.com speed chess championship final, but I think that it has to do with Carlsen mainly playing on chess24 and lichess while Hikaru plays on chess.com(mainly). This is not to say that Hikaru tries to avoid playing Carlsen in general as they both had huge fighting games together. An example I can give is their game from the London Chess Classics 2017.


How can I prevent checkmate in this position? It is White's turn to move. How can White avoid a checkmate?

[FEN "8/1kpP2q1/1p2P1p1/1P3pP1/5p1K/5P2/6P1/R7 w - - 0 1"]

Initial Analysis
White is clearly in a dire situation, since Black is threatening mate in one on either h7 or h8 if White doesn't do anything. But the White king can't move move nor can White get rid of any of the pawns that surround the king. White's rook, the only White piece, is too far away to do anything. The move 1. Ra8? to try and stop 1... Qh8# fails to 1... Qh7#. Promoting White's ppawn with 1. d8=Q? also fails to 1... Qh7#. So what can White do now?
Assessment Of Available Options
In order to prevent Black from moving the Black queen, White must give a check to the Black king so that Black is legally obligated to move the king instead of the queen. However, what check is there for White give? Ra7+ doesn't work because the Black king will just take it and White cannot stop both mating threats. So it seems that White is totally losing.
However!
There is only one move that can save White, which often goes unseen by many first time problem solvers-underpromotion to a knight with check: 1. d8=N+! After 1... Kb8 (not 1... Kc8?, as that allows  2. Ra8#) White can forcibly checkmate Black in 4 moves with a constant stream of checks as any non-checking move loses. Therefore, White is not losing as it seemed before!
[FEN "8/1kpP2q1/1p2P1p1/1P3pP1/5p1K/5P2/6P1/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1. d8=N+ Kb8 2. Nc6+ Kb7 3. Ra7+ Kc8 4. Ra8+ Kb7 5. Rb8#

It is important to note that while 2. Nf7 seems like an option to block the Black queen, as suggested by @Loren Petchel in a comment, it actually loses as Black can then play 2... Qxa1!, and it is mate on the next move with 3... Qh1# no matter what White plays.


What are the best opening moves and plan for a "pawn plus 2 moves" handicap game? Our club runs a handicap tournament where handicaps are based on rating difference. I recently had to play a player rated about 300 lower than me and give him pawn plus two moves. That means I was black, had my f7 pawn removed and he got to make two moves before my first move.

He started with the obvious e4 and d4 and I replied with what looks to me to be the forced e6. The question is is e4 + d4 the best start? Or would something like e4 + Bc4 or e4 + Nf3 be better? How close does white come to having a forced win?

For the record I won, on time, a very sweaty-palmed game where only in the last few moves did I manage to reach a winning endgame where I had something like N+4P v 6P. With careful handicapping this kind of format can produce very tight games as long as the handicapped player fights and doesn't just give up.

I do feel that in case of this 'game format' the best is probably playing 1.e4, d4 as first two moves. This way white open both diagonals for bishops and form a formidable stronghold in the center (yet unanswered threats due to the fact that you can make a move only later with black). White can 'pack a punch' much faster in this case, also they will need to play either d3 or d4 later to develop the other bishop. So, why wait!?

If you consider 2 ... e6 (after: 1. e4 ... 2. d4  e6)

Then if 3. Qh5+ g6 4. Qe5 Nf6 5. Nc3 (if 5. Bg5?! then 5. ... Be7 or Bg7 with complications where black may regain initiative due to weak white queen and a quick possibility to use file 'f' in potential counter-attack)  leads to complications where two extra tempos for white can be a really good handicap, however white's queen is a bit exposed and can become a positional weakness.

Other than that you got what you got - one pawn down and two tempos behind! Well, try to:

counter center offensive first by blocking white's pawns advances
protect the king by castling
use file 'f' to counterattack (if you give away f-pawn of course)


Is there a "perfect" game? Is there a historic example of a chess game that has, to date, resisted all computerized attempts to find a better sequence of moves? In other words, a "perfect" game?

CLARIFICATION

I should have made it clearer that I'm not looking for a perfect (without the quotes) game. That probably will never exist.

But is there a game that no computer has ever been able to improve as of this date?

In my opinion, it's almost impossible to say that a game is perfect if you include the opening.  If you take the first few moves as a given (for example 1. e4 e5), then it is possible to say that a series of moves is perfect.

One example of a so-called perfect game is the Immortal Draw.  Carl Hamppe and Philipp Meitner played to a draw in 1872, and in the next century, no improvements have been found for the game.  It has stood up to all sorts of computer analysis and GM analysis.

Obviously the argument can be made that there is a "flaw" in the first 3 moves - maybe 1. e4 is not best, or 3. Na4 was an error, but if we ignore those 3 moves, every move starting with move 4 has held up as arguably the best move.  For instance, 7. Qe1 is often given as an option for white, but black can once again sac his queen for a perpetual check.

While there are certainly other lines that draw, the game line is the most beautiful IMHO.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Vienna 1872"]
[White "Carl Hamppe"]
[Black "Philipp Meitner"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[PlyCount "36"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+ 4. Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qf4+ 6. Kd3 d5 7. Kc3 (7.
Qe1 Nf6 8. g3 Qg4 9. Bh3 dxe4+ 10. Kc3 Nd5+ 11. Kb3 Nc6 $1 12. Bxg4 Na5+ $11)
7... Qxe4 8. Kb3 Na6 9. a3 Qxa4+ 10. Kxa4 Nc5+ 11. Kb4 a5+ 12. Kxc5 Ne7 13.
Bb5+ Kd8 14. Bc6 (14. Nf3 $4 b6#) 14... b6+ 15. Kb5 Nxc6 16. Kxc6 (16. Ka4 Nd4
17. Qf1 Bd7+ 18. Qb5 Bxb5#) 16... Bb7+ 17. Kb5 (17. Kxb7 Kd7 18. Qg4+ Kd6 19.
Qe6+ fxe6 20. Nf3 Rhb8#) 17... Ba6+ 18. Kc6 Bb7+ 1/2-1/2


What types of pawns are there in chess? I’ve heard of a few types of of pawns in chess gameplay. These include passed pawns, thorn/fawn pawns, promoted pawns, and and en passant pawns. But that is all I can remember. What other kinds of pawns are there in chess terminology?

Backward pawn: a pawn that is behind its colleagues on a pawn chain. It cannot safely advance because it will be captured. These pawns are often a liability because they can be attacked. Example:

8/8/8/3p4/3P1P2/4P3/8/8 w - - 0 1

The pawn on e3 is backward. If Black e.g. places rooks on the e-file, White will have to guard the pawn with pieces, which is passive. Black also has a "captured square" on e4 where he can station his pieces and they cannot be pushed away by White's pawns.

Central pawn: a pawn on the two central files (d- and e-files). Compare "flank pawn".

Connected passed pawns: see passed pawn. Being connected means there are two passed pawns of the same color on two adjacent files. This is almost always a very strong trump.

Doubled pawns: two pawns on the same file. This is sometimes bad because they are inflexible. They can, however, guard key squares in the middlegame. Compare "tripled pawns".

Flank pawn: a pawn on the sides of the board (the a-c files and the f-h files). During the middlegame they usually less valuable than a central pawn because central control is an important tenet of chess strategy. Compare "central pawn".

Hanging pawns: two adjacent pawns side-by-side, with no other pawns on the adjacent files. They guard squares and mark out space. Example:

8/8/8/2pp4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

Black's two pawns (note no pawns on b- and e- files) are hanging pawns. Black will try to keep them in place since they control squares, while White will try to force one of them to  advance. If White succeeds, then the Black pawns leave behind a hole, e.g. if Black is forced to play ...d4, then the c4-square becomes a weak square White can occupy.

Isolated pawns: a pawn without a friendly pawn on its adjacent files. These are usually a liability because if they are attacked, they have to be defended by pieces, not pawns.

Outside passed pawn: see also "passed pawn". This refers to a passed pawn that is far away from the action. For example, if there's an ongoing Kingside attack, then any passed pawn on the queenside would be extra valuable, because the defender needs to balance between using its pieces on the kingside and using them to restrain the pawn.

Passed pawn: a pawn that has no enemy pawns that are in front of it on its same file as well as on files to its left and right. These are generally trumps because the opponent needs to use pieces to stop them from queening.

Thorn (fawn) pawns: as far as I know, this terminology only exists in the computer chess community. They refer to protected pawns on the 6th rank that are blocked by another pawn. Example:

6k1/5p2/4pPp1/4P3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

The White pawn on f6 is a "fawn". It attacks an important square around Black's king, and also makes e7 (usually an important square for Black's pieces to maneuver) inhospitable. Black would love to be rid of it, but it's protected by the pawn on e5. That makes it a "thorn" in Black's position. As far as I know, "fawn" came about as a mispronunciation of "thorn".

