Chess opening and chess master to look up to I'm lazy doing long calculations for each chess move though I like the open-line games which of course would require longer calculations than the closed ones which target simplification.

Question is...

Can you direct me to chess openings that won't require me to do long calculations but would give me an open game? Can you also note some grand masters which are not that of a genius but like to play the open line games?

Thank you in advance!

This is kind of a weird question because, as you rightly note, open games usually are more tactical and sharper than closed games. But it is possible to play 1.e4, and by extension the open games, in a quieter and more positional manner than is usually done.

The most famous proponent of this way of playing is Anatoly Karpov, who played 1.e4 throughout his life and is nevertheless regarded as a very positional player.

But the player I would recommend you study is a different one:
I have always found that, of all world class players nowadays, Mickey Adams is the most instructive to follow. Like Karpov he is a 1.e4 player and something of a positional genius. Unlike Karpov he doesn't rely on a team of seconds to get him to the forefront of theory, so I have always found him to play more "ordinary" positions. If you look at his games you can usually easily imagine getting this kind of position in your own games (unlike some super sharp 30-move theory battle other players indulge in).

Generally regarding openings this would mean playing the Ruy Lopez against 1…e5, the Tarrasch against 1…e6 and either the Rossolimo or some short castles + a4 + f4 against the sicilian.
Against 1.e4 you would play e5. And against 1.d4 I think Adams usually plays the Nimzo, though that might be outside the scope of this question aka open positions.


E.Umnov's chess problem, 1944. Checkmate in two moves White to play and checkmate in two moves.

[title "E.Umnov's chess problem, 1944"]
[FEN "k7/5QK1/3n1pb1/1R1p1r2/5p2/8/1p6/4R3 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.Re4, threatening 2.Ra4#. Black has many possible moves, but all of them allow either Ra4#, Qa2# Qb7#, or Rxe8# (did I miss any?).

(In the spirit of "teaching a man to fish", if you can't solve a checkmate problem and decide to give up, you can always feed it to a chess engine and get an instant answer without having to wait for someone to reply to an online post. For example, try https://lichess.org/analysis ).


How will the World Championship work in 2013? How will the World Championship challenger be determined, and then how will the actual championship match between Anand and the challenger work?

I realize that some of the details might not yet be determined (location and specific rules).

The World Chess Championship 2013 will be a match between the World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand, the winner of the World Chess Championship 2012, and a challenger.

The challenger to the match will be decided using an eight-player double round-robin tournament (the Candidate's Tournament), to be held in London from March 13 to March 31, 2013. The eight players will in order of rules announced by FIDE consist of:

Peter Svidler (Russia), Alexander Grischuk (Russia), Vassily Ivanchuk (Ukraine), Boris Gelfand (Israel), Magnus Carlsen (Norway), Levon Aronian (Armenia), Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), Teimour Radjabov (Azerbaijan).

The championship match is scheduled from November 6 to November 26, 2012. The match conditions (number of games played, time controls and tie breaks) have not been announced.

FIde has not determined location yet, supposedly Chennai, India is being considered, but this has not been confirmed on the FIDE website.

You can find more details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2013

http://www.fide.com/index.php?option=com_fidecalendar&view=fidecalendar&ny=2013


Proven ways to improve calculation speed I've been working on my tactics using on-line resources like Chess Tempo. I found my improvement (as measured by my CT rating) over the last few months to be encouraging, but I struggle to translate this into significant OTB results. I do find that I make far less obvious tactical errors when not in time pressure, but when the clock starts going low (as it usually does by the end of the middle game stage for me) I still tend to make mistakes that I can only describe as shocking.

I'm in a stage where I can more or less understand the tactical motifs presented to me eventually, but not in the time frames that are typically useful for real OTB play.

Are there proven or known methods for speeding up tactical evaluations and calculations? Things like

Do blitz-style puzzles. The way blitz mode seems to work on sites like CT is that you have a limited amount of time to solve the puzzle - but my fear is that this will simply cause me to fall back on intuition rather than actually improve calculation speed.
Do the same puzzles over and over? I'm worried that once I've memorised a puzzle, then I'm not doing so much calculation as memory retrieval.
Just continue doing normal puzzles and calculation speed will improve by itself? Seems like this could take some time ...

Any other/novel ideas that I need to consider?

You say: "Do the same puzzles over and over? I'm worried that once I've memorised a puzzle, then I'm not doing so much calculation as memory retrieval."

Memory retrieval is exactly what you should be doing! The brain improves recall not by repeated input, but by repeated output. This is why reviewing notes is a terrible way to study for a test, and why memorizing and recreating your notes from scratch is what top performers do.

The concept that should be driving your improvement is chunking. Chunking is the process whereby you are able to immediately recognize more complicated concepts without thinking. You still calculate during a live game, but instead of spending 60 seconds working out a tactic, you should learn to see that tactic immediately so that you can spend that 60 seconds on something important. If you cram tactical patterns into your brain, and learn to see them in less than 1 second, while your opponent is spending 30-60 seconds reinventing the wheel, you are going to crush your opponent. On the flip side, if you are trying to calculate everything at the board, you are going to lose. You improve when you are away from the board. Once you are at the board, you only play. You only have the skills you developed away from the board.

An example of chunking is when you learned to read. First you learned letters, then small words, then bigger words, then phrases, and sentences. Now when you read, you do not look at some writing and say, "there is an H, there is an I", nor do you even look at it and say, "there is the word Hi". You see the word "Hi" and you immediately understand the meaning without thinking.

Learning to walk is another example. As an adult, you do not think, "move the left foot, catch your balance, now move your right foot". No, you walk down the street without thinking. If a car is going to hit you, you run as fast as you can without thinking. Your body and mind learned how to handle these more complex situations and they know what to do without thinking. The same happens with chess improvement.

For chess, you want to reach the point where a simple tactic presents itself on the board, and it pops off the board at you without thinking. Once you can do this, you can move on to more complex tactics and combinations that require deeper calculation, but until you can recognize simple tactics without thinking, your mind is moving far too slow to attempt deeper calculation during a live game. As long as you are trying to do difficult tactics problems involving 5-move combinations, before you can see simple tactics instantly, you are never going to improve.

The approach I have seen recommended by masters (NM Dan Hesiman, GM Rashid Ziatdinov, among many others), is to get a simple set of tactics problems such as John Bain's Chess Tactics For Students, and you do the same tactics problems over and over. Your goal is not to figure out the tactic on your own. The goal is to get as many patterns into your brain as you can, so that when you see a similar pattern during a live game, it is immediately clear to you without thinking. Doing tactics problems is not about achievement and getting a good percentage correct. It is only about cramming patterns into your brain. That means, if you do not see the answer quickly, look at the answer and move on.

The plan is:

Do simple tactics problems over and over, until you can fly through all of them without making a mistake.
If you don't see the answer after 30-60 seconds, look at the answer and move on. Come back to the problems you missed later.
Stick to one tactical theme at a time. Once you have mastered one tactical idea, only then start another.
GM Ziatdinov recommended this approach: Number your list of tactics problems. Start doing problems 1-10 until you can do them all perfectly. Then do problems 11-20 to perfection. Then repeat problems 1-20 to perfection. Now do problems 21-30, then repeat 1-30. Repeat this until you can do all problems perfectly. He had a list of over 3000 tactics problems on his website, and he said if you followed this approach you would have the tactical ability of a grandmaster.


Is any tool which allow analyse EPD file and add evaluation score per I want specify depth/multi PVL? I tested some tools which allow analysis EPD files but they not work like I want:

I can use Arena but it will not annotate back EPD - it create protocol file.
I can use SCID vs PC but it will not allow to set depth for EPD file.

I found some Python script but it also not support depth and multi PV.

I can write such tool by I do not want duplicate known software. Do you know any tool which allow analysis EPD files.

With  GradualTest, you can use it to control an engine to analyze a set of positions. The only version available through web.archive is 2.4 (a compiled version and program source) but exists version 2.6. The author is Gunnar Malin, available in GitHub.

Its syntax is:
GradualTest [switches]

** switches:

/a -    Init time in second, default=2.
/c -    Command to reset hash. Defaults to 'new'.
/e -    Method to set up the board. Values: edit, cbedit or setboard.
        Default=setboard. (cbedit is used if the engine have implemented
        Chessbase's method of edit.)
/i -    Input file to be tested.
/o -    Output file.
/s -    Init string for the engine. Defaults to
  'xboard\nhard\neasy\nnew\nlevel 1 1440 0\npost\n'.
/t -    Time to use at each position.
/w -    File to write positions with move not found.
/g -    File to write positions with only good moves
/u -    Use the UCI protocol.

It write also the following epd fields:

acd - Depth of the search for the pv line.
acn - Number of node serched for the pv line.
acs - Seconds searched for the pv line.
ce  - Centipawn evaluation of the pv line.
pm  - The best move from the engine.
pv  - The last pv line (pv=Predicted Variation).

With crafty (a winboard engine) I configured it in 'crafty.rc', sd=21 for instance, but with enough time to reach a depth of 21 ply. When the time to reach this depth was inferior than the time provided with GradualTest, the program somehow knows that position analyze has finished and proceded with the following position.


How is this checkmate? So I'm somewhat of a new player to chess and I'm currently reading a chess book which is explaining all the different terms. In one instance it describes what stalemate is; "If your opponent has no legal legal moves and is not I)in check, then you have stalemate and not checkmate"

It then gives an example of stalemate and then a non stalemate example which it labels as checkmate.

The confusion that I have is why it labeled the second one as checkmate. Isn't checkmate when the king piece is in check and there is no legal moves it can make? Thus in the second example it isn't in checkmate because the king can still move around on the 8th rank and there is no immediate danger to it so it isn't in check either... Or does checkmate also include being trapped in a certain row, column or diagonal length with no other moves you can take except to move along those boxes?

The position shown in board 2 is not a checkmate, as you correctly say.

The book is not completely clear here. The sentence "Checkmate with Queen and King" is only the task of an exercise: you have to set up the position you see on a real board, and move the pieces trying to checkmate the black king using the white Queen and King. The checkmate is not there yet, you have to play and find it. It is not immediate, it will take some moves.


Mutual Zugzwangs & Longest Checkmates (DTM, DTC and DTZ) in the endgame KRPP vs. KRP Are there any surveys on mutual zugzwang positions and the longest checkmates (split into categories of DTM, DTC, and DTZ) in the endgame KRPP vs. KRP (King+Rook+2 Pawns vs. King+Rook+Pawn)? In particular, I would be interested in the full-point-mutual-zugzwangs in this endgame.
Unfortunately, the 7 men tablebases are not available for free online, and I do not know how I can download the required files (including all needed additional files due to the possibility of (under)promotions).

I have been able to find information for everything asked of. However, I have not found any large surveys; just mere snippets.

