An aggressive counter for white vs Scandinavian Defense My chess rating is somewhere between 400 and 500 and I have a lot of trouble countering the Scandinavian Defense. My first move is usually e4 but when my opponent uses the Scandinavian Defense (d5), I have a hard time countering that. I heard from everyone that only beginners do it for a reason but I can't exactly figure out why nobody else would use that defense. I am curious if you know an aggressive counter to the Scandinavian defense.

I heard from everyone that only beginners do it for a reason but I can't exactly figure out why nobody else would use that defense.

It's not true that nobody but beginners use the Scandinavian - I use it, and my rating is in the 1700s.  The opening is, however, somewhat rare; I've only seen it about 4% of the time when I've played 1.e4 in tournament games. Some beginners perhaps like this opening because it gets their queen out early. But this is actually a bad thing for Black, not a good thing.

As White, one good idea is to make that queen your target. This game is the fastest I've lost playing the Scandinavian, and I lose when my opponent (rated 2042) traps my queen:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nf3 Qa5 4.Be2 Nf6 5.O-O Bf5 6.d4 c6 7.c4 Nbd7 8.Nc3 e6 9.Bf4 Be7 10.a3 c5 11.Nb5 O-O 12.dxc5 a6 13.Bc7

And here's a game where a beginner (rated 535) tries the Scandinavian against me. Notice how, when possible, I attack his queen with moves that also develop my pieces.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 {I attack his queen. So far this is the mainline.} Qd4 {This is where we deviate from the mainline Scandinavian. This isn't the best square for his queen.} 4.Nf3 {I attack his queen again.} Qb6 5.Bc4 {I develop another piece. I don't attack his queen with Nd5 or Na4 because that wouldn't help me develop.} Nf6 6.O-O Qd6 {He moves his queen again. His plan is probably to trade off my f3 knight with Bg4 and Bxf3, and then play Ng4 to threaten Qxh2#.} 7.h3 {To prevent his plan. It wouldn't work, but Bg4 is annoying so I prevent it.} Nh5 {Moving his knight again and putting it on the edge of the board. That's usually not a good idea.} 8.Re1 {Activating my rook. It's not the strongest move I could have played. Ng5, attacking f7 and discovering an attack on his knight, was better.} Qg6 {Moving his queen yet again! We're on move 8, and he's moved his queen 5 times. His threat is Bxh3, and I can't play gxh3 because the pawn is pinned by the queen.} 9.Ne5 {Threatening his queen again. He can't play Bxh3 if his queen isn't safe. This also threatens his f7 pawn.} Qg5 {Still threatening Bxh3.} 10.d4 {A discovered attack on his queen. Perhaps I should have just played Bxf7+ now, but this also works.} Nf4 {Blocking the attack on his queen and threatening Qxg2#.} 11.Bxf4 {I have to do something about his checkmate threat.} Qxf4 {Eleven moves in, and his queen is his only piece that isn't on its starting square, while my army is just about fully developed. It's time for me to attack.} 12.Bxf7+ Kd8 13.Bd5 {Threatens Nf7+ forking his king and rook.} Qg5 {Trying to set up Bxh3 again, but it just makes my impending fork worse.} 14.Nf7+ {King-queen fork.} Ke8 15.Nxg5 h6 {From here I have a forced mate.} 16.Qh5+ Kd8 17.Nf7+ Kd7 18.Be6+ Kc6 19.Qc5# 1-0


What are the middle game principles? What are the middle game principles? I have already seen numerous principles regarding the opening and ending, but not the middle.

1 - Centralize and coordinate your pieces