Tripled pawns: three pawns on the same file. This is almost always bad because they can be easily attacked and none of the pawns can defend each other. Compare "doubled pawns".


French or Caro Kann? I find the French more aggressive, as black gets easy queenside play with pieces and generally a pawn avalanche. However, my friend debates that the Caro is better than the French because the Caro allows a queenside expansion as well, but "you get to play with all your pieces" (referring, of course, to the bad light squared bishop in the French).

We both realize that the French bishop can be traded off in many lines with maneuvers like b6, Ba6, where either white trades the bishop, or has a difficult time castling kingside/coordinating kingside pieces. But it's not always possible, and even avid French players will admit that it's difficult to activate the slacker on c8.

What would be a good way to counter my friend's argument? Are there any other arguments (from an objective perspective, preferably) to support playing the French or the Caro Kann?

I can think of a couple counter arguments against what your friend says:

1) Sure in the Caro-Kann you can easily develop your Bishop outside the pawn chain, but there are several variations where the Bishop ends up being a target when developed to f5. The most prominent example is in the advance Caro-Kann:

[fen ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4

The fact that the pawn is on c6 means the b8 knight is deprived of its best square to pressure the base of the pawn chain on d4. Essentially you are trading your traditional bad bishop for a bad knight. You can't have everything!
Because black played c6 first, a further c5 to pressure the center if not well timed is a loss of tempi compared to the french where you play c5 in one go. This means that in a lot of lines, black must do a lot of prep work before he can afford to play c5, meaning there is also less pressure against white's center. This allows white a lot more leeway as to how he wants to organize his forces. Compare this to the french advance where you quickly play moves like c5, Nc6, Qb6 to pressure the center. Those moves certainly aren't possible to play as quickly in the Caro-Kann. Furthermore, if black opens the center too quickly in the Caro-Kann, he may wish his bishop were back inside the pawn chain to guard against annoying checks on the a4-e8 diagonal!

Ultimately, a debate over whether or not the Caro-Kann is better than the French is fruitless. They are both good openings of equal strength, and your choice to play one over the other is a purely stylistic choice.


Why did this guy resign, was there a strategic reason? I have a hobby as an amateur chess player to watch top rated games on lichess.org, my personal favorite online chess platform. Usually after some analysis, I can figure out why players do particular things. However, with this game there really seemed to be no reason for the resignation. Did the player give up for non strategic reasons or am I missing something?

[FEN ""]
[Event "Rated game"]
[Site "http://lichess.org/cg4yGry4"]
[Date "2016.03.25"]
[White "LadyBaba"]
[Black "BlandPassivity"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2223"]
[BlackElo "2121"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "A02"]
[Opening "Bird Opening"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. f4 { A02 Bird Opening } d6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 Nbd7 4. a3 e5 5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Nc3 Be7 7. d4 exd4 8. exd4 O-O 9. Bd3 b6 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qe1 c5 12. Qg3 cxd4 13. Nxd4 Bc5 14. Be3 Re8 15. b4 Bxd4?! { (0.56 → 1.18) Inaccuracy. Best move was Bd6. } (15... Bd6 16. Qxd6 Rxe3 17. Qf4 Re8 18. Rae1 Rxe1 19. Rxe1 Nh5 20. Qe3 g6 21. Ndb5 Ndf6 22. Qe7) 16. Bxd4 Rc8?! { (1.17 → 1.84) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qb8. } (16... Qb8 17. Qh3) 17. Rad1 Qc7 18. Qh4 h6 19. Nb5 Qc6 20. Rf3 { Black resigns } 1-0

White's threats revolve around Nxa7. What can Black do? This is the line given by Ubisoft's Chessmaster:

2r1r1k1/pb1n1pp1/1pq2n1p/1N6/1P1B3Q/P2B1R2/2P3PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 1

1... Ra8 {Directly defending a7} 2. Rg3 {Threatening to take on h6} Kf8 {Breaking the pin} 3. Qf4 Nh5 {This forces white into the sacrificial line that follows} 4. Bxg7+ Nxg7 5. Nd6 {Threatens 6. Qxf7#} Ne5 6. Qxh6 {Sure, Black has a piece for 2 pawns, but White's attack is too strong}


Does anyone have a version of the 50x50 article by Nikita Plaksin? In 1979, Nikita M. Plaksin published a reportedly fascinating article containing 50 problems all related to the 50 moves rule. Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere, the only links that I could find are old and broken.

If anyone has it, would you please share it with the community and not let it get lost to time?

Hi Arnaud thanks for your question.

The problems themselves can all be found in pdb.dieschwalbe.de. Type K='50' AND A='Plaksin' AND S='Problem' AND YEAR='1979'. All 50 are there numbered, with solutions. If you are typing from a phone make sure that you select the correct single-quote character: the vertical one.

The query reveals that they were published in the now-defunct magazine Problem, but it does not give the article text. I suggest Arnaud that you send your request to the Retro Mailing List retros@janko.at. This will put you in touch with all the current retro greats who would probably love to hear from you.

If that doesn’t work then let me know and I will approach someone individually.

EDIT: the 50x50 article is now available at https://www.janko.at/Retros/Articles/index.htm in Russian but I guess that google translate will work - and the diagrams are the not important part.


Can't find long term plan for Black I am working on multiple lines from Scandinavian defense, with the goal to resurrect them.
One line I'm working on is 3...Qd8, and I have managed to achieve quite playable positions ( the results are the best so far, regarding other lines like 3...Qe5+ or 3...Qa5/Qd6 ).

Although I can get rock solid position from the opening, I just can't find the long term plan for Black.

The line I am referring is :

[Title "Scandinavian defense, with Qd8"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.Nf3 c6 5.d4 Bf5!? 6.Bd3!? Bxd3 7.Qxd3 e6 8.O-O Nf6 9.Bf4 Nbd7

Here is a diagram that illustrates the kind of positions I usually face:

[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r2q1rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/8/2PP1B2/2NQ1N2/PP3PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"]

I just don't know how to battle White's space advantage. I don't have a plan for engineering a freeing break.

Is there anyone who plays similar pawn structure, and is willing to give me some pointers on how to play this position as Black?

For logical reasons the 3...Qd8 Scandinavian is not popular among top grandmasters whatsoever , Stockfish 5 gives it 0.45 after running for around a  5 minutes compared to 0.00 in the French Defense after 3.Nc3 Nf6

For this variation I would recommend looking at the games of Montenegrin Grandmaster Nikola Djukic, who is the only grandmaster who employs the 3...Qd8 variation regurlarly. He also has a plus score with it against an opposition elo average of 2496 which is nice.

The 3...Qd6 Scandinavian is a lot more popular. The very strong Grandmaster Sergei Tiviakov has implemented it regurlarly with a massive plus score against an elo average of 2659.

The 3...Qa5 Scandinavian is the most popular of the 3, the Serbian Grandmaster Miodrag R Savic can be considered a specialist on this since he plays it approximately 71% of the time against 1.e4 with a very positive score against an elo average of 2508.

I've decided to just ignore the 3...Qe5+ variation, which is also called the "Patzer Variation" White scores 71.1% after 4.Be2

Of course this post would not be complete if I didn't answer your question on how to find a plan in the given positions.

FIRST DIAGRAM

Unfortunately the line you are referring to in the first game has only 2 games in Mega Database 2014.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "?"]
[Title "Scandinavian defense, with Qd8"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.Nf3 c6 5.d4 Bf5!? 6.Bd3!? (6.Bc4) Bxd3 7.Qxd3 e6 8.O-O Nf6 9.Bf4 Nbd7

OK, in the final position black is solid but there is pretty much no way for him/her to win (naturally, with exceptions in human play). White is castled, has 3 pieces and a pawn putting pressure on the center with an added space advantage. White is clearly better, the game has certainly not equalized in blacks favor. Maybe you have avoided theory and complications but unfortunately that is all you have gained.

Another problem with such a position is that black is really lacking in play here. This makes it much harder to formulate a plan of some sort, maybe this is why you are struggling to find a long term plan.

SECOND DIAGRAM

 [Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Black to Move"]
[Black ""]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1nbppp/2p1pn2/8/2PP1B2/2NQ1N2/PP3PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

1... Nh5 (1... Qb6 2.c5 Qd8  (2. a3 c5)) 2. Bd2 (2. Bg3 $6 Nxg3 3. hxg3
$11) 2... Nhf6 3. Rfe1 Qc7 4.Rad1

In the second diagram your main plan should probably be the elimination of the f5 Bishop, which is severely cramping your position. So therefore Nh5 comes to mind, if the Bishop retreats to g3, simply chop it off and the position is equal, however white can retreat the Bishop and it is not so clear how to proceed for black. I have given some small variations to go by but overall the position seems to be completely devoid of play for black. Black is lacking in any sort of counter-play to put it bluntly.
OK maybe after 3...Qc7 you can centralize the rooks with rook a8 to d8 and rook f8 to e8 and slowly maneuver your pieces, waiting for white, maybe move your d7 Knight to f8 to clear open the d-file and prepare a possible ...Ng6. Black basically just has to sit and wait. The engine recommends ideas involving ...a6 but I find this quite dubious and unnatural, not suited for human play.