Mutual Zugzwangs

This page on http://ruszchessstudies.blogspot.com/ provides several examples of half-point mutual zugzwangs along with some general information. Here is one of them.
[FEN "3K4/P7/P7/8/8/8/R5rp/3k4 w - - 0 1"]

As for full point mutual zugzwangs, one such position was given by @mbourzut in this a Rybka forum. This forum contains numerous drawing and winning positions; a small survey.
[FEN "8/8/2P5/2r1p3/RK1kP3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

DTC

The record for the longest DTC sequence is 79 moves, according to page 24 of this arves.org PDF. It contains further information KRPP-KRP endgames.
 [FEN "8/r7/2K3p1/k7/8/8/P4P2/1R6 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rb7 Ra6+ 2. Kc5 Ka4 3. Rd7 Ra5+ 4. Kd4 Rf5 5. Ke3 Kb4 6. Rd6 Re5+ 7. Kd4 Rf5 8. Rb6+ Ka3 9. Ra6+ Kb4 10. Ke3 Re5+ 11. Kf3 Rg5 12. Re6 Ka3 13. Re2 Kb4 14. Kf4 Rg2 15. Ke3 Rg1 16. Rc2 Re1+ 17. Kf4 Rg1 18. f3 g5+ 19. Ke3 Re1+ 20. Re2 Rc1 21. Rg2 Rc5 22. Rb2+ Ka3 23. Rd2 Rf5 24. Rc2 Kb4 25. Rc7 Kb5 26. Rc8 Re5+ 27. Kf2 Kb6 28. a4 Rd5 29. Rb8+ Kc6 30. Kg3 Rf5 31. Re8 Kd7 32. Re4 Rd5 33. Kg4 Kd6 34. Re8 Rc5 35. Kh5 Rf5 36. Re3 Ra5 37. Ra3 Kd7 38. Kg6 Ke7 39. Ra2 Ke8 40. Kf6 Kf8 41. Ra3 Ke8 42. Re3+ Kf8 43. Re4 Kg8 44. Ke7 Kg7 45. Kd6 Kf6 46. Kc6 Ra8 47. Kb5 Rb8+ 48. Kc4 Rc8+ 49. Kb4 Rb8+ 50. Ka3 Rh8 51. Re3 Rh3 52. Rb3 Ke7 53. a5 Kd8 54. Ka4 Rh4+ 55. Rb4 Kc8 56. a6 Rh6 57. Ka5 Rh7 58. Rb6 Rg7 59. Rb7 Rg8 60. Rb5 Rg7 61. Rb6 Rf7 62. Kb4 Rf4+ 63. Kb5 Rf5+ 64. Kc4 Rf4+ 65. Kd5 Kc7 66. a7 Ra4 67. Rf6 Kb7 68. Rf7+ Ka8 69. Ke5 Ra2 70. Rg7 Rg2 71. Ke4 Rg3 72. Ke3 Rg2 73. Kd3 Rf2 74. Ke4 Re2+ 75. Kf5 Re3 76. Kg4 Re4+ 77. Kg3 Rg4+ 78. Kf2 Rc4 79. Rxg5

DTM

The record for the longest DTM sequence is 218 moves. It can be found on page 105 of this PDF, created by Guy Haworth, about tablebase length records.
[FEN "8/k1P5/8/8/1R5P/7p/r7/1K6 b - - 0 1"]

1... h2 2. Kxa2 h1=Q 3. c8=R Qd5+ 4. Kb1 Qa5 5. Rcc4 Qe5 6. Ra4+ Kb6 7. Rc2 Kb5 8. Rac4 Qg7 9. Rc5+ Kb4 10. R2c4+ Kb3 11. Rc3+ Kb4 12. R5c4+ Kb5 13. Rc7 Qg1+ 14. Ka2 Qg2+ 15. Ka3 Qg1 16. Rb7+ Ka6 17. Rb2 Qa1+ 18. Kb3 Qe1 19. Rc6+ Ka7 20. Rc4 Qe6 21. Rbc2 Ka6 22. Ka4 Qd7+ 23. Rc6+ Ka7 24. Kb3 Qd5+ 25. Kb4 Qh1 26. Rc7+ Ka8 27. R7c4 Qh3 28. Ka4 Ka7 29. Rb4 Qd7+ 30. Ka3 Qd3+ 31. Kb2 Qd5 32. Rbc4 Qh1 33. Ka2 Qd5 34. Ka3 Qd6+ 35. Kb2 Qf6+ 36. Kb1 Qb6+ 37. Ka1 Qg1+ 38. Ka2 Qg8 39. Kb2 Qd8 40. Ra4+ Kb6 41. Rb4+ Ka5 42. Rbc4 Qh8+ 43. Kb3 Qg8 44. Ka3 Qf8+ 45. Rc5+ Ka6 46. h5 Ka7 47. Kb4 Kb6 48. Kb3 Qf3+ 49. Ka2 Qf7+ 50. Kb2 Qf6+ 51. R2c3 Qf2+ 52. Ka3 Qf8 53. Ka4 Qf1 54. Rc6+ Kb7 55. h6 Qa1+ 56. Kb4 Qb2+ 57. Rb3 Qd2+ 58. Kc5+ Ka7 59. Ra3+ Kb7 60. Rb6+ Kc8 61. Ra8+ Kc7 62. Ra7+ Kc8 63. Rc6+ Kb8 64. Ra4 Kb7 65. Rb4+ Ka7 66. Rc4 Qe3+ 67. Kd5 Qd2+ 68. Ke5 Qe3+ 69. Kf5 Qd3+ 70. Ke6 Ka8 71. Rc8+ Ka7 72. R8c7+ Ka6 73. h7 Qh3+ 74. Kf6 Qh6+ 75. Kf5 Qh3+ 76. Kf4 Kb5 77. Rc3 Qh1 78. Rb3+ Ka6 79. Rd7 Qh4+ 80. Ke5 Qg5+ 81. Kd4 Qf6+ 82. Kd3 Qg6+ 83. Kc3 Qg3+ 84. Kc2 Qg2+ 85. Kb1 Qf1+ 86. Ka2 Qe2+ 87. Ka3 Qe5 88. Rbd3 Qa1+ 89. Kb3 Qb1+ 90. Kc4 Qc1+ 91. Kd5 Qg5+ 92. Ke4 Qg4+ 93. Ke3 Qg5+ 94. Kf2 Qh4+ 95. Ke2 Qe4+ 96. Kd1 Qg4+ 97. Kc1 Qc4+ 98. Kd2 Qf4+ 99. Re3 Qf2+ 100. Kd3 Qf5+ 101. Kc3 Qc5+ 102. Kd2 Qa5+ 103. Rc3 Qa2+ 104. Ke3 Qe6+ 105. Kf2 Qb6+ 106. Re3 Qf6+ 107. Rf3 Qb6+ 108. Kg2 Qg6+ 109. Kf1 Qb1+ 110. Ke2 Qb5+ 111. Ke3 Qe5+ 112. Kd2 Kb5 113. Rdf7 Qd5+ 114. Ke2 Qe5+ 115. Kf1 Qh2 116. R3f4 Ka5 117. Ke1 Kb5 118. Kd1 Qh5+ 119. Kd2 Qd5+ 120. Ke2 Qe6+ 121. Kf2 Qh3 122. R4f5+ Ka4 123. Ra7+ Kb4 124. Rb7+ Kc4 125. Rc7+ Kb4 126. Rf4+ Kb5 127. Rfc4 Qh2+ 128. Ke3 Qh1 129. Kd2 Kb6 130. Kc2 Qa1 131. R4c6+ Kb5 132. Rc3 Qa2+ 133. Kc1 Qa1+ 134. Kd2 Qb2+ 135. Ke3 Qh2 136. Kd3 Kb6 137. R3c6+ Ka5 138. Rc5+ Kb4 139. Rc4+ Ka5 140. Kc3 Kb6 141. Kb3 Qh1 142. R4c6+ Kb5 143. Rc2 Qf3+ 144. Kb2 Qh1 145. Rf2 Qh4 146. Rf3 Qh2+ 147. Kb3 Qh1 148. Rf5+ Kb6 149. Rcf7 Kc6 150. R7f6+ Kd7 151. Kb2 Qh2+ 152. Kc3 Ke7 153. Rc6 Qg3+ 154. Kc2 Qg2+ 155. Kb3 Qg3+ 156. Rc3 Qb8+ 157. Kc4 Qc7+ 158. Kb4 Qb6+ 159. Rb5 Qd4+ 160. Kb3 Qd1+ 161. Ka3 Qa1+ 162. Kb4 Qb2+ 163. Kc4 Qh2 164. Kb3 Kd6 165. Rb7 Qh1 166. Rbc7 Ke5 167. R3c5+ Kd4 168. Kb2 Qh6 169. Rb5 Qf8 170. Rbb7 Ke4 171. Rc4+ Ke5 172. Rc3 Qf2+ 173. Kb3 Qh2 174. Re7+ Kd6 175. Rec7 Qh1 176. R3c5 Ke6 177. Kb4 Kf6 178. Rd7 Ke6 179. Rcd5 Qe1+ 180. Kb5 Qb1+ 181. Ka6 Qa1+ 182. Kb6 Qb2+ 183. Rb5 Qh8 184. Rb7 Kd6 185. Rf5 Ke6 186. Rh5 Qd4+ 187. Ka6 Qa4+ 188. Ra5 Qe8 189. Re7+ Qxe7 190. h8=Q Qd6+ 191. Kb5 Qd5+ 192. Kb4 Qd6+ 193. Rc5 Qb6+ 194. Rb5 Qd6+ 195. Kb3 Qd1+ 196. Ka3 Qd6+ 197. Rb4 Qd3+ 198. Ka4 Qc2+ 199. Rb3 Qc4+ 200. Ka5 Qc5+ 201. Ka6 Qc4+ 202. Rb5 Kd7 203. Qh5 Kd6 204. Qf5 Kc7 205. Qc5+ Qxc5 206. Rxc5+ Kd7 207. Kb6 Kd6 208. Rh5 Ke6 209. Kc6 Kf6 210. Kd6 Kg6 211. Rd5 Kf6 212. Kd7 Kf7 213. Rd6 Kf8 214. Ke6 Kg7 215. Ke7 Kg8 216. Kf6 Kh8 217. Kg6 Kg8 218. Rd8#

DTZ

The DTZ length records can be found in the Syzygy endgame tablebases. Here are the record positions without the moves.
[Title "Longest Winning DTZ, Without The 50-Move Rule-136 ply"]
[FEN "6k1/8/3pP1R1/3P4/8/1K6/8/3r4 b - - 0 1"]

[Title "Longest Winning DTZ, With The 50-Move Rule-100 ply"]
[FEN "2r5/8/8/2pP3K/2P5/3R2k1/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

[Title "Longest Losing DTZ, Without The 50-Move Rule-124 ply"]
[FEN "1k6/4K3/5R2/8/5P2/1p6/3P4/4r3 w - - 0 1"]

[Title "Longest Losing DTZ, With The 50-Move Rule-63"]
[FEN "8/8/8/K7/P5R1/1k6/P1p5/r7 b - - 0 1"]