White on the other hand has the clear idea of d5, centralizing the rooks, h3 to maintain the powerful dark squared Bishop. The position is rich for white. Better to say the least, because he/she has a clear plan to follow by.

I know that the computer evaluation is a powerful thing, but we are not computers. I highly suggest picking another variation to go by, one which involves "play". For a position with counter-play and imbalances is much more important than a dry one such as this one despite the silicon machine saying 0.36.

I personally think that the 3...Qd8 Scandinavian variation is a very dubious one which should be avoided at all costs by the improving chess player and should only be played for the element of surprise.

All statistics courtesy of Chessbase Mega Database 2014


How do I use the “Mate Search” function of either Houdini 3 Pro x64 or Fritz 12? It doesn’t seem to work… The “Mate Search” function of my two chess engines, Houdini 3 Pro x64 and Fritz 12, does not work.

I click on “Levels” and then on “Mate Search”.

Then a small “Mate Search” window pops up.

When I click on “Parameters” it does nothing. When I click on “OK” the “Mate Search” window just disappears and nothing happens.

In short, you don't have an engine installed that is able to use the mate search function. The scrollable box should show all engines you have installed that are capable of the mate search function, so either you don't have one installed (unlikely if you have a legitimate copy of Fritz 12) or the UI is unable to recognize it for some reason.


When a game is cut short and the winner is determined by material, do points still count if they're from promoted pawns? At my school, we play with a time limit, and the winner is decided based on points (for example, a pawn is 1, a rook 5, a knight 3).

Let's say my queen is taken by my opponent, scoring 9 points. If I get my pawn to the other end and exchange it for a queen, do they lose those points?

Points in chess mean nothing with respect to the actual play of the game with regards to the rules. They are only a reference to give players a general sense of what value each piece has relative to the next piece.

In essence, if you lose your queen, 9 points, but promote a pawn, you gain 9 points minus one for the pawn, so you would still be down one in material, but again, that is just a relative reference to give you an idea where you stand.

These relative point values are estimates, and depending on who you talk to, they may vary. Here is a list of various values that strong players have assigned over the years here. Bobby Fischer said that the bishop was worth 3.25 because he loved bishops.


For white's next move, should it be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 as there is only one knight which can legally move to e2? [FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/1bPP4/2NBP3/PP3PPP/R1BQK1NR w KQ - 0 6"]

If white move his king knight to e2 in the next move, should this move be recorded as Nge2 or Ne2 in the algebraic notation?

After all, the other knight cannot legally move to e2 in this move.

It doesn't matter. The purpose of algebraic notation is to produce an unambiguous record of the game, not a canonical representation that you could compare character by character.

This is not spelled out on the official rules, but I believe it is the inescapable conclusion considering that some parts of the notation are explicitly optional (here I'm talking about the FIDE Laws of Chess); for example:

  [...] each player is free to use the name which is commonly used in his country [...]

  A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable.

  [...] an x may be inserted [...]

  [...] ‘e.p.’ may be appended.

  [...] The last four [capture, check, checkmate, and en passant] are optional.

That said, the rules are clear that disambiguation is only needed when two identical pieces can move to the same square, so the "correct" notation would be Ne2.


Chess Software for analysis and notes I am looking for software that has chess engine analysis but also allows me to take notes and save games. I have used Scid in the past for this and liked it, but I just want to see if there is something better out there.

The old Fritz 5.32 (last free version) does this. Of course it is not as powerful as the latest version (big understatement). It is available here http://freechess.50webs.com/fritz.html but note that it will need some work (described on the website) to get it to run on modern versions of Windows.

I alternate between Fritz 8, which is not quite as old as the free version and runs on modern operating systems, and Scid vs PC which is a much more modern fork of Scid and could also be worth trying especially if you are still stuck on original Scid.


What should the penalty be for a player leaving the playing venue? FIDE Laws of Chess article 11.2 says:

  11.2 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places
  as designated by the arbiter.

  The playing area is defined as the place where the games of a
  competition are played.

  Only with the permission of the arbiter can

  a. a player leave the playing venue

  b. the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area

At a congress recently the following happened.

After the first 6 moves, which I played very slowly as I I had never seen the opening before, my opponent played his move and got up. I thought for 5 or 10 minutes, played my move and noticed that my opponent hadn't come back. I got up, had a look around the playing area and couldn't see him. I checked the toilets. They were empty. He wasn't there.

I went to see the arbiter. "I've lost my opponent" I said and explained the situation. "There are some toilets at the very far end of the building" she said. "He's probably gone there".

It didn't sound likely to me. I waited just inside the entrance to the playing area and 5 or 10 minutes later my opponent appeared. There had been insufficient time between rounds for him to get some food and so, rather than go immediately before the round started and lose 20 minutes or so (30 minute default time) he waited until part way through the game when the position was complicated and he would lose much less time.

Now that my opponent admitted leaving the playing venue during the game without the arbiter's permission I asked what she would do about it. "Well, he's ever such a nice chap. He's a charity worker, you know. So, of course he wouldn't cheat. He shouldn't really have done it but no harm done"

As an arbiter myself I think the explanation the arbiter gave in this case is a good one to justify not throwing my opponent out of the tournament altogether. It is not a good one to justify not defaulting him. And certainly not a good one for letting him off completely.

I've never had to deal with this when I have been the arbiter but for a "cheating related" violation like this I would automatically default the player and then consider whether I believed anything more untoward had happened before deciding whether to let him continue in the tournament or not.

Have any other arbiters had this situation before? If so what did you do? If not what would you do? There is no one prescribed penalty in the FIDE laws of chess as far as I know nor even specific guidance (please correct me if I'm wrong) and so it is left to the discretion of the arbiter.

According to FIDE Handbook (12.9):

  Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:

  warning
  increasing the remaining time of the opponent
  reducing the remaining time of the offending player
  increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game
  reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person
  declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score)
  a fine announced in advance
  expulsion from the competition

I think that the arbiter should penalize the player anyway, the question is which way. For me as an arbiter would be crucial the presence/absence of a mobile phone in player's pocket, bag etc. If the presence of his mobile phone was proven, I would declare the game to be lost for this player. Another problem is that arbiters don't have the right for any inspections without permission, the player has to agree...

If the presence of his mobile phone wasn't proven, reducing the player's time seems most adequate to me.


Which engine is better at Chess960-Stockfish or Leela? It seems that TCEC has seen Stockfish and Leela go back and forth. It is probable that these days Stockfish is a little bit better than Leela. I was wondering, since it is different in Chess960, which one of two is better at it? Does anyone have any insights?

Currently, it's Stockfish: in the latest FRC exhibition (November 2020) Stockfish beat Leela +8 -0 =42.


How would you determine that the player is cheating in online chess? There are a lot of online websites, where players can play chess in real time with each other. Most of the games are 5-10 minutes long. With the availability of chess software one can take an advantage by using Fritz or Rybka to suggest a move for him.

For instance, I can just enter every move of my opponent and see what software will suggest for me.

I was thinking about a few features which can suggest that the player is cheating:

number of times he switches the screen
speed of play (in easy and in really hard positions)
accuracy of the game

Does anyone have any other ideas?

P.S.: It does not matter for me, which perspective you are thinking from (server or the client side).

This is actually a very complex question, and not one which has been solved in a satisfying way, to my knowledge.  Essentially, we're asking for an algorithm to perform a kind of reverse Turing-test, to differentiate between human players and computers.

First, client-side checks will always have weaknesses, unless you are in complete control of the client environment.  Let's take the first idea - checking for switching between windows, it sounds good.  Unfortunately, it's trivially worked around by running a chess engine on a separate computer, or integrating my engine with the client so that no "window switching" takes place, or changing the client to report 0 changes in window, or...  There's no real way to be sure that it's your code running on the client, really.

What we're left with is physically tightly controlled client environments (which isn't going to happen for any online games), or server-side checking, i.e. looking at the actual moves that were played (and perhaps the time between the moves, as you say), and trying to deduce the computer or human aspect.

Server-side checking can also split a couple of ways.  You could probably try a "top-down" approach, which would be something along the lines of "from past games in history, only 2% of humans made that move, while 50% of computers make it".  This would actually be a pretty good way to do it, if we had enough data for "any given position".  The search space of chess is so large, however, that even very large data sets will not have a significant number of games matching your position, once you get past the early mid-game.

Assuming that we don't have any reliable statistics on the human side of the equation, you could still present the position to a number of chess engines (with a number of different time settings each), and see how closely the players' moves match that of a computer.  By itself, this would also lead to many false-positives, however, repeated positives for the same chess engine and time settings would make it more and more probable that the player was cheating.  To further enhance this, I would probably look into a "bottom-up" approach of analysing chess positions; in short, trying to figure out why humans and computers play differently.  E.g. humans tend to recognise common patterns.  In a game with "odd" patterns, or unlikely situations, a human would be less likely to be able to play very accurately.  None of these, by itself, are particularly damning, but given large numbers of games, it would highlight trends to administrators.

To add a few specifics to your list, I would go along the lines of how professors detect plagarism in papers - by detecting a sudden change.  In chess, this is extremely difficult to define, but a sudden change in play style or play strength may indicate cheating.  Specifically, I'd look for uncharacteristically aggressive moves which tend to just "work out", and have no downside for the player (too accurate).  Forced mates in 4+ moves from a player who normally puts knights on the edge of the board, etc (it's possible... just not likely).  How exactly this would work sounds like it could take up an entire book (or more), however.

EDIT:  There was an article about cheating and detection in top-level chess recently.


Why do people say blitz chess can be bad for your chess? I keep hearing blitz chess is bad for you but the I've only been offered two explanations for why that is. The first reason I've been told is that it ruins your ability to focus since you it forces you to play fast so I suppose they say it makes you less patient as well. The second was that blitz is not a very efficient way of improving chess since you can't put as much thought into it in general. But surely that isn't the only reason people say not to play blitz right? After playing blitz I still maintain my ability to focus and as long as it doesn't make me play chess worse I should be fine with reason 2. I really want to understand what this whole deal is about since with my personality if I play blitz or play around with chess in an absent-minded or quick manner I get paranoid and start thinking "Oh no, am I making myself worse at chess or something like that?".

I am answering only as an expert player, so who am I to answer this, but I think that "blitz ruins your chess" was a very popular view some time ago rather than nowadays... Anyway, given the very limited time at your, and your adversary, disposal, in blitz chess a player is not generally searching for the best move(s) but the one that gives you most chances. This may encourage, in the long run, a player to "stay away" from very deep considerations, tactical or strategical, and this is ultimately not good for improving chess strength. When you face strong players with plenty of time at their disposal you have to find the best moves, because they haven't 30 seconds on the clock or so, unless they are in zeitnot, to answer you.


Why isn't Bird's Opening at least as popular as the Dutch Defence? The Dutch Defence is a fairly popular response to 1. d4. So shouldn't 1. f4 (Bird's opening), viewed as a Dutch plus a tempo, be at least as popular?

A good opening for Black seldom is a great choice for White even with a tempo up. Grandmaster Alex Yermolinsky discusses reasons for this in his book "The Road to Chess Improvement". One of the main reasons is that the opening goals are not the same for both sides in the opening, and schemes that are suitable for defense or counterattack are much less valuable for assuming the initiative.

Famously, when grandmaster Vladimir Malaniuk, a great proponent of the Dutch Leningrad with Black, had some issues with his White repertoire, someone suggested to him that he should start with 1.f4. His retort was definitive:

  That extra move's gonna' hurt me!

As a side note, the Dutch is not that popular, especially at the highest level.


Why isn't Gata Kamsky considered the first American since Bobby Fischer to fight for the World Championship? As in the title above, since we read it everywhere about Caruana... why isn't Gata Kamsky considered the first American since Bobby Fischer to fight for the World Championship? He played Karpov in 1997 for the FIDE World Championship.

Kamsky played Anatoly Karpov for the championship during the time after Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short had split from FIDE to form the Professional Chess Association and hold their championship match under its auspices. Thus, the World Championship was "split" at the time - Kasparov held the PCA title and Karpov the FIDE title. In a sense, a split title such as this is no title, so Kamsky misses out on credit for playing for the championship.

This is partly commentary, but hopefully adds a little insight: While my skills are nowhere near good enough to say, it seems that Kasparov is generally seen as the stronger player (vs. Karpov). Thus most people who pay attention probably see Kasparov at the "true" world champion from that time. Between the fact that Kamsky played for the FIDE championship at a time when the title was split and also when the FIDE champion was not the then strongest player, he doesn't get credit for playing for the World Chess Championship.


Exercises for positional evaluation I would like to improve my position evaluation skills. And as we all know - there are tons of tactical exercises , endgames studies, etc. But when it comes to exercises for positional evaluation - well - things are getting complicated.

So far I know these sources:
- 'How to Reassess Your Chess' workbook
- Aagard 'Positional Play' contains some exercises
- Khmelnicky 100-exercises test book (but it contains all kinds of puzzles)

I've read Dan Heisemann idea to work with complicated middlegame position and then process it with an engine. But IMHO it lacks clear plan presentation and overall view of what is going on the board. So my question is - can anyone point me to specialised book or webpage that contain more of position evaluation exercises with long descriptive answers?

Three recommendations from me:

Mastering chess strategy by GM Hellsten has annotated games with more than 350 positional exercises with detailed answers. He has also authored Mastering opening strategy and Mastering endgame strategy
Chess strategy: move by move by IM Hunt isn't quite a puzzle book, but looks at annotated games and asks you questions as you analyse the games
Practical Chess Exercises by Ray Cheng has a mix of all types of positions (tactical and positional across all phases of the game). There are a total of 600 positions with detailed explanations here


Can you identify the design of these chess pieces? I was wondering if anyone could identify the name of this chess piece design, or possibly the name of its designer? It's obviously not the standard Staunton set.

It’s not exact match, but it’s possible that your set is what is called a St. George-style set.
Compare your set to this image from the Staunton chess set Wikipedia.

The way the kings, bishops, queens and pawns are built, in comparison with your set and the image above, are very similar. The rooks and knights are not exact nor are the dimensions the same. I would suspect that what you have is a variation and/or  modernized design of the St. George-style chess set, such as a mesh with the Staunton perhaps.
Here’s an article about the St. George-style that might be of help.


Improving my skills is getting harder I am new to chess and I am playng mostly online at sites like chess.com. Now I have a rate around 800, so it is still low, but my problem is that improving my skills is getting hard. The arrival to the rate 800 has been quite quick, but now I feel like I am stucking often to the same moves and the same way of reasonings.

How could I improve my skills? And most of all how can I improve my mental elasticity in playing chess in order to be a better player?

Thanks in advance.

It really depends on whether you are willing to do the work, but I have tried this with people before, and it has worked extremely well. Most weaker players are initially weak because they lose material so often and easily.

First, I believe strongly in an immersion-type training program. If I give you 20 problems, and you get 100%, you only learned 20 problems. If I give you 150, and you only get a 66.6%, you still learned 100 problems, or five times what you did when you got only 20 problems. I firmly believe that the more you see in a short period of time, the more you will learn. In this case, I am advocating quantity over quality.

This is based on my own personal experience, and is based on my learning Russian in the Air Force. The first night, I got 20 words to learn, but by the end of 47 weeks, we got about 300 words every other night. I also had a friend, who was 38 at the time, and he went from 1000 to about 1850 on the Internet Chess Club in three months doing what I am about to recommend.

I am not a fan of the chess.com and other site tactics programs for a couple of reasons. First, they are checked by computers, and often take the computer route in the defense portion of the solution, rather than the human path. Second, they are not well grouped by theme.

I still love the grouping on the two Fred Reinfeld books, "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate, 21st Century Edition" and "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, 21st Century Edition".

You start with the 1001 checkmates book because the first chapter is queen sacrifices, so you have two big hints: Give up the queen, and checkmate. Now, I want you to try to do 50 per day (25 minimum though), spending no more than two minutes on each problem trying to figure it out. If you do not get it, just look at the answer, and play it out on a board, if necessary. You may not have gotten it right, but you have absorbed something. Write in pencil next to the diagram 1-5, with one being that you solved it easily, and five that you had no idea.

Go through the whole book at 50 per day. You can skip the last chapter on composed mates if you want. Do the same with the 1001 sacrifices book.

Now, you have read both, and have rated how easily you got them. Go back ans read the both books again in the same order. They are both grouped so well, that you will start to pick up on themes better than ever.

Funny, in early 2019, a new book, "The Woodpecker Method" came out, and recommends a very similar method to the one that I have been recommending for over 30 years.

I have found over the years that even guys, who are 2000-2100 over-the-board, are still not that great tactically, so keep doing this, and as you get better with your two original books, pick different tactics books for some variety. We never stop practicing that, and calculation, in general.

Of course, as you get better, there is a lot more to learn about opening pawn structures (search my other posts about this), and of course, the endgame.


When has the FIDE rule against bringing the game into disrepute been invoked (if ever)? In the current FIDE Laws of Chess article 11.1 says:

11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

I have heard elderly arbiters fulminating about some incident saying that this law (which has been around for a long time) should be invoked or that they would invoke it but I have never come across a case in the real world where this has happened. The talk of invoking it has been just "bar talk" as far as I can tell.
I understand the need for a chess rules equivalent of the nuclear deterrent, but has this ever been invoked?