Can pieces follow different paths from one square to another in a single move? I am implementing a chess game. I am aware of the rules but I have not played it much. I need clarification on a small point.
Suppose a player legally moves a piece from square A to square B. Consider the path this piece followed during this move. Can it be different based on the type of piece?
I am not able to find such a case.
Edit :- I am adding the interface code that I am dealing with to make it more clear as asked by some people to give more context.
public class Chess {

    ChessBoard chessBoard;
    Player[] player;
    Player currentPlayer;
    List<Move> movesList;
    GameStatus gameStatus;

    public boolean playerMove(CellPosition fromPosition, CellPositionb toPosition, Piece piece);
    public boolean endGame();
    private void changeTurn();

}
public abstract class Piece {

Color color;
public boolean validate(CellPosition fromPosition, CellPositionb toPosition);
}

public class Knight extends Piece {
public boolean validate(CellPosition fromPosition, CellPositionb toPosition);

}

Similarly there will be classes for other pieces as Knight. Now if a player want to move in chess from some position X to another position Y, the validate() method of the Piece will be called by playerMove() of chess,validate() can only check whether the move is valid or not.Like for the given pieces,say knight, it will check that from given location,the destination is one of 8 valid moves.For Rook it can be any one of four directions and so on.
The playerMove() function makes a call the the Piece.validate() function and then it gets to know that it is a valid move.The problem that I am trying to address, now once playerMove function in chess, knows that it is valid move, it does not know that whether there is any piece in between from given location to destination?Because the piece dont have context of Board,it cannot detect it thing and it has to be done in playerMove() function of chess.So i will write a code here to generate the list of possible squares that are involved from source to destination. Will that list of squares will always be unique ?or can it be different for diffeent piece? Because apart from knight ,all moves in straight or diagonal so it should be unique ,so I want to clarify on this .If still question not clear, please let me know.but

For queens, bishops and rooks moving from square A to square B there is only one way that move can be made and all the squares in between must be empty for that move to be legal.
For a knight moving from square A to square there are generally two ways but that is irrelevant because knights can jump over pieces in the way.
For castling there is only one way the king can move from A to B and the intervening square must be empty for that move to be legal and the king must be moved first. For castling there is only one way the rook can move from A to B and all the squares in between must be empty apart from the king for that move to be legal.


Looking for a Python chess engine I am looking for a Python chess engine package. It must be fully contained in Python, I don't want to download separate files for the engine itself and link them up somehow.

All I want it to be able to do is take a FEN and provide best move. It should obviously be a strong engine, at least 2500 rating.

I have experience with only SunFish, but I doubt it's 2500+ level.

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

This link should help you. If you're not happy with the folks at talkchess, you probably won't find a better answer anywhere else.


How to indicate that "I need more time to consider your draw offer" in a formal game? When my opponent makes a draw offer,  I will consider whether to accept this draw offer or not and this consideration could take very long, say 20 minutes or more.

What is a good etiquette now to tell my opponent that I am neither declining nor accepting this draw offer; instead, I simply need more time to consider it?

To tell my opponent to "wait"? Or simply remain silent while considering? Or something else?

The polite way to react to a legally made (opponent moves, offers draw and then presses the clock) draw offer which you are not going to immediately accept is to say something like "I'll think about it".

In a team competitions it is quite common for the player offered the draw to stand up and go and look at his teammates' games to see the standing in the match before making a decision which affects team success. This is allowed even though it is the player's turn to move. You are not glued to your seat when it is your turn but you must not leave the "playing area" - generally the room where the event is taking place. You may even ask your team captain if you may accept the draw (unless the competition rules specifically forbid this). You may follow or reject your captain's advice.

It is also acceptable, though less polite, to completely ignore your opponent as you may be tempted to do if they are offering a draw in a lost position.


Why isn't 6. Be3 popular in this Sicilian Defense line? Why isn't 6.Be3, with the "English Attack" idea, really popular against 1. e4, c5 2. Nf3, Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4, Nf6 5. Nc3, d6?

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "10"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be3

Although it's very popular against the Najdorf and Scheveningen variations? Is ...Nc6 that strong, compared to ...e6 or ...a6?

There is the following line, similar to what happens if black reacts the same way in the Najdorf:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5
9.Bg3 Bg7

This is a mess, but Yermolinsky argues that the extra developing move (...Nc6 instead of ...a6) black has compared to the Najdorf version should make this relatively better.

So if white wants to play the English Attack here, it is more usual to play 6.f3 first and only then Be3.

But there is another reason that is at least as important: 6.Bg5 (the Richter-Rauzer attack) is really good, and there is no good road to equality known for black, as far as I know.


What are the most popular chess community websites? I am building a chess website (www.uscfstats.com) and would like to get input from the chess community and raise awareness.  I've been out of the loop for a few years, ever since I stopped playing seriously, and don't really know what the most popular chess websites are anymore.  ChessNinja seems to have fallen off completely, while chess.com has gotten much more serious and chesstempo is more well known than that emrald site that everybody used to use.

What are the most popular chess community websites?

In no order of priority:

http://chess.com is relatively new to the scene, but they have Pogolina on
board who will definitely pull in the traffic
Chessbase News is really a chess product site masquerading as a news
site, but they cannot be disregarded. They have relay services on their playing server (similar to ICC and FICS), but here we will limit discussion to the onsite features only
Chess in Translation is an initiative by mishanp to offer
translation of Russian content (particularly juicy commentary by
Shipov of chess.ru)
WhyChess is known for its live relays (probably the most
feature-complete at time of writing, and have been used at several
official events) but they have expanded into news and blogs as well.
ChessBomb is a relay and playing site getting constant plugs from Susan Polgar.
Chess Games Database and Community (and frogbert) probably needs no explanation.
ChessOK is a product and relay site, probably the first to integrate full Rybka (now Houdini) evaluations into its relays. The interface is not as fanciful as WhyChess but is clean and good.


Getting better at chess Can anyone recommend some type of training schedule that I can use to get better? I'm rated around 1445 and it just seems like I should be much better. If you have a schedule that worked for you maybe I can modify it to work for me.

A couple of suggestions:

Solve chess puzzles daily. Use 'mate in two' puzzles (also called combinations) only. 'Mate in three' is usually more complicated and requires more time/energy and is less emotionally satisfactory (you may lose interest).
Note: in classical (which you should use) 'mate in two' puzzles a. first move is never a check b. rarely a capture
Analyze openings as well. I think that ending is a good thing to study. But what is the use of it if you cannot get to ending without proper knowledge of openings?
I would suggest to especially focus on opening tricks, because at your level many people may try to apply them (use simple logic: it's easier to 'catch' a beginner than an advanced player)
I would suggest study 1.e4 openings for white (open)
For black you may choose 1. ... e5 (the 'classic' response) however 1. ... c5 (Sicilian) 1. ... e6 (French) and other 'main-stream' responses are good as well.
Every time analyze games that you played. Try to find either a club with a coach, find a coach on the internet, ask your friend or... simply do it yourself (if no other options available).
All leading chess players advanced mainly by analysis of their mistakes.
Analyze games of leading chess players: Kasparov, Karpov, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik and etc. etc. This you can do on your own or with a coach. In fact, I would suggest to analyze them on your own by reading comments to the moves (usually comments are made by other leading players)
Play regularly. If you can't play in tournaments, play online. ICC (Internet Chess Club) is a great choice (I play there a lot for many years)

I hope it helps!


Best Continuation for this Counter to Queen's Gambit Accepted [Title "White to move"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5

I've tried just taking the pawn at c4, but he takes my pawn at d4 and after exchanging some pieces I end with a broken pawn structure while we still have equal pieces.

I've came across this move many times and is dumb-struck at finding a solution.

At that point Black is simply equal and there is nothing you can do to change it ( you would do better to play e4 instead e3 but ...e5 still solves all of Black's problems ). If you wish to play e4 instead of e3 then you need the book Lars Schandorff-Playing the Queen's Gambit ( 2012!) and be sure to get the  second edition ( first was in 2009 ). He covers this line quite well.

Your best bet is to try and steer the game into main lines with isolated queen pawn. There you will find subtle move orders that may offer you a small advantage. I can not remember the details, so I can not show you the lines, but the position you aim for is something like this :

[Title "Typical position for QGA"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/8/2BP4/2N2N2/PP2QPPP/R1BR2K1 b - - 0 1"]

You will need good coverage of this opening as theory changes rapidly. I can recommend the following books:

To learn how to play with the isolated queen's pawn you can get Andrew Soltis-Pawn Structure Chess ( 1995 ) ( perhaps my answer to this question can help you too; if you need further help feel free to ask by leaving a comment ) and for Queen's Gambit accepted I will recommend the one written by Semkov & Sakaev or J.Rizzitano-How to beat d4. You can also get Starting out-Queen's Gambit Accepted ( 2006 ) if you need to grasp the basics.

SUMMARY:

Play Bxc4, then Nf3 and try to get into favorable line of the QGA. If you fail to do so, do not panic! You are both fine, better player wins here! Learn how to play these positions and you will have equal chances to win the game.

Good luck and best regards!


I am trying to understand chess moves Hi I am trying to learn chess, and when I review my moves, I just don't understand how Nd4 is a good move and how nh4 is a blunder.
Thanks.

14.Nxd4 takes a pawn on d4, and it attacks the bishop on h5. So if black takes back with 14...cxd4, then white has 15.Bxh5, leaving white a pawn up (knights and bishops have roughly the same value). And if black wants to avoid this with 14...Bxe2, white can take back with the knight on d4 (15.Nxe2) so that it is safe too; again, white wins a pawn. And if black retreats the bishop, white retreats the knight, and is again up a pawn.
14.Nh4 does not win a pawn, so that already makes it a bad move when winning a pawn is available. But that is not all: black can first exchange bishops (14...Bxe2, forcing 15.Qxe2) and then fork the bishop on f4 and knight on h4 with 15...g5, winning a piece and opening lines against the white king.
That makes 14...Nh4 a blunder.
More importantly, I am not a chess.com user, but can't you press on those magnifier icons to see the line the engine has in mind after each move?


How can the french opening be avoided? I'm really not good at the french when I'm with white, is there a good way to avoid it and get my opponent outside of their preparation?

I'm assuming that you are trying to avoid French-like positions, rather than avoiding the named opening - the latter is latter impossible after 1.e4 as most texts consider the French beginning as soon as black plays 1.e6.

In short, if you want to play 1.e4 regularly there is no way of avoiding the French Defence with a 'standard' opening. After 1.e4 e6, all sensible moves from White can be made to resemble some features of the French if Black wants to press the game in that direction.

To give some general advice: avoiding an opening by playing really unusual moves almost always results in objectively worse positions if your opponent plays correctly. Because of this, I'd recommend putting time into finding a response to the French that gives you a position that you feel more comfortable with. The Exchange variation is very different from the Advance, which is different again from the Classical and Winawer. With the number of different lines you should eventually be able to find something you at least don't feel too uncomfortable playing. Alternatively, a system-like approach with the King's Indian Attack (KIA) or similar could work if you don't want to learn lines that your opponent may be more familiar with.