Has the FIDE rule against bringing the game into disrepute been ever invoked? Indeed. I have found several examples of applications of the rule, based on the analysis of many resolutions by FIDE, and a few national and regional chess federations.
N.B. Although I tried to find references in English, it was hard to do and most of the references I found are in French, Catalan and Italian. The references I could find depend on my knowledge of languages and on the publication of disciplinary resolutions by a particular federation. (For example, I could not find such type of documents neither at the USCF site nor at the English Chess Federation's).
Cases of application
I actually found a case similar to that presented by @Brian Towers for committing illegal moves/actions during a game of chess. During a rapid chess competition, the white player repeatedly made illegal actions during the last two moves of the game (captured a pawn but did not take it off the board during his own time; retired the pawn during the opponent's time and, because of this movement, displaced a bishop from d4 to f3 and interfered with the opponent; knocked down two pawns while making his next move and did not set them up during his own time). This went unnoticed by the arbiter but there was video footage. The black player made a claim, but lost by time because of this. The result of the game was overturned based on article 11.1 and 11.5 (not annoying the opponent) (decision 3/2016, in Catalan, by the competition judge of the Chess Federation of the Balearic Islands).
However, this type of application of the article seems to be rare and it is more often invoked to punish inappropriate behavior during a match. Here are some examples:

A player broke havoc in disguise during the final of 86th French Championship as part of a prank. According to the arbiter that reported the event, "His behavior and actions have brought discredit to our sport". The player was suspended for two years (Resolution 2011-14 of the Federal Committee of Discipline of the French Chess Federation, in French).
An adult player shouted to an underage player, accusing him of having touched a piece and not played it. The adult player was suspended for 30 days (Resolution 2020/277 of the National Sports Judge of the Italian Chess Federation, in Italian).
Two players started quarreling during a match about some pieces having been knocked down. Both players lost the game and were suspended for 30 days (Resolution 2019/259 of the National Sports Judge of the Italian Chess Federation, in Italian).
A player insisted on using swear words and acting disrespectfully, even after several requests by the arbiter. The player was suspended for two months (Resolution 2017/155 of the National Sports Judge of the Italian Chess Federation, in Italian).
While playing against an underage player, an adult player repeatedly went to the bar for alcoholic drinks (although he apparently was not inebriated). He was reprimanded on the grounds of article 11.1 (Resolution 20/2019 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
A player was reprimanded on the grounds or article 11.1 for shouting during a match when his opponent's phone alarm rang (Resolution 7/2019, of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan). (The other player was reprimanded for telling the delegate, but not his opponent of the fact that the alarm would ring to remember him to take his medication. The competition rules specified he should have told both about it.)
Several players were reprimanded for misbehaving (shouting, speaking aggressively) because of a conflict during a match (Resolution 07/2017 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
A team's delegate was reprimanded for acting angrily when making a claim (Resolution 06/2017 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
A player was reprimanded for refusing to shake hands as customary at the beginning of the game (Resolution 17/2016 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
An adult player has suspended for six months for acting pejoratively against two underage opponents. The decision was confirmed during an appeal based on grounds of article 11.1 and 11.5 (Appeal Resolution 15/2016, of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).

Article 11.1 has also been used to punish affronts and offenses against chess organizations:

The president of a chess club was suspended for three years for offenses against the French Chess Federation on Twitter and for manhandling a couple of underage players he trained (Resolution 2019-14 of the Federal Commission of Discipline of the French Chess Federation, in French). Although the resolution does not cite explicitly the article 11.1, it says that such actions (the insults on Twitter) "are of such a nature to attack the image of the French Chess Federation and the game of chess" (my translation).

Penalties
As is apparent from the examples above, in case of minor transgressions penalties are limited to admonitions with more severe punishments in case of re-incident behavior. In more severe cases it results in the loss of the game or even license suspensions.
Alternatives to article 11.1
The invocation of article 11.1 seems to depend on the actual regulations of each federation. In fact, the offenses listed above are related to violations of ethical codes in some federations.
For example, the article 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics is approximately equivalent to article 11.1 of the Laws of Chess. It states:

"In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of
Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of
chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable
unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation."

This article was used to suspend former FIDE president K. Ilyumzhinov (case 2/2018 of the FIDE Ethics Commission) for pursuing his own interests instead of FIDE's in addition to other actions.
Also, in France disrespectful behavior is usually judged as violations of the Ethics and Deontology Chart of the French Chess Federation (e.g., Appeal decision 2017-02 for hitting a player, decision 2019-01 for insulting and menacing two players, decision 2019-13 for shouting to the opponent, in French).
Finally, the ruling 2/2020 of the FIDE Ethics & Disciplinary Commision regarding an attempt of match-fixing states that "Art. 2.2.10 is a more general rule, primarily aimed at targeting acts or omissions by  players  or  office  holders  that  is  not  covered  by  any  of  the  more specified articles in the Code of Ethics." I think this should also be applicable to article 11.1 of the Laws of Chess.


As a Beginner, is playing a lot of tactics chess (puzzles) a good way to improve? I am pretty new to chess, and I play lot of chess puzzles: trying to find the best move for a given situation (which will not necessarily end-up with a checkmate).

Is this a good way to learn chess or should I play more normal games?

Solving alot of tactic puzzles is a fantastic way to improve for a beginner.

One of the reasons for my improvement was the constant solving of tactics on chess.com's tactics trainer feature, which basically made me shed my beginner skins, since tactics almost always play a decisive role in the games of beginners.

However, you must also play many normal games, preferably in real life instead of online, and against stronger players, as this will provide you with invaluable experience for the improvement of your game.

You must also familiarize yourself with the strategic features of chess, (backward pawns, space advantages) and the endgame in order to improve. Tactics can only get you so far.


What should the opponent do when the player knocks over pieces as he presses the clock? Article 7.4.1 of FIDE Laws of Chess states -

  If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the
  correct position in his own time.

What normally happens when this happens as a player makes his move and presses his clock is that the opponent presses the clock without making a move so that the player puts the knocked over pieces back in place before himself pressing the clock.

But 7.8.1. now says -

  If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be
  considered as an illegal move.

What should the opponent do when the player knocks over pieces as he presses the clock? Particularly at blitz or rapid if he doesn't want to lose because of an illegal move.

Indeed this can be a tricky matter to handle, specially in extreme time trouble.
Pressing the clock quickly again so your opponent adjusts their fallen pieces is fine in general as in most cases the player (or possibly both) will quickly re-adjust everything and nobody will mind, but every now and then you will face opponents trying to call you out on any potentially broken rule in order to claim the game. So to be on the safe side, in such circumstances, you should not press your clock but instead pause the clock and call the arbiter to explain the situation (this is almost always what you should do when your opponent is at fault regarding any rule). The arbiter then relaunches the opponent's clock telling them to re-adjust under their own time (and possibly a warning). This is essentially article 7.3: (this is the exact article, except I've substituted "he" and "his" by "they" and "their" respectively, as to make the statement agnostic to gender, it's shameful how the FIDE laws are written with such disregard!)

  7.3 If a player displaces one or more pieces, they shall re-establish the correct position on their own time. If necessary, either the player
  or their opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter’s
  assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the
  pieces.

Though I admit this scenario happens very rarely, at least in my experience, as most (courteous) players understand immediately that they have to set their pieces properly once you've quickly pressed your clock again, so there's no conflict. But if you see it's just a messy situation and your opponent couldn't care less about playing properly, then pause and call the arbiter.


Where did I go wrong this game? So I'm what I would call a half-good to OK player, and I have the app chess free on my phone. I play against that AI all the time, and on level 6, I have a pretty bad win record (18%). I decided to try and teach myself how to perform sound sacrifices, and in the process played this game. Where the heck did I go wrong?

[FEN "..."]
1. e3 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. d4 Nf6
6. Qe2 e4 7. Nh3 Bd7 8. Nc3 a6 9. Bxc6 Bxc6 10. a3 Qd7
11. f3 O-O-O 12. b3 Nh5 13. fxe4 dxe4 14. Qxh5 f5 15. Qe2 h6
16. O-O g5 17. a4 g4 18. Nf4 h5 19. Qf2 h4 20. Ng6 g3
21. hxg3 hxg3 22. Qxf5 Qxf5 23. Rxf5 Rh8g8 24. Ne5 Rd8f8 25. Rxf8+ Rxf8
26. Nxc6 bxc6 27. Nxe4 Rg8 28. Bb2 Rg6 29. Rf1 Kb7 30. Nc5+ Kb6
31. Nd7+ Ka5 32. Bc3+ Bb4 33. Rf5+ c5 34. Rxc5#

I have the black pieces in the game.

b3 Nh5 following
fxe4 leading to losing your knight (did not see the discovered attack)
Qxh5

To save the knight you would have needed to play pawn g6 on 13. instead of playing dxe4

Playing back to Nf6 will get you forked with white moving pawn to e5 on move 14.

It is all down the hill from then on.

Also on 31.

Moving the King out into the wild is also problematic as you saw with the pinned bishop and the checkmate with the rook!


Did Aronian make a mistake in the opening against Anand in round 1 of the FIDE Candidates 2014? Here is the game

[Event "FIDE Candidates 2014"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2014.03.13"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Aronian, Levon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2830"]
[ECO "C88"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez"]
[Variation "closed, 7...O-O"]
[EventDate "2014.03.13"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. h3 Bb7 9. d3 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Rxe5 Nf6 14. Re1 Rae8 15. Nf3 Bd6 16. Be3 Re7 17. d4 Rfe8 18. c3 h6 19. Ne5 Bxe5 20. dxe5 Rxe5 21. Qxd7 Nxd7 22. Red1 Nf6 23. c4 c6 24. Rac1 R5e7 25. a4 bxc4 26. Bxc4 Nd5 27. Bc5 Re4 28. f3 R4e5 29. Kf2 Bc8 30. Bf1 R5e6 31. Rd3 Nf4 32. Rb3 Rd8 33. Be3 Nd5 34. Bd2 Nf6 35. Ba5 Rde8 36. Rb6 Re5 37. Bc3 Nd5 38. Bxe5 Nxb6 39. Bd4 Nxa4 40. Rxc6 Rd8 41. Rc4 Bd7 42. b3 Bb5 43. Rb4 Nb2 44. Bxb5 axb5 45. Ke3 Re8+ 46. Kd2 Rd8 47. Kc3 1-0

So I am wondering. The Spanish Marshall should give black plenty of compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Yet, black did not seem to get much play after white grabbed the pawn. Did black make a mistake in the opening or later in the middlegame (endgame)? Thanks!

Aronian played two sub-optimal moves in the middlegame - 16...Re7 and 18...h6. At each of these moves, the better move as per analysis by Houdini (depth 25 and above) was Nd5! (Houdini even prefers 17...Nd5, but 17...Rfe8 is not bad)

So his "mistake" was missing the opportunity to play Nd5, and instead playing 16...Re7 (which seems to be the major culprit) and 18...h6. If, instead, he had used the Nd5 idea, he could have equalized on move 16, and might have had better chances for equality if he had used it on move 18.

   [FEN "4rrk1/1bpq1ppp/p2b1n2/1p6/8/1B1P1N1P/PPP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 16"]

   1. Be3 Re7? (1... Nd5! 2. Bd2 c5=) 2. d4 Rfe8 (2... Nd5!? 3. Bd2 Nf4 4. Bxf4 Bxf4
   5.  a4+=) 3. c3 h6?! (3... Nd5! 4. Bd2 Rxe1+ 5. Nxe1 Nb6 6. Nc2+=) 4. Ne5! Bxe5
   5. dxe5 Rxe5 6. Qxd7 Nxd7 7. Red1+=

Explanation for 16...Nd5!

The idea behind 16. Be3 was to play 17. d4, which would strengthen White's position and prepare the Ne5 idea. Note that White couldn't play 16. d4 because of 16...Bxf3! The Ne5 idea gives White a pleasant edge in the endgame because of the two bishops. Therefore Black should have prevented it by preventing White's d4 move. Thus, the move c5 comes to mind, which discourages d4 because of c4, trapping the bishop on b3. However, c5 can wait for Nd5, an intermediate move, which forces White to retreat the bishop and also improves the position of the knight. After, Nd5 and c5, Black is completely equal.


Issue with ChessBase results when filtering by "Good Games" I'm trying to determine if I'm doing something wrong or if there might be a bug in the program.
One thing I was experimenting with was the search mask called "Good Games". The documentation describes it as follows:

"Using this parameter the results can be greatly be improved by
considering the quality of the games in the list. For instance, this
function only considers games in which at least one player has an Elo
rating above 2350 or one player had an IM or GM title. This function
excludes blitz, rapid and simultaneous games [emphasis added]. It also excludes games
with less than seven moves and drawn games with less than 20 moves."

But I've found many instances of blitz and rapid games in my test searches. I've already created the good/bad game set as described in the documentation by clicking the "Create good/bad game set" button. I've also tested with different databases, including the Mega 2020 and the This Week In Chess DB with similar results. Additionally, while it excludes games with less than 7 moves, drawn games with less than 20 moves appear as well.
Am I just doing something wrong, or does anyone else have this problem too?
Here's what steps I took, if you want to try:

Open a somewhat large database (this example is the Mega 2020, but I tried several others and experienced the same issue). A few thousand games, some including high level players (IMs or GMs) should be enough to illustrate the issue, especially if they are recent.
In the "Games" tab on the Ribbon, click the "Create good/bad game set" button. After it finishes, go back to the Home tab on the Ribbon.
While viewing the game list, click the "Filter List" button (icon with magnifying glass).
Using the advanced dialog, check both the "Good Games" check box and the "Blitz" (or Rapid, whatever you prefer) radio button. You can also just check "Good Games" and then manually scan the result list for short games, but this works as well.

When I ran this on the Mega 2020, it returned over 101,000 blitz games. If I uncheck "Good Games", simply searching for every Blitz game in the database, I get around 199,000, so clearly it's doing some filtering. From what I can tell, it seems to do the following:

Include games in which at least one player has an Elo rating above 2350 or one player had an IM or GM title (i.e., works as described).
INCLUDE (not exclude) blitz, rapid and simul games, provided they meet condition 1 (not working as described).
Exclude games with less than seven moves (works as described).
INCLUDE (not exclude) drawn games with less than 20 moves, provided they meet conditions 1 and 3 (not working as described). However, I noticed a decent number of 10-move draws, so maybe this was implemented as "drawn games with less than 20 plies?"

Other things I tried:

Checking the database integrity
Deleting/re-creating search boosters
Updating to latest Service Pack (currently 15.27).

I'm on Windows 10, using 64-bit ChessBase. Any suggestions? If this happens for other people I'll feel less crazy. It's not a huge problem, as I can just create a clone of the existing database, call it the "Quality Games Database" (or whatever) and then delete the rapid games from it, it just seemed odd that the feature to do this doesn't seem to function for me.

The issue isn't with the software but more with the database itself.
I rebuilt the Good Games Index, and that appeared to fix the issue you are facing for me.
That being said many of the Blitz Games that would often get captured in your scope are actually really pretty solid games and worth reviewing.


Has loser chess been solved? Loser chess has a benefit of sorts. There are many turns where moves are forced. So my question is, has it been solved? I'd say that the move tree is much smaller than chess. If not:

How much would it weight? Have there been any studies on the number of moves?
How much time would it take? The number of positions will probably be much less than normal, so the time should be much less.
Are there any ongoing projects?

Professor Mark Watkins announced he had found the solution to Losing Chess in October 2016. Regardless of what Black plays, White can force a win beginning with 1. e3.


What happens if a player makes an illegal move and nobody notices? What happens if a player makes an illegal move (i.e. a realistic case could be, he castles after he already moved the King), but none of the player notices, and the game goes on and on for a lot of moves? Is the final result to be taken as valid? On another note, what happens if a player, after some moves, realizes that, say, move 10 was illegal, and could not be made?

The FIDE laws of chess state:

  If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing
  to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the
  opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before
  the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately
  before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue
  from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The
  clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3
  and 4.6 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall
  then continue from this reinstated position.

So basically the game should be reverted to before that move, using the game record.

Edit: These are for standard play. Other time controls have different rules, and although most national federations basically just apply the FIDE rules, they can sometimes be different.


How do I use the analysis output of a UCI engine? I'm trying to analyze some of my games with the Stockfish UCI engine.  I'd like to make sure I'm interpreting the output correctly.  Using this screenshot as an example.

Can someone explain to me all of the output? Such as.

What does this line tell me?

  20 [-1.13]  7.c3 Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 bxa4 (8.39)

What does this line tell me?

  [-1.33] Depth: 27/40 Nodes: 550933K (4130 kn/s) Time: 133.41 s
  NPS: 4129627 Hash: ---- Load: ---- TB hits: ---- Current: c3 (1/25)

If the first number is centipawns why does it continue to analyze positions that seem to give me a worse position?

It is showing you the results of the analysis for each depth it gets to, sometimes more than once per depth (I think those are upper/lower bound scores, actually). So at depth 20 it thought the best move was -1.13 pawns, and at depth 27 it now knows it's really -1.33 pawns (according to its evaluation).

I like to use the multi-pv setting (click the up spinner next to V++ to increase the number of root moves to analyze), which gives you a good overall perspective of your different options (you can compare c3 and Nc3, for example).


Inaccurate checkmates? So, in a tournament, my daughter recently had a case where her opponent made a move and declared checkmate. She acquiesced, shook his hand, and then realized it wasn't actually a checkmate. They continued the game until she actually checkmated him, at which point he said, "Well, you shook hands.." and claimed the victory in the tournament.