Can I improve my chess? Or am I too old? I am 25 years old. I have been interested in playing chess since my school days but I never played seriously. One year back I realized that I want to become good chess player and I started. Most of the time I play online games on chess.com. I am a very poorly rated player, about 1100 on chess.com. I have two concerns here.

Am I too old to start chess? I have been playing for almost 1 year but I didn't find much difference in my chess rating. How many days will it take for me to become a good player like 1800+?
Whenever I lose my game, I lose my confidence and I am very afraid to play the next game. I sometimes feel bad after a loss, especially if I lose against a lesser rated player than me. Does anyone else get this feeling?

There is never too late to learn anything (chess, phd, new job, skateboarding). Also you have really small chances of being new superGM :-).

Analyse, not just play. Each game you lost you should review and try to understand why exactly have you lost. Your analysis should depend on your chess level.
Learn standard openings (first starting moves and be sure that you know how to reply to them as well as easy traps to avoid and exploit). No need to go too deep (trying to memorize 15 moves if you are on 1100 level), start with 5 moves and try to understand the reason with them. While doing this look how to reply to standard opening that people use against you.
Solve puzzles
Learn standard endgames like mating with Q or R, to be able to win in easy situations

And do not be scared (you aren't in a boxing match where you can have some problems if you lost). All you are losing are the imaginary points on the imaginary server to an imaginary guy whom you most probably will never see again. There are things in life more scary than that.


How do strong players think during a game? What is the best chess technique?
I mean, how do World Champions think in a game? What happens in their minds?

Do they think of their moves in advance or they just know what to move because they have practiced a lot?

I ask this because I've seen some videos with really fast players and it is hard to imagine that somebody can think so fast.

When chess players play very fast, they think in much the same way that you think when you talk really fast. You don't think about nouns and verbs and grammar and dictionary definitions of words, although language is incredibly complicated; you have that all internalized. Good chess players have internalized the standard patterns of chess the way that you have internalized the standard patterns of speech.

Now, if you're writing a formal essay, with lots of time in which to write it, you'll spend lots of time thinking about how to construct your argument, exact word choice, possible objections of the reader that you want to address in advance, etc. Similarly, chess players think very carefully and deliberately when they have a long time to think.


How to draw this rook and pawn vs. rook endgame? According to endgame tablebases, this position is a draw:

[fen "3r4/6R1/1kp5/8/8/8/5K2/8 w - - 1 61"]

 1. Ke3 Kc5 2. Rg4 Kb5 3. Ke2 c5 4. Rg3 Kb4 5. Ke1 c4 6. Rg4 Kb3 7. Rg7 c3 8. Rb7+ Kc2 9. Rb4 Re8+ 10. Kf2 Kd2 11. Rd4+ Kc1 12. Rc4 c2 13. Rc7 Rb8 14. Ke2 Kb2 0-1

Nevertheless, I (as black) played on and marched the king and pawn down the board and won without much trouble.  The endgame tablebase gives 3. Ke2 as the losing move.

  Question: How does one draw this endgame as white?  (Is there a name for this position?)

I'm not finding the tablebase particularly educational.  It works, but I'm not sure why.

In your diagram/game, black is allowed to set up a Lucena position and therefore wins. However, with correct way of harassing the black king, it is possible to prevent that from happening. After 2... Kc5, you can utilize what's called a frontal defense by playing 3. Rg1. In the lines shown below, black simply cannot proceed.

Note, that this defense may or may not work depending on which line and how advanced the opponents pawn is - see reference below.

3r4/6R1/2p5/2k5/8/4K3/8/8 w - - 0 2

1. Rg1 Kb4 2. Rb1+ Kc4 (2... Ka4 3. Ra1+ Kb3 4. Rc1 Rc8 5. Kd4 (5... Rd8+ 6. Kc5=) Kb4 6. Rb1+=) 3. Rc1+ Kb5 4. Rb1+=

If black moves his rook away from d-file in attempt to block your checks or harass your king, then you can bring your king in front of the pawn and set up a 3rd rank defense - Philidor position or a back rank defense (depending on how the game develops).

Also, this wiki page gives an excellent quick overview of R+P vs R endings.


Does taking tranquilizers count as cheating in chess? In the second episode of The Queen's Gambit, from Wikipedia's summary:

After her overdose, Beth is forbidden to play chess. Time passes and Beth is adopted as a teenager by suburban couple Alma and Allston Wheatley. Allston is emotionally distant and frequently leaves for "business trips"; it soon becomes clear that their marriage is not a happy one. At her new high school, Beth is bullied by the popular girls from the "Apple Pi Club" for her drab clothes. Beth discovers her adoptive mother is taking the same tranquilizer pills that she was given at the orphanage and secretly steals some for herself, allowing her to play mental chess again. She also steals a chess magazine and learns about the upcoming Kentucky State Championship. She writes to Mr. Shaibel, who sends her the money for the entrance fee. As she cruises through her games, she develops a crush on one of her opponents, a young man named Townes. After the second day of the tournament, during which her periods start, Beth comes home to find that Allston has deserted them. Beth fears that she will be sent back to the orphanage, but Alma tells her they will lie so she can stay. During her final game of the tournament against Harry Beltik, the highest-ranked player, Beth becomes flustered and runs to the restroom, where she takes a tranquilizer pill, then wins the game. Upon learning of the prize money on offer in a tournament in Cincinnati, Alma hatches a plan for the two women to support themselves.

(emphasis mine)
I'm aware that there is some kind of anti-doping tests in chess, but I do not know what the tests test for. Does taking tranquilizers count as cheating in chess?

The World Chess Federation (FIDE) uses the list of prohibited substances published by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
I did not see tranquilizers on the list, although I can't say I'm familiar enough with the names of medications to know for sure.
Tranquilizers would seem to be a rather counterproductive way to cheat in most sports, which might explain why they're not on the list.


Attack Opening For White I'm kinda new to chess and I'm trying to learn new openings that are aggressive.

I've used the Fried Liver attack many times. Are there any other opening(s) which are close to the Fried Liver attack that I could use?

For white

The Danish Gambit.

For black

A variation of the four knights with 4. Bc4 will lead to an opening of the game for black by the means of 4...Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5.

Alternatively, 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Nxe4 may also occur with sharp play (although you do give up the bishop pair, Black also gave up his right to castle).

Related: Very Aggressive Openings


How often do grandmasters miss checkmate? Although top players are extremely good at finding checkmate, the number of permutations of moves in just 3 moves can be hundreds of thousands, and the farther out the possible mate (e.g. mate in 4, mate in 5), the more permutations are possible; so it is understandable that a checkmate will sometimes be missed by top players.
Engine analysis of past grandmaster games would reveal missed checkmates - what percent of classical games did/does a grandmaster miss a checkmate?

Probably more often than people realize.
There have been several notable instances where GMs (even world champions) have missed simple mates in one.
From my own experience, when I analyze my games the engine frequently will point out some ridiculous 25 move forced mate. In a game, I'm not going to take the time to calculate something like that out if I have a very clear, simple and direct win. Maybe it takes a couple of moves longer but who cares?


What is the name of this unconventional opening? You start by moving the knight's pawn on either side to b3 or g3. Then you do the same on the other side. Ideally, you fianchetto the bishops into both triangle pawn formations.
 [FEN ""]

1. b3 null 2. g3 null 3. Bb2 null 4. Bg2

I tried to use it as Black, but I am still struggling to make it into a strong defense, as it appears to be rather a powerful offensive opening. This opening seems to be gaining popularity at least for White, but I struggle to find information about it on the Internet.

This set up is often called "The Hippo", a possible reason is that bishops look like the eyes of a hippopotamus.
For example: Eric Rosen: Don't Mess With The Hippo


Sicilian with 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.Nf3? I don't know much "Sicilian" theory, and decided to develop instead to defend e4. My opponent captured, and I got the pawn back with the obvious Qa4 check. Although he tried to start a queen hunt, she was never in real danger, but quite annoying for black. After finally pushing to d4 I had a fine play and managed to win. I couldn't find anything about this line, so I guess there must be serious drawbacks, and so I'd like to see a refutation.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5. Qxe4 Bc6 6. Qf4

Black has a small advantage in your position, but it's certainly not unplayable for white.  Stockfish rates the position you've given around -0.2, which is pretty close to even.  If black plays well it seems difficult for white to get a good d4 break, though if black tries too hard to chase the queen perhaps white will be able to get back the advantage.  The main problem seems to be that the pawn on c3 is counterproductive: white can't play d4 with advantage and the pawn on c3 interferes with white's queenside development.

Stockfish suggests the following line, where black retains a small advantage (around -0.3)

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5. Qxe4 Bc6 6. Qf4 e6 7.Na3 Bd6 8.Qg4 Ne7 9.Nc4 O-O 10.Nxd6 Qxd6 11.Be2 e5 12.d3 Nd7 13.O-O Rfe8

Black is somewhat better off playing Nc6 on the 4th or 5th moves instead of occupying that square with the bishop.  White is still fine, but should avoid 4. ... Nc6 5. Qxe5 and instead play 5. Ne5.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Qa4+ Nc6 5.Ne5 (5.Qxe4 Nf6 6.Qc2 a6 7.d3 e5 8.Nbd2 Be7 9.Nc4 Qc7 10.Be2 O-O 11.O-O Nd5 ) Bd7 6.Nxd7 Qxd7 7.Qxe4 Nf6 8.Qf3 e6


How can I build my opening repertoire and memorization? I have been playing chess for the last two years. I am trying techniques like controlling the center, not allowing weak pawn structure, etc. Now I am trying to build up an opening repertoire. My question is where to start? Which openings should be checked first? Are there any techniques for memorizing these openings?

If I study some openings and their variations, will that help in memorizing other openings? In other words, are there any patterns in these openings? Glad to hear from experienced players soon.

This is a pretty broad question.
But you can follow some simple steps.

1. "What kind of player am I?"

This is the first question you should ask yourself. Do you like complicated tactical combinations that can give you attacking chances? Or your playing style is more quiet and you prefer positional battles, where you build your advantage little by little? Once you have answered this question, you can choose openings according to your preferences, finding positions you feel more comfortable with.

2. Black and White

To build a complete repertoire you may choose openings you like the most, and your choice should include openings for both Black and White side.

Instead of memorizing long sequences of moves, variants, and so on, I tend to privilege a different approach, more gradual and less "automatic". To help you in this work, you'd better have a general "opening book", or follow a general "chess openings website". It should cover the most common openings, giving you also explanation for each move, and maybe some example games. And last but not least, it should be recent, since theory is running fast.

You should start choosing your repertoire when you play with White, since it's easier.