I can see both sides of this, but I am really not sure what the official ruling in a case like this would be. Anyone have any thoughts?

Checkmate ends the game - there is no agreement/concession involved. If it’s not checkmate the game has not ended. And a handshake is not a move which needs to be “retracted”.

If the error was only realised significantly later, then maybe it’s a different case. I can see that an arbiter might deem the handshake to be a resignation. But that’s not the case here: they just played on and did not mark the scoresheets.

Your daughter does not need to be an expert in the rules (which cannot not be exhaustive in any case) but does need the reflex to call the arbiter or tournament director in any kind of dodgy situation.


The controversy about Firoujza game The tournment director apologied to Firoujza for moving his game on move 60. However, according to Stockfish 12 NNUE d=61the position on the board just before the players moved is evaluated as 0.00, that means a draw. The game indeed terminated with a draw. What the controversy is about?

Computer evaluation is based on perfect play from both sides, which is never the case in human games, and hence is irrelevant here. Given the nature of the position and the time situation, it is crystal clear that Firouzja had the "psychological" advantage, which he could've converted had the game been continued smoothly. Playing with a rook and an unsafe king against the bishop pair under time pressure is a nightmare for every chess player. Maneuvering with the two bishops is much easier. All this, in addition to other factors such as Firouzja's tournament position, makes up the post-game controversy that has arisen.


Can it be proven that 11. 0-0-0+ is legal in this position? Because the chess site this was on takes its puzzles from real games and gives the move numbers, potential solvers knew that the following position was reached after exactly 10 moves by each player.

[fen "2bk2nr/p1p2ppp/2p5/2p5/2P1P3/2N5/Pr3PPP/R3KB1R w - - 0 11"]

  Given that information, can one prove that 11. 0-0-0+ in the above diagram is legal?

(i.e., that neither the white King nor the Ra1 has moved so far)

It seems to me like that's not enough total moves for white to have spent two

moves "shuffling", but I can't come up with any proof or a counterexample-game.

Ok after playing around with a couple of lines, I finally found one line that shows it's still perfectly legal to play long castles for white at move 11, here it is:

[Title "possible 11.O-O-O+"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Rb8 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bc5 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (6... bxc6 7.Be3 d6 8.Bxc5 dxc5 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Nc3 Rxb2 11.O-O-O+) 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Be3 b6 9.Bxc5 bxc5 10.Nc3 Rxb2 11.O-O-O+

Added another continuation, taking on c6 with the b-pawn, same position results and same number of moves needed!

To conclude, because I reached the given position in exactly 11 moves, and did not play any redundant moves (e.g. Nf3 then back to Ng1 again), it means that all the played moves were necessary, their order can be different, but point is there was no spare move to use and destroy white's castling (e.g. an impossible scenario would be black exchanging queen on d1, Kxd1, then black plays Kxd8, and white goes back to e1, but that took up 2 more moves than the line I showed, so impossible to reach the position you're looking for in 11 moves after such line)

Long story short, castling is perfectly possible here, and in 11 moves black could not have done anything to prevent us from castling and still manage to reach the final position we want. Interesting post by the way, +1.

Alternatively one can also just look at the final position and count the necessary number of moves, that must take place for this position, I elaborate: have the final position in mind: let's take black's point of view: Pawn moves needed to obtain the final position:

e5
exd4 (why black has to take on d4 and not white on e5 is explained in the diagramm below)
bxc6 or dxc6
b6 or d6
bxc5 or dxc5,

Development moves:

Nc6 (to be captured on c6, otherwise there cannot be a pawn on c6 and not have knight on b8)
Bc5 (otherwise c5 pawn impossible)
Rb8 (otherwise Rxb2 never possible)

Remaining necessary moves: Queen d8 capture and pawn b2 capture:

Kxd8
Rxb2

And we find ourselves at the 11th move again, where all we did was just consider the most straighforward ways our pieces could end up where they are in the shown puzzle.

Let's see if we reach the same position via another path, showing why exd4 is the fastest way to reach the final position:

[Title "Why black must take on d4 and not white on e5:"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Rb8 4.d4 Bc5 5.dxe5 Nxe5 6.Nxe5 d6 7.Nc6 bxc6 8.Be3 Rxb2 9.Bxc5 dxc5 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Nc3

Here we are at move 11 and we still have to play Nc3... clearly because we played 2 knight moves for black.

Finally let's demonstrate why in the fastest path to the final position, white has to be taking on d8 (queen exchange) and not the other way around:

[Title "A line white cannot castle but the final position cannot be reached within the 10 required moves (so impossible for our purposes)"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Rb8 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bc5 6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.Nc3 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 b6 9.Be3 Kd8 10.Bxc5 bxc5 11.Ke1 Rxb2

We lost 2 king moves(capture on d1 then back to e1) for white in this line, hence the Rxb2 only happening at the 11th move.

So it was shown that the only line leading up the the final position within 10 moves, is one where white still must be able to castle.

EDIT: A summary of the discussed elements in the comments:

The proof presented in this answer is purely deduction based, in the sense that the simple fact of having reached the position in exactly 11 moves without having made any redundant (or insensitive to the position) moves, implies that 11.O-O-O+ should be legal without exception.

What does redundant mean here? "Redundant moves": here, are defined as moves that do not bring us any closer to the final position, or would even deviate us from it. For example playing Nf3, then back to Ng1, would be redundant. Playing Be2 then back to Bf1 would be redundant, and so on.

Point being, in any variation, you may come up with, that would take away white's castling rights, will imperatively entail redundant moves, that will in turn delay reaching the final position by a couple of moves. (As an exercise, try some of your ideas, it is interesting, and see how many moves it takes you.)

Looking at such problem from a combinatorics point of view, may be possible, but would be too complicated as we're looking at a depth of moves(tree lines) resulting from 11 moves. Instead, like most chess puzzles, one has to look at it from a purely heuristic point of view, and find the right ideas that would go in the direction of proving the question at hand. Finally, in chess, one usually has an easier time looking for counter examples(proof by contradiction), which is why it is encouraged to look into some of the lines on your own.


Chess960 human database? Is there a database for the different starting positions of Chess960? I would like it to have only human played games, because it it was for engines, I'd have lots of computer chess games.

Here is an example of what you are looking for :
http://chess960jungle.blogspot.fr/2014/02/chess960-database-complete-games-2001.html


I like to play 1. e4 but I dislike 1. ... c5. Can I continue with 2. c4? I read a related but closed question here and I share a very similar feeling. I would love to play 1. e4 but I only feel comfortable when my opponent replies with 1. ... e5, or French, or Caro-Kann. I find 1. ... c5 too complicated and too risky for me as white.

Surely there is no way I can control what my opponent play but here is my thought: since I also like the English opening, when the game starts with 1. e4 c5, can I continue with 2. c4. aiming to reach the following position for white:

To me, this position is less risky and more solid for white than most lines in Sicillian. Is it a good idea to play 2. c4 after 1. e4 c5 if I am uncomfortable with Sicillian?

It seems that according to 365chess.com's statestics, 2. c4 is an unpopular move and the winning percentage for white is very low. So what's wrong with 2. c4 if I continue the game with the ideas of the English opening?

You can, but if you like most openings with 1.e4, it's probably not the most adequate choice for your "style" (the resulting position will be "slow" rather than a fast exchange of tactical blows. 2.c4 is a legitimate option, but here are a few alternatives you may want to consider:

Find some line in the Open Sicilian: this is the ideal, but requires a lot of work to be put in tournament practice. I'd definitely go for it when playing "just for fun". There are a lot of crazy middlegames resulting from this option and you'll also  "learn a lot of chess" from them.
Play the Alapin with 2.c3. Still a solid, more positional option Probably more ambitious than 2.c4.
Play the wild Morra gambit! (2.d4 cxd4 3.c3) This would be my favourite way to go if not for the fact that that Black can transpose to the Alapin if they want to.
Play some f4-based scheme, like the Grand Prix (more aggressive) or the Closed Sicilian (more solid)

As a final consideration, there is nothing wrong with 2.c4. Don't blindly believe the Statistics. It could be that there is a player skill bias against 2.c4, or perhaps that players who opt for this line haven't often studied it deeply. Filtering for games at different ratings could dramatically impact the result. In my opinion, the main problem with 2.c4 is that Black can choose between a closed, symmetrical position with an eventual ...e5, or simply try to exploit the d4 square with ...g6, ...Bg7, ...Nc6-d4 and so on....


Is it true that women's style of play tend on average to be slightly more aggressive than men's style of play? As we know, women chess is much more unpredictable than men’s. Women chess is also uncompromised and very entertaining. Men chess is more solid, pragmatic and conservative, and women game, on the contrary, is brighter, more emotional.
-Andrei Selivanov, Vice-President of the Russian Chess Federation

Is this true? Do women tend on average to be more aggressive and more tactical in nature while men are more solid and positional?