Let's begin considering only the 2 more common moves for White, 1.e4 and 1.d4.
Are you a tactical player? Do you like attacking your opponent's King? Then you should start with 1.e4. Do you prefer positional play and a solid approach? Then go for 1.d4.

Let's assume you chose 1.e4. Now, what are the most common responses for Black? I think they are: 1...e5 (Open games), 1...c5 (Sicilian Defense), 1...e6 (French Defense), 1...c6 (Caro-Kann). Once you have found which are those responses, you have to face them ONE BY ONE.

For example, in case your opponent plays 1...c5 and goes for a Sicilian, what should you do with White? Again, find the most common choices: 2.Nf3 (Open Sicilian), 2.c3 (Alapin), 2.Nc3 (Closed Sicilian). Let's say you choose 2.c3. What are the most common responses for Black? ...and so on.

To help you in your choices, read your opening book, and choose moves whose comments seem to adhere to your playing style (that's why step-1 of this answer is important). Never choose a variation just because it's said to be "the best" or "the most popular". Pick moves according to what you feel about it, unless there's a clear confutation to that move.

After you've have arrived at a certain point (after 2-4 moves), you should go back and face the next "mosto common choice" you've left behind. Now, let's assume that Black plays 1...e5. What move should you choose? You find the most common moves, choose one, and go on a little bit. And again, and again, until you exhaust all those "most common choices" you left behind.

With Black you do basically the same thing, with the exception that you have to face from the beginning different first moves by White (at least, you should find your responses agaist 1.e4 and 1.d4).

3. Learning, not memorizing

In this way, little by little you build some "trees" of opening moves, one for White and at least two for Black. Each branch of those trees is a "path", a choice you make when you make your move. But you should never "memorize" the move itself. You'd better learn the meaning that lies behind each move: "why you play this instead of that?" is the question you always have to find the answer to, when you study openings.

At first, your trees might be very short, and you might get confused even after sequences of 3-4 moves. But if you play regularly, you'll manage to master the openings you've chosen, and then you can deepen your tree-paths, add branches (variations), and choose many of them during the game, thus varying your game (and this will improve your playing strenght, since you'll run into different tactical-strategical situations).

When you'll feel more confident you can go and read books that focus on specific openings. You will widen your trees, play various kind of games, and learn that sometimes tactical-strategical ideas behind an openig are used also in a different opening. You'll learn evetually about the good and the bad in moves transposition, and how to manage them. But you'll have to work hard to get there. :)

Take just one step at a time. :)


Stockfish Evaluations I've been getting Stockfish to analyse lines of the KID, and the evaluation gives a score of around +1.5: White has a big advantage. How come this is true, when the KID is a playable(and good) opening? I've also seen the same problem with Stockfish analysing the Neo-grunfeld, and similar hypermodern openings where White gets a large center.

Very related: Traxler Counterattack
The answer is effectively the same: White has roughly a +0.5 advantage in the starting position, and a shift of a few centipawns one way or another is acceptable, but if that advantage has grown to +1.5 there's a problem. Do note that the starting position of the KID, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 is evaluated at about +0.5. If you are getting +1.5 book exit, you've gone into some dubious territory. It doesn't matter what human analysis thought of the line before the advent of computers - if you go into these lines today, and your opponents are armed with engines, you are asking for trouble.
That said, it's worth pointing out that the King's Indian is a difficult, unbalanced opening that even computers don't understand perfectly. That's why it is disproportionately represented in the opening book for engine tournaments - it gives great chances for one engine to outplay the other. But: even these engine tournaments do not usually start with book exit lines of +1.5. That's very likely going to lead to a 1-0, 1-0 game pair.
For illustration, here are some Stockfish evaluations of known bad lines:

e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5?! (see TCEC Season 15 games 43/44): +0.8

d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. Bg5 f6?! 6. Bd2 b5 (see TCEC Season 18 superfinal game 8): +0.74

e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qe6+? (Patzer variation): +1.1

Pawn odds (White starts without f2-pawn): -1.5

e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5? (Latvian): +1.7

e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6? (Damiano Defense): +1.9

e4 e5 2. Ke2? (Bongcloud): -2.1

As you can see, you have to play some pretty terrible lines to get > +1.5 book exit.
In short, if you are Black, interpret the book exit evals as:

eval < 0. Obviously the best, but will never happen without cooperation from White.
0 < eval < 0.5. The next-best, this is what you will usually be shooting for.
0.5 < eval < 1. Most commonly seen in engine tournaments where the aim is to see if the engine can defend the inferior position. Not recommended for actual tournament play.
1 < eval < 1.5. These lines come close to being busted. You could conceivably play them if you are after an adventurous game, or if it leads to complicated positions where you could hope to outplay inferior opposition, but it's a bad idea to take them up as a mainstay of your repertoire. A computer can still conceivably defend Black's position, but humans are going to suffer.
eval > 1.5. If you ever include these lines in the opening book of an engine tournament, be prepared for viewers to start talking about how you've chosen these lines to make the engine with Black lose.

Edit: since some people were unconvinced about the role book exit plays in opening selection, see this article by Jeroen Noomen (who selects the openings used in the Top Chess Engine Championship, the unofficial world computer chess championship):

The complexity of a position and the book exit evaluation are the most important selection criterions. Book exits have been checked with classical Stockfish (development version, contempt = 0) on a 16 core Ryzen system and Leela Chess Zero v0.26.0, with the net that played in the TCEC 18 superfinal. As mentioned above, book exits are significantly higher compared to season 16 and before, to keep the games interesting and avoid boring draws. Nevertheless, there are also some lines with a lower book exit, especially in the theoretically interesting lines.

Low book exits will lead to boring draws. High book exits can lead to wins, which of course bodes badly for the engine that has the worse position out of the opening. These openings might still be viable in human play, but the keyword here is "human play"; objectively they are subpar and against an opponent armed with engines you are asking for trouble.


What's the goal of a minority attack? I understand the definition of a minority pawn attack, is when one side has less pawns than other in a flank of the board (or any sector) and advances them to trade them with the oponent. The question is why would I want to do that? I imagine there is a different purpose of that for every game, but possibly there is a general reason that applies to various games. I heard here: https://youtu.be/ziCLlmz0ATo?t=4m26s that minority attack serve the purpose of leaving pawn weakness. Probably leave an isolated pawn?

The point of the minority attack, you have correctly pointed out, is to force pawn weaknesses. Usually, the weakness that you are going for is to create a backwards pawn. This weakness is very difficult to deal with for your opponent. Normal play is to gang up on the pawn, double your rooks along the file.


Knight + King vs Knight + King - Loss on time I am quite new to chess and I wonder what someone can do about the following situation:

Me (white): Knight + King, 1 minute left
Opponent (black): Knight + King, 3 minutes left

By the following rule:

If only one player has exceeded the time limit, but the other player
does not have (theoretically) sufficient mating material, the game is
still a draw. Law 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states that: "If a
player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the
allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is
drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the
player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the
most unskilled counterplay." For example, a player who runs out of
time with a sole king versus king and bishop does not lose the game.
It is still possible to lose on time in positions where mate is
extremely unlikely but not theoretically impossible, as with king and
bishop versus king and knight. (Under USCF rules, king and bishop,
king and knight, or king and 2 knights with no pawns on the board is
not considered sufficient mating material, unless the opponent has a
forced win, even though it is theoretically possible to mate (but
extremely unlikely to happen) in situations such as K+B vs. K+N).

this is no immediate draw.
The opponent keeps running away until I am out of time and lose the game.
A sample game can be seen here (I blundered on move 60 here, I could have got his knight but I pre-moved everything because I had around 5 seconds time left). But we can see here that he also does not take my knight to not make it a draw so I lose on time.

You have three choices:

Always play with an increment, then this won't arise because you can always move within the increment
Try and fork your opponent's king and knight. Either he takes your knight or you take his knight next move - result = draw. Or the best and simplest with so much time left
Just play very fast until you have made 50 moves without any pawn moves (there won't be any because there are no pawns left) and without any captures (if there are any then the game sill be draw.)

One minute should ample time for you to just make 50 moves with your knight. Quality doesn't matter in this case.
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
9.3.1 he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will
result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without
the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

Most online servers implement this automatically. If 50 moves are made with no pawn moves and no captures then the server ends the game as a draw.


Why did Alekhine decide to move his king to c3 before playing b3? In the following photograph, Alekhine decided to move his king to c3 before playing it to b3. Afterwards he moved his king back to the starting point, i.e. e2. Why didn't he just play b3 right away, which is so much easier?

The game can be found here on chessgames.com.In the current postion, it is Alekhine’s 34th move.

[Title "Alexander Alekhine-Max Euwe, London England, 8/4/1922"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "66"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. Nbd2 c5 5. e3 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. h3 O-O 8. Bc4 Re8 9. O-O e5 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Bxe5 dxe5 12. Ng5 Be6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Nde4 Nxe4 15. Qxd8 Rexd8 16. Nxe4 b6 17. Rfd1 Kf8 18. Kf1 Ke7 19. c4 h6 20. Ke2 Rxd1 21. Rxd1 Rb8 22. Rd3 Bh8 23. a4 Rc8 24. Rb3 Kd7 25. a5 Kc6 26. axb6 axb6 27. Ra3 Bg7 28. Ra7 Rc7 29. Ra8 Re7 30. Rc8+ Kd7 31. Rg8 Kc6 32. h4 Kc7 33. g4 Kc6 34. Kd3 Rd7+ 35. Kc3 Rf7 36. b3 Kc7 37. Kd3 Rd7+ 38. Ke2 Rf7 39. Nc3 Re7 40. g5 hxg5 41. hxg5 Kc6 42. Kd3 Rd7+ 43. Ke4 Rb7 44. Nb5 Re7 45. f3 Kd7 46. Rb8 Kc6 47. Rc8+ Kd7 48. Rc7+ Kd8 49. Rc6 Rb7 50. Rxe6

He probably wanted to make the time control which is usually on the 40th move before making any comittal decisions.


Is there a way to watch blitz championship currently on chess.com on youtube? Carlsen vs Grischuk: GM Blitz Battle Chess is currently being played on chess.com and being streamed on the chess channel on twitch.

My connection is very slow at the moment and I'm super busy and I'd like to watch previous matches especially the one that Carlsen played the other day. I have a free account on twitch and chess.com. Cess.com doesn't upload everything to youtube.

If they don't upload the video, is there any other way that I can watch the video?

The stream from earlier today is available to be viewed here.

There will be another broadcast tomorrow, but that will be a separate stream, with a different link to view (and the link won't be available until tomorrow).


Suggestion for a good chess engine on Linux I'm using GNUChess with the Knights client (Knights doesn't seem to be THAT mature; crashes are common). Is there any equivalent of Chessmaster on Linux? What about good clients to play on servers like FICS.

I currently use Jin to play on FICS. But I think Jin doesn't expose all the functionalities of the server, e.g. chat isn't there in Jin.

Engines:

Toga II (Package).
Glaurung (Package).
Fruit (Package).