No. The evidence I've heard for the argument you saw was that top women's play has a lower draw rate than top men's play. The problem with that line of thinking is that if you look at men's games at the same Elo level as the top women, about 2500-2600, the draw rate is the same.


Why was 20.Qe3 so good in Botvinnik-Sorokin? Why was 20.Qe3 so good in Botvinnik-Sorokin?

It doubles the pawns, and doesn’t do much else.

First of all, it was played by Botvinnik, a strong World Champion, and one of the most logical players ever, so it clearly has to do more than just let black ruin the white pawns.

It does many things:

It trades off black’s best piece, the active Qc5, and it cannot be
avoided with Qc7? Nxe5!. Trading your opponent's active pieces is very desirable, and I suspect this was the primary motivation for Botvinnik even looking at Qe3.
Despite the fact that those pawns have been weakened, they control
many critical squares. They are also very hard to get at, so
although they may matter in the endgame, black cannot attack them
anytime soon, and other factors will be much more important.
This is a principle that is not seen often, and often missed by
weaker players, but sometimes when you trade down material when attacking,
particularly, trading off a good defender, it allows the remaining pieces to
strengthen, and they become unopposed. In this case, the doubled
rooks are now monsters, and white’s significant lead in development
is going to show even more.
How does black develop the Bc8? In the game, he chose g4 but soon
actually had to strengthen white’s pawns after all.
Lastly, black is going to have a hard time defending e5, and it is
attacked immediately.

The minor weakness, that black can't even get near, was nothing compared to the weaknesses that were exposed when the black queen was no longer on the board to defend them. In short, the Qc5 was the glue that held the black position together, and without it, there was no defense.

 [FEN ""]
 [Event "URS-ch07 Final"]
 [Site "Moscow"]
 [Date "1931.10.25"]
 [Round "2"]
 [White "Botvinnik, Mikhail Moisevich"]
 [Black "Sorokin, Nikolay Tikhovich"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "D60"]

 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 c6 8. O-O a6 9. a4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 c5 11. dxc5 Bxc5 12. Qe2 h6 13. Bh4 Be7 14. Rfd1 Nh5 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. Rd2 Nb6 17. Rad1 Qc5 18. Ba2 Nf6 19. e4 e5 20. Qe3 Qxe3 (20...Qc7? 21. Nxe5!) 21. fxe3 Bg4 22. a5 Nc8 23. Rc1 Bxf3 24. gxf3 Ne7 25. Nd5 Nc6 26. Nxf6+ gxf6 27. Rd7 Rab8 28. Kf2 Nxa5 29. Rcc7 Rbc8 30. Rxf7 Rxc7 31. Rxc7+ Kh8 32. Bd5 b5 33. b3 Rd8 34. Kg3 f5 35. Kh4 fxe4 36. fxe4 Rd6 37. Kh5 Rf6 38. h3 Rd6 39. h4 Rb6 40. Kg4 Rf6 41. Ra7 Rb6 42. Re7 Rd6 43. Rc7 Rf6 44. Ra7 Rb6 45. Rc7 Rf6 46. Kh5 Rd6 47. Bf7 Rf6 48. Bg6 Nxb3 49. Kxh6 Rf8 50. Rh7+ Kg8 51. Rg7+ Kh8 52. Bf7 Rxf7 53. Rxf7 Kg8 54. Kg6 Nd2 55. Rd7 1-0


Openings that tempt opponents to overextend? What are examples of provocative openings where the opponent can be baited into playing more aggressively than they normally would, ie. pushing a lot of pawns or sacrificing material to keep an advantage? Here are a few I can think of:

Hippopotamus Defense
Alekhine's Defense
Scandinavian Defense (Portugese Gambit)
Pseudo-Trompowsky

In general, I'm looking for any nonstandard opening that is objectively dubious and "looks" bad on the surface because it violates chess principles (ie. not putting pawns in the center / moving pieces out when they can easily get attacked by pawns), but leads to good practical chances and positions where the opponent is out of their comfort zone.

Norwegian Defense.
Perhaps THE best scoring defense on Lichess (White scores below 45% on 2000+ rating), even though it is positionally dubious and does not set any tactical traps.
[FEN ""]

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3. e5 (3. Nc3 d5 4. e5 Ne4 5. Nxe4 dxe4) Nh5


What are the differences between playing online and OTB? What are some differences between playing online vs playing OTB (over-the-board)?  If you are used to playing online, like myself, would playing OTB have a big impact on your play?

Disclaimer: I don't belong to any sort of chess club, so OTB might mean something a little different for me and others like me.

One difference for me is the time constraints - OTB games for me are quite casual, and I don't own a chess clock, so while the players might rib each other during a particularly long "think", there aren't any hard and fast time rules.  On the other hand, internet games always have the clock running, for obvious reasons.  My play is worse online, probably because of that.  For one thing, I never have the time to set aside an hour for an internet game, so I tend to choose the 10 min ones, resulting in shallower play.  My OTB games, on the other hand, tend to go a lot deeper.

I haven't noticed any objective effect on my OTB games from playing on the internet, though.  Since going online, I've been able to appreciate the lack of pressure in casual OTB games.  The net effect is that I feel I play better OTB, so I'm more confident than I used to be.


Why Qe1 in the KIA? Why not Re1? rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/3P1NP1/PPPNPPBP/R1B1QRK1 w kq - 0 1

I see that many players play Qe1, but why not just Re1? What is the difference? Doesn't the queen on e1 also make the potential weakness of a black battery from c8-h3 by exchanging the light squared bishops?

One reason the set-up with Re1 is less popular could be that it loses a pawn in a certain quite common variation:

[FEN ""]
[Title "KIA with Re1"]
[Startply "15"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c6 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. O-O Bf5 5. d3 h6 6. Nbd2 e6 7. Re1 Be7 8. e4?

Do you see black's tactic?

   After 8. ... dxe4 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Nxe4, white has opened the file allowing for Qxd1!, forcing the Rook to abandon the Knight and black ends the exchange sequence up a pawn.


Strategy for next move in a crowded situation White is in the presumably better position in the situation below. However, under such conditions (e.g. there are tight formations of many pieces on the board), I find it usually hard to 'breach' the opponent's defense, i.e. to capitalize the advantage.

For example, I tend to favor c4 as the next move and subsequently trying to capture/exchange pieces in order to clear the way to the king.

The question here is what the direction of white's next moves should be?

[FEN "2k1rbnr/ppp5/1q4p1/3pNp1p/1P1P4/B1P1P1P1/P3Q2P/1KR1R3 w Kk - 0 1"]

The position you are having here is also quiet though I guess.
You can ask yourself first: What do I want to play for?
Then you can analyse the position as the following:
1.) Black has some kind of weakness in the g6 pawn, how can I attack that?
2.) The rook is placed good for opening the c-file, how do I achieve that?
3.) What are the ideas for black in the position?

Then you can search for answers for those questions.
1.) There is no direct way to attack that, but 1. h4 would fix the pawn structure for the moment, therefore it would fix the weakness.
Nevertheless, after 1... Bg7 your knight is not very stable on e5, so you probably have to move it away and there is no real way of keeping the pressure on g6, therefor the plan to go for the weakness doesn't really appeal to me.
2.) If you want to play c4 and you want to sidestep Bxb4, a5 ideas, 1. Ka1 could be a smart move. If you assume for a moment that you have to moves in a row, 1.Ka1 2. c4 would allow 2... Bxb4 but after 3. c5 Qa5 4. Bxb4 Qxb4 5. c6 you would have some initative.
3.) Black has several plans, like kicking the knight away from e5 with Bg7, placing the own knight on e4, making pressure on e3. However, placing the knight on e4 is not easy yet since Nf6 allows Nxg6. Therefore black needs to kick the knight away with Bg7 or Bd6 (the latter one allows c4 with threatening c5).

Now you can think of what happens if black tries any of them after 1. Ka1/h4 like 1... Bg7 2. Nd3 and so on, seeing which option seems to be the best objectively and so on improve your position.


White to force the end of the game in two moves I found this hilarious problem and hope people will have fun solving it:

Niels Hoeg, Skakbladet 1907

[FEN "8/8/6p1/5pP1/5P1K/5PpP/4p2p/2Q2Bkr w - - 0 1"]

White to end the game in two moves.

In this case, that means that white plays moves so that, no matter what black moves, the game is finished after black's second move at the latest.

Very nice puzzle! Looks like the solution is as follows:

[FEN "8/8/6p1/5pP1/5P1K/5PpP/4p2p/2Q2Bkr w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe1 g2 (1... exf1=Q 2. Kxg3 Qxe1#) (1... exf1=R 2. Qxg3#) (1... exf1=N 2. Qf2+ Kxf2 (2... gxf2)) (1... exf1=B 2. Kxg3) 2. Bxe2# 1-0

Interestingly, in the different lines, following results are achieved:

White gives a checkmate
Black gives a checkmate
White is stalemated
Black is stalemated