All three are installable via Ubuntu Software Center and all three are UCI compliant (ie. so runs in Chessbase Fritz, Chess for Android, and/or Arena GUI). Arena is used with FICS so you should be able to use all 3.

Except for Glaurung I used both on occasion and was very satisfied with them.

Installation:

sudo apt-get install toga2 glaurung fruit


Example of a Karpov vs. Kasparov game with a controversial move Full disclosure: I'm not a regular chess player. This question is because I'm writing a book about alternate timelines, and I want to use a game in a real life famous chess match as a point of divergence. I'd like an occasion in which a sizeable portion of pundits and specialists thought a different move should have been made, and the player who made that move lost the game, or squandered an allegedly easy win for a draw.
It'd be great if it was in the 1984/85 Karpov/Kasparov championship match, but any headlines-making match at any point in history would do. It could be Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, or Karpov vs. Korchnoi, for example.
If I use your suggestion, I promise I'll properly credit you. And the players involved. Even if it's a computer.

If you don't mind going a bit earlier, then it has to be 1972 Spassky–Fischer (mother of all World Championships) Game 1.
Fischer played 29...Bxh2? a move that few players would consider in light of the obvious 30.g3, trapping the bishop.
EDIT Later analysis (Speelman 1981) showed that the game is not lost (and can be drawn with extremely precise play), though the move was sub-optimal and the line becomes really sharp after 30. g3. The real blunder happened on move 37 with 37...Ke4 instead the optimal move again was just 37...a6. However, going by principles and elementary tactics 29...Bxh2? was an unnecessary move and chances are Fischer overlooked the fact that the trapped Bishop couldn't be saved.


Database of chess results I'm looking for a database or a collection of the chess results of all FIDE-rated games (standard time control). The data I'm interested in is: the white player, the black player, the result and the date for each game. I've checked the FIDE-website, however, I could only find the published rating lists.

Is such a collection available? If so, where would I be able to download it? Thanks in advance!

I'm looking for a database or a collection of the chess results of all
  FIDE-rated games (standard time control).

Such a database exists but only on FIDE's computers and they don't make the data easily available in its entirety.

The data is available but you have to select and download one tournament at a time. Here's how:

Go to the FIDE Ratings Archive page. There you have the ability to Browse Rated tournaments by country. You select a federation from a drop-down list and a period from another drop-down list and click on the "go" button. For instance if you select "Russia" and "April 2019" then you get this page.

The first two tournaments are rapid tournaments but the third looks like a standard tournament. On the end of the row of that tournament there is a hyperlink "inf" for information. If you click on it then you get the general tournament information including time control and, indeed, it is

  Standard: 90 minutes with 30 second increment from move 1

Scroll down a bit further and there is a crosstable element with a blueish icon next to it. Click on it and you get the results of all the games in the tournament.

If you go back to the page with the list of tournaments for Russia for April 2019 you see similar blueish icons on the left side of the page next to the tournament names. These will take you to the same place more quickly.

If you are determined to get all the results going back to July 2001 then you can do so by building your own web crawler to navigate the site automatically and screen scrape the cross table pages for all the tournaments in all the periods for all of the federations, extract the data you want and build your own database.


Endgame Tablebases-What are they? I've been reading and enjoying the site immensely.
What is the "Endgame Tablebase"?  I see it referenced frequently.

Endgame tablebases are essentially databases containing known endgame positions that have been “solved”, so to speak. That is, every position in an endgame tablebase will have a corresponding result which will either be a win for white, a win for black, or a draw (assuming perfect play). They are used by chess engines because it is much more efficient for the computer to look up an endgame position in a database to get the result of the endgame rather than exhausting all the possible variations to determine the result.


Black plans in Taimanov/Kan Sicillian? So anyways, I decided to take up learning Taimanov and Kan Sicillian so I was wondering if someone could just tell me what are the basic plans of this opening, what I've seen from my brief analysis is that black's black squares are going to get exposed since his attack on the c3 square seems inevitable, b5 and Bb7 looks quite tempting as a plan, and how afraid should I be of white's attack on the queenside?
Also what are some good books to study for these variations?

The book The Most Flexible Sicilian by Delchev & Semkov covers both the Kan and Taimanov. Each part contains a section that presents the main ideas before going into detailed theory. A more interactive and better introduction to the Taimanov is given by Sicilian Taimanov by Emms. It is part of Everyman's Move by Move series which presents a Q&A style.

The Kan and Taimanov are not as theoretical as the other Sicilians but is still very flexible and discussing plans in different variations will be cumbersome. I have found that looking at annotated games of well known practitioners is useful in learning plans in the opening. Some practitioners of the Taimanov are Ulf Andersson, Anatoly Karpov and Mark Taimanov.


What are Complication and Simplification in Chess? I want to know whether I understood these concepts correctly.

Complication:
I think, in a given position, usually the side that is slightly inferior tries to make moves that somehow put considerable strain on the better side about which action to choose. Thus it tests one's ability to clearly calculate the labyrinth of all possible variations. Generally the lesser mortal fails and hence passes on the edge to the side that created such complication.

Simplification:
I presume simplification is the reverse of it. By simplification I mean reducing number of pieces while maintaining the winning edge. I suspect the general idea behind simplification is to prevent any counter-play by the opponent. I guess the side with winning advantage always tries to simplify matters while the other side indulges in complicating.

Is it correct?

I don't think its easy to answer your question since both of these concepts can have multiple definitions depending on who you ask, but I'll give it a shot.

Generally, in the case where one side is winning, your conceptual understanding is correct.

When the position is equal, creating complications or simplifications are a matter of player preference.  For example, if Player A is rated lower than Player B, then Player A may be more apt to trade down (simplification) in order to get a drawish position.  In that case it is assumed that Player A would be content with a draw. Thus, reinforcing the statement that complications and simplifications are a matter of player preference.


Why is this position considered to give white a significant advantage? In this position, black's king is safe, has a secure queenside pawn structure, and has taken out white's left pawns and is up 2 points of material.  Despite this, lichess evaluates this position at +3.5.  Why?

[FEN "r4rk1/2p1qppp/1p3n2/p7/2B4B/4P3/PPQN1Pbb/2KRR3 w - - 0 1"]

1. f3 {traps the bishop} Rad8 2. Re2 Bxf3 (2...Bd6 Rxg2 Kh8 Rh1 {the Black king is not safe at all}) 3. Bxf6 Qxf6 (3...gxf6 Rxh2 {checkmate on h7 will follow}) 4. Rxh2 {threatening mate on h7} h6
5. Rf1 {the bishop is now pinned against the queen and will be won shortly} b5 6. Be2

f3 followed by Re2 wins a bishop (Re2 Bc6 f4 wins the other one), and with no pawns on the h- and g-files it will become evident that the Black king is not safe at all. This solution is simple enough to gain a significant advantage (+2). But there is an even more brutal sequence that wins both bishops with some finesse.


Can chess.com diamond package improve my game? There's a bug on chess.com, when playing online chess, and I'm about to lose on time, I wasn't receiving "you're about to lose on time" emails. I lost 2 games on time because of that. I contacted support and they gave me 1 month diamond package to make it up for me. And they are troubleshooting the issue.

Can chess.com diamond package improve my game? How is it best used? I want to make good use of it while I have it. Because as of right now, I'm not interested in buying it.

I want personal experience if possible, how you use it? did it improve your game? Would it improve my game in one month?

Yes, Chess Mentor training and chess.com videos can improve your game with daily training.

I've been a chess.com diamond member since November 2013 and have been pleased with the gradual knowledge and rating increase I've seen since subscribing.

The main perks of the Diamond package are their Chess Mentor and the chess.com video library. You get unlimited access to both. Here's how I'm using them:

The Video Library

Choose a video series such as GM Melik Khachiyan’s three-part “Becoming an Expert” (part 1, part 2, part 3), watch them all, and make quick notes about the key points you took away from each video. Really – take short notes; you'll retain more that way. Skimming through your notebook becomes really helpful too. There is little point in gaining knowledge if you can't retain it.

Every time you find an instructor you enjoy listening to, use the video index to find other courses they've authored and watch more from them — or just write down the name of their course in your notebook under a “to watch” list. Not sure who to start with? GM Melik Khachiyan, GM Ben Finegold, IM Daniel Rensch, and IM Thomas Rendle are all fun and informative. They make me feel good about chess. Melik, Ben, and Thomas are all professional full-time chess coaches, and Daniel's a strong player and one of the founders of chess.com.

Do this every day and you'll soon build up a thick notebook of tips and take-aways. You won't see a sudden dramatic improvement by doing this alone; instead, the idea is to absorb as many opinions, patterns, and maxims as you can. That way, in your future games, you'll have a team of amazing chess coaches in your head talking to you, whispering the knowledge and mantras you wrote in your book.

For example, GM Melik says in his Positional Tips series that, when you think you've finished calculating a line, always ask yourself, “what am I missing?” and make one final check. Hearing that voice has helped me avoid blunders. And, when an opponent plays aggressive chess right out of the opening with traps and fake threats, I often hear Melik’s advice to “stay strong, stay focussed” and repeat it to myself — a defensive mantra of sorts!

Chess Mentor

Chess Mentor is a fabulous tool — it forces you to play through the lines by moving the pieces as well as visualising the sequence, explains why you went wrong, cheers you along, and flows onto the next challenge automatically.

Use it every day for an hour if you can alongside tactics training and video watching. You can pick out an individual lesson that takes your fancy, or follow a more thorough Chess Mentor course by an author you like. You can also repeat lessons to drill them. For example, I did the opposition drills several times, and have found I'm winning more endgames now. I knew the principle of opposition, but it was only by practising it — by actively moving the pieces on a board rather than reading a book describing the sequence — that it sunk in.

Don't forget to bookmark your chess mentor rating page to keep an eye on your progress report and encourage yourself to keep going.

Not a replacement for playing slow games

Of course, while I've really enjoyed Chess Mentor and the videos on chess.com and ICC, if you want to get good faster, the things that have helped me so far are to:

Play lots of slow time control games, where you have time to think and find the best move every move. (Blitz is okay too, but most instructors will tell beginners and improvers to spend about a tenth of their time playing blitz as they do playing chess at longer time controls of 45 minutes or more.)
Review those games with your opponent, a computer, and a teacher.
Identify and correct flaws in your thought process that caused you to lose your game. (e.g. “I forgot to identify my opponent's checks, captures, and threats before making my move. In the future I will always think, ‘checks, captures, and threats’ before I play my move – every move.”)
Become really disciplined in your thinking process.
Play chess in two modes only: you play your best move every move, or you resign. (A tip from Dan Heisman.)


What are some good tactical opening moves? I have been playing chess for about an year now. But, I am unable to get past 1300 USCF rating. There are three phases in a chess game: opening phase, middle-game phase and end-game phase. When I get past the opening phase nicely, I usually win. But, what happens most of the time is that I get trapped in some clever openings from the opposite player and then, I try to recover from it.

Basically, I love playing tactical chess, and often get frustrated when I get caught in the tactical openings of the opposite player. So, I want to learn some good openings to improve upon my opening game for both white as well as black. A list could work or it would be best with the chess diagram illustration.

What I have learnt from experience is that: white attacks and black defends. Is it true? If not, how can black attack?

Your description is a bit general. It's true that White tends to have more active openings as he has the first move, but it's possible to employ counter-attacking openings. As you love playing tactical openings, I would suggest adopting the Sicilian Defense as black - it is known to have a very distinctive active and tactical style.

Avoiding clever opening traps by your opponent is a matter of experience. When you fall for one, make sure to never fall for it again! By expanding your opening knowledge, you can enter the first stage of the game comfortably and exit it with a comfortable position.


Which is better in the Rossolimo Sicilian, 3... e6 or 3... g6? [FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

In this opening is it better to do e6 to activate the dark square bishop which will protect c5 pawn. If the opponent plays Bxc6, it will have a double pawn in the c file but the dark squared bishop might help the pawn on c5 or g6 because I think the Bishop will be much better on the long diagonal. Also keeping open the option to recapture on c6 with the d-pawn to open the Queen and light squared Bishop. Also not worried about them doubling the pawns because of the Bishop pair to compensate.

I gave my explanation for both moves but which move do you think is Better?

It's really a matter of taste and style. One option may suit more your style than the other. But if you believe in a "moneyball approach", 3...e6 appears to be the "best" move for black based on a search on the 365chess.com website.
Regarding the number of games, I guess that the difference in black's winning chances (30.2% for 3...e6) versus (26% for 3...g6) should be statistically significant.

When you control for the level of players by focusing on the Master Database, the statistics also appear to favor 3...e6 over 3...g6.


Why is the Sicilian Defense considered hard to play? I have been told never to play the Sicilian. It is a very complicated opening that even grandmasters aren't ever able to analyze and play well enough. But why, I ask?

Good heavens.  Play it!

The Sicilian is not a defense for the lazy or defensive player - the Black side will need to be booked up, tactically sharp, and more than anything will need to understand why it works, and how to make it work.

Regarding that GMs can't play it, that's nonsense.  It's a deadly tool in their arsenal.

This opening's hypermodern ideas eschew some well-established 'rules' including immediate control of the center.  It encourages an asymmetric game that reduces the chance for a draw.  In many variations, black sacrifices the exchange on c3 in order to gain time and break white's center.

In the Sicilian, black frequently loses quickly or wins long.

Here's an example from 2013 of Anand with the black side taking apart 2716-rated Arkadij Naiditsch.  According to 365chess.com, this is an ECO B52, the "Canal-Sokolsky attack". As you can see from this game, the Sicilian may not be the best choice for the timid.

[fen ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 g6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bg7 9. O-O Nc6 10. Nde2 Qe6 11. Nd5 Qxe4 12. Nc7+ Kd7 13. Nxa8 Qxc4 14. Nc3 Rxa8 15. Bg5 e6 16. Re1 Nd5 17. Nxd5 Qxd5 18. Qxd5 exd5 19. Rad1 h6 20. Bc1 d4 21. Rd3 Rc8 22. Rb3 b6 23. Kf1 Ne5 24. Ra3 a5 25. b4 Rc2 26. bxa5 bxa5 27. Rxa5 Nd3 28. Ra7+ Kc6 29. Rxf7 Nxe1 30. Kxe1 Rxc1+ 31. Kd2 Rg1 32. Rxg7 Rxg2 33. Ke1 Rxh2 34. Rxg6 Rh1+ 35. Kd2 h5 36. Rh6 h4 37. a4 h3 38. a5 h2 39. a6 Kc7 40. Rh7+ Kb8 41. Ke2 d3+ 42. Kd2 Ka8 43. Rh5 Ka7 44. Rh6 d5 45. Rh8 Kxa6 46. Rh6+ Kb5 47. Rh8 Kc4 48. Rc8+ Kd4 49. Rh8 Ke4 0-1

Just for fun, here's Tigran Petrosian, the Patron Saint of Positional Players, dismantling Boris Spassky.  This is a B42 Sicilian, Kan variation.  (I like to mention such games because it's easy to get into the habit of thinking of some players as purely positional, or some as purely tactical players.  All GMs are competent in all aspects of the game.)

It's the 1st game of the 1969 world championship.  Again, we see a long game here.  Petrosian would lose the black side of a Sicilian Dragon to Spassky later in the same match, and it would be over in under 30 moves.

[fen ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.O-O d5 8.Nd2 Nf6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.b3 O-O 11.Bb2 a5 12.f4 g6 13.Rad1 Nd7 14.c4 a4 15.f5 exf5 16.exf5 Bf6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.Qf2 axb3 19.axb3 Ra2 20.fxg6 fxg6 21.h3 Qe7 22.Qd4 c5 23.Qf4 Bb7 24.Rde1 Qg7 25.Qe3 d4 26.Qe6+ Qf7 27.Qe2 Re8 28.Qf2 Rxe1 29.Qxe1 Qe8 30.Qxe8+ Nxe8 31.Be4 Rxd2 32.Bxb7 Nd6 33.Bd5+ Kg7 34.b4 cxb4 35.c5 Nf5 36.c6 Rc2 37.g4 Nd6 38.Rf4 d3 39.Rd4 d2 40.Bb3 Rxc6 41.Rxd2 Ne4 42.Rd7+ Kf6 43.Rxh7 Rc1+ 44.Kg2 Nc5 45.Bf7 b3 46.g5+ Kxg5 47.h4+ Kf6 48.h5 Rc2+ 49.Kf3 b2 50.Ba2 gxh5 51.Rxh5 Rc1 52.Rh6+ Ke5 53.Rb6 Na4 54.Re6+ Kd4 55.Re4+ Kc5 56.Rxa4 Ra1 0-1


Looking for instructive examples on how to defend against the Giuoco Piano or Giuoco Pianissimo (?) opening from Black's perspective e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 (The Two Knights Defence is my choice) 4. d3 and I am obliged to play the Giuoco Piano 4... Bc5. I am afraid of the middlegame positions that arise after this opening, because to me it seems that white is in the driver's seat being able to play anywhere on the board f.ex c3-d4 or Be3-fxe3 and then doubling rooks on the f-file or pushing a4-b4 and against all of these plans I feel lost. I can't get counterplay. I've attempted the usual operations: developing my pieces, striking in the center with the move d5 and aiming to equalize the game but it's complicated and I often end up losing the game if not in the short run then will have to endure until a blunder happens in the endgame after many moves of torture. Of course there are many other plans that white might execute but that's even worse for me.

[fen ""]
[Event "Ding Liren - Giri"]
[Site "Wenzhou CHN"]
[Date "2017.08.09"]
[EventDate "2017.08.08"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Ding Liren"]
[Black "Anish Giri"]
[ECO "C50"]
[WhiteElo "2777"]
[BlackElo "2772"]
[PlyCount "90"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. h3 d6
7. c3 a6 8. a4 Ba7 9. Re1 h6 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6
12. Nf1 Nh5 13. Be3 a5 14. Bxa7 Rxa7 15. d4 Qf6 16. Re3 Nf4
17. h4 Qg6 18. g3 Raa8 19. dxe5 Nxe5 20. Nxe5 dxe5 21. f3 Rad8
22. Qc2 Nh5 23. Kh2 Rf6 24. Rd1 Rdf8 25. Rdd3 Qf7 26. Qd1 Rg6
27. Qe1 Qe7 28. Kh3 Rxg3+ 29. Nxg3 Nf4+ 30. Kh2 Qxh4+ 31. Kg1
Rf6 32. Rd8+ Kh7 33. Rd2 Rg6 34. Rg2 h5 35. Rh2 Rxg3+ 36. Kh1
Qg5 37. Qf1 h4 38. Re1 h3 39. Rd1 Qh5 40. Rd7 Qxf3+ 41. Qxf3
Rxf3 42. Rhd2 Kh6 43. Rd8 Kh5 44. Rh8+ Kg4 45. Rd1 Ne2 0-1

I think that the way Anish Giri plays the Italian as Black is very instructive.
It is also funny that White faced all the problems you mentioned having as Black in this game, and it shows how Black avoided the headaches you named.
Some ideas (I would not call them rules...) in the Italian...

I like to go ...a6 and ...Ba7 immediately and only then ...d6. It gets the bishop out of harms way so that we are more flexible in how we react to moves in the center, like d4 (because d4 does not hit the bishop anymore). And we can still retreat it with ...Be7 if that is how we want to parry Bg5 (matter of taste if you want to go for ...h6 and ...g5).
If White goes for the pin with Bg5 before Black has castled kingside, we go ...h6, ...g5 kicking the bishop and we may go for a kingside attack (even after we castle kingside outselves!). A useful maneuver to enable a pawnstorm is ...Nf6-h7 supporting the g5 pawn to play ...h6-h5 (once we are ready).
If White does not go for Bg5 early and plays slowly, a good plan is ...h6, ...Re8, ...Be6 and then ...Rxe6 after the bishops are swapped. The rook may stay on the 6th rank or reatreat back to the 8th.
If White goes for Be3, swapping there is usually okay if we have not played ...h6 yet, as ...h6 weakens squares around our king and we might get crushed after a sacrifice. But you never really have to take and while the rook may look bad on a7, it is not as far from the action as it may seem (see the game I posted).

You will still learn some common mistakes by White, like mistiming d4, leaving f2 vulnerable and others. Another thing to look up is how to deal with unsound sacrifices on f7 or g5 (after ...h6, ...g5 White very often plays Nxg5, but it mostly is not sound).
You also need to look for active play. If White's move seems very slow, or his forces do not look fully coordinated, you might have an opportunity to seize the initiative by striking in the center or on the kingside (mostly). If you look at the game I posted, it is not clear where the initiative of Black came from, but it crushed.


Can you claim a draw, after the position has changed, if threefold repetition occurred earlier? I understand that when the same board position occurs three times in a game, with the same player to move, and having all the same possible moves, the game may be claimed as a draw by threefold repetition of positions.

If neither player makes a claim, and the game continues, and the position changes, is it legal for a (losing) player to thereafter claim a draw because threefold repetition had occurred earlier in the game? Or is a threefold repetition claim only valid when it involves the immediately current position?

(I consider the FIDE rules to be the "the rules of chess" and this answer is only about them)
No, you cannot claim. In fact your right to claim ends as soon as you touch a piece.
Here's what the rules say, emphasis in bold mine:

9.2.1     The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not
necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1   is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his
intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2   has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

So either it is about to appear, or it has just appeared, and not at any other time.
Then 9.4 ends the debate:

9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3, he loses the right to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move.

That's related to the touch move rule -- once you touch a piece that can legally move with the intention to move it, you have to do so. It's too late for claims.
If it were possible to claim at any later time, there would never be any reason to continue: as soon as it was clear one of the players was going to lose, they'd claim the draw.
But in the case of five fold repetition, it's different:

9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

If a position repeats five times, then that's just an automatic draw, no claim needed. If it is found out later during the "game" that a position was repeated five times some time ago, then that means that you just weren't playing the game anymore after that as it was already finished. You were moving pieces about.


Resignation when a draw is offered In a recent online game, I offered a draw when the endgame is clearly drawing. To my surprise, instead of replying to my draw offer, my opponent resigned. I have no idea why they did so and my best guess is a misclick.
I am brainstorming and I guess there might be some possible scenarios that one may resign when a draw is offered:

In a tournament, if winning is the only meaningful result for a player while drawing and losing make virtually no difference to them. Seeing winning is hopeless, they may resign instead of accepting the draw offer.
A player is clearly losing while his opponent who does not need to win the game, or in a hurry to leave, offered a draw. Embarrassesd at this draw offer, the player chooses to resign instead.
A player chooses to lose a game on purpose, such as keeping their rating lower so that they can enter some tournament with a restriction on rating.

I have two questions related to this:

When a draw is offered, can a player resign as a reply? I think it should be technically legal for them to decline the draw offer first and resign on the next move, but is it legal to reply with resignation when a draw is offered?
Though extremely rare, is it considered unsporting (if legal at all) to resign at a draw offer?

is it legal to reply with resignation when a draw is offered?

Of course. This is all that the FIDE Laws of Chess has to say about resignation:

5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

You can resign at any time during the game. It doesn't even need to be your turn. I have done this. I once played a move that would blunder my queen, realized as I pressed the clock and immediately resigned before my opponent could play the move I missed.

is it considered bad sportsmanship ... to resign at a draw offer?

No. Why should it be? There are some circumstances where it could be considered good sportsmanship. Suppose, in the last round of a tournament, player A requires just a draw to win the tournament outright and offers his opponent, player B, a draw in a completely winning position. Player B could accept the draw but it might be more sporting to just resign.


Why isn’t Black forced to prevent e4 in this Queen’s Indian Game? Today, I played this game in which I played the Queen’s Indian Defense. This position was reached:

I played Be7, which is a correct move. I wonder however, why Black isn’t  forced to play Bb7 in order to prevent e4? If White wants to, after exchanging on f6, they can play e4.

Compare it to my recently question regarding the move d5 by White in a Pirc Defense:

When is preventing e4 no longer a priority for Black?

In the Pirc Defense I even possessed a pawn in the 5th file which means I still had certain control over the center and yet in the Indian where I had no control of the center with advanced central pawns, e4 can be allowed. Why?

There is a huge difference here, and that is first, that you will get the bishop pair for white's big center, but also that your Bf6 is beautifully placed for they typical black move in the Queen's Indian, c5, which will cut across the a1-h8 diagonal. Also, the white center can be successfully attacked.

In the other example from the other question, cxd4 does not break up the center at all, and there was still the danger to the black king with e4-e5. You can see that in your game today, e4-e5 allows the queens to be traded, and will actually leave e5 vulnerable.

 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nc3 (5. Bxf6 $6 Bxf6 6. e4 d6 7. Nc3 Bb7 8. Be2 c5 {Breaking up the center or if d5, making the Bf6 a monster.} 9. d5 Qe7 10. O-O O-O 11. Re1 Nd7 12. Qc2 Ne5 {And black is very comfortable.}) 5... d5 6. e3 Bb7 7. Be2 Nbd7 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 O-O 10. Ne5 Nxe5 11. dxe5 Ne4 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Nxe4 Bxe4

By the way, while Be7 is not technically wrong, it is not in the spirit of that opening, and is a bit passive. Here is a typical line fighting for, and keeping control of e4.

 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Bg5 Bb7 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 Ne4 9. Qc2 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 d6 11. Bd3 f5


What do top players' get from coaches? I read an article about how Wesley So hired a coach. Well, Wesley is rated 2800 and is far stronger than his coach ever was. I'm just wondering what a coach would have to offer to a player as strong as Wesley, and if it's really worth the money.

In physical sports, coaches can provide plans. For example, in tennis, Nadal is a great player. His coach can give him plans so that Nadal can go out and execute them. The reason Nadal is better than his coach is because he can execute the plan.

But, in chess, the plan is the sport. If Wesley So's coach can make better plans than Wesley So, why isn't he a better player than Wesley ?

Being a good coach takes a different set of skills than being a great, or world-class player. You can't just say that the coach makes better plans, as that is over simplification and somewhat inaccurate. The point of the coach is typically to help the player identify and eliminate their weaknesses, whether it's tactics, strategy/positional considerations, technique, opening, middlegame, endgame, etc, or non-chess considerations like diet and exercise. The coach will also have different ideas on how a position could be played, and can be useful in bouncing ideas around with, or analyzing opponents weaknesses.


How to solve atomic chess? Since losing chess is almost solved, I believe that the next step towards solving chess should be atomic chess, which has less forced moves than losing chess but still a lot more than regular chess.

What are the practical steps we should take towards the solution of atomic chess? I seriously want to help solving it in my leisure time as well as learn more about game solving during this process..

Solving atomic chess is probably only feasible if it is a white win, like loser chess is.
To try to solve atomic chess I would probably write/acquire a strong atomic engine first.
Then you build a tree starting from the starting position. If it's white to move you chose only one move, if it is black to move you try all possible moves. The engine evalution will guide you in which white move to chose and which black moves should be investigated deepest.
Basically I would try to build a tree that has leaves with a certain minimum positive evaluation. This way you always have a form of very weak solution of atomic chess, i.e. a tree that tells you how to play with white to get an advantage of at least +x.yz.
You'll try to improve x.yz by analysing those parts of the tree where the leaves have the lowest evaluation. If x.yz gets high enough you can try to work positions out until mate (probably you'll need some tablebases at that point).
If you start this kind of project you probably quickly get an impression, whether getting a significant white advantage is generally easy or difficult, which might be a pointer to whether it is ultimately solvable or not.
This is pretty similar to building a repertoire, so I would probably quick start the tree with an existing atomic chess repertoire.
Of course odds are that your tree will never converge towards a strong solution, but in that case at least you've created a really nice atomic repertoire.


Shortest path for a knight Is there a practical way of computing the shortest path from a square to another, for a knight? (for a human chess player, not for a computer)

Usually, when I want to send my knight from a square to another, I try to find a path with a rather empirical way. "OK, to get there, I should go here or here... But this square is attacked, so I can only go here..." and so on. Is there a more straightforward approach?

Thanks in advance.

To me the easy human way it is to start from the square that you want to go to (backtracking approach), lets call it 'A' and exclude from the path calculation the direct linked paths from 'A' that you can't go to because they are attack or there is a piece on it.

For example, you want to go to the square c4, so the directed linked paths will be from by a5, a3, b2, d2, e3, e5, d6 and b6, but if only the square a5 and b6 are available you can reduce your calculation to only to 2 paths now. Furthermore, if you use this "technique" you can check if the target square is reachable at all (if have at least 1 directed linked path not being occupied or attacked).

After doing that, you go to the position where you knight stands and you check which are the squares that you can go to. Using this two phase approach you reduce you tree of calculation immensely.

You should also know beforehand how many moves you need to go from one square to another with your knight, in order to avoid the calculation of larger paths than the ones really need it. I din't check online to find any heuristic for this but I can give you some inside tips about it:

The Knight on a black square can only go to a white square and vise-versa, in the next move;
Every square on the diagonal of the actual square of the Knight can be reach in only two moves. Square (x,y) to the squares
(x-1,y+1), (x+1,y+1), (x+1,y-1) and (x-1,y-1) takes 2
moves;
The squares up, above, right and left of the actual square takes 3 moves;
Every square on the diagonal of the actual square with a one square between them (e.g actual  square = c4, target square a6),
takes 4 moves.
Every square on the diagonal of the actual square with a 2 squares between them (e.g actual  square = c4, target square f7), takes only
2 moves.

Finally, if you are in a given color square you will take a odd number of moves to reach the opposite color square. If the target square have the same color as the square that you are in now it will take a even number of moves.


At what Elo level does one benefit from studying master games? I commented to another player that I got nothing from studying master games. He replied: :Neither do I."
One gains a little if the annotation includes mini-lessons. But terse comments are akin to a mathematician's "its obvious that ...". There are many celebrated moves I could never have found in a local game.
My Elo recently peaked at 1300. What level does one need before studying master games and having it be worth the time? That other player & I are both retired. Perhaps our ages are a factor.

What level does one need before studying master games is worth the
time ?

You need to have got to the stage where you stop playing "hope chess". If you are not currently capable of working out the purpose of your opponent's moves as well as your own then you are not going to get much from trying to work out the purpose of the moves in a master game. Once you do reach that stage then studying master games is a good way of making further progress.


Soltis's best chess game of the 20th century In Andrew Soltis's book The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked, his number 1 game is a correspondence game between Yakov Estrin and Hans Berliner, from the 1965–1968 World Correspondence Championship.  This is of course a provocative choice, and Soltis, when making his selection, evidently believed that Berliner's play was sound.  Soltis quotes Berliner as offering to play anyone from the position after Black's 9th move (as Black) for stakes of $1,000, provided he was given draw odds.

I have a rather old engine, but I decided to see what it thought of the game.  It says that Estrin could have significantly improved at move 12.  This critical position is diagrammed below.

[FEN "r3k2r/p1p2ppp/3b4/1p1n4/3Pp1bq/5PN1/PP1P2PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 12"]

Here, Estrin played 12.Bxb5+ but my engine prefers 12.Qe2, and gives the main line as 12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3+ 14.Kd1 with an advantage to White.

Is my engine missing something or does this line refute Berliner's play?

The move you gave looks fine. In my correspondence database I have 9 games in the position after 11...Bd6. Eight went for 12.Bxb5+, but one game (featuring a 2397 player from 2010) chose 12.Qe2. Even though the game is old, it gives some backing to 12.Qe2 because of the player's strength. Meanwhile, the strongest evidence in correspondence for 12.Bxb5+ comes from it being chosen in two more recent 2015 games by a 2166 and 2000 rated player. Both moves seem to indicate an advantage for White, given the results in correspondence (even though the latest games were from 2015, engine use was permitted).

At over depth 40, Stockfish 11 gives me around +3.48 for 12.Qe2. Meanwhile, 12.Bxb5+ hovers close to +2. After 12.Qe2 0-0 (12...Be6 13.Qf2 exf3 14.Bxb5+ Kd8 15.gxf3 is winning; meanwhile, 12...Bxg3+ 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5+ Bd7 15.Qxd5 is also extremely good) 13.fxg4 Bxg3+ (or 13...Nf6 14.g5 Ng4 15.Kd1 Bxg3 16.Kc2) 14.Kd1, we've followed your line. Stockfish gives over +3 for White, and that 2010 correspondence game I mentioned also reached this position. White went on to win the game without much trouble.

TLDR: the line looks to be safely refuted for Black after 12.Qe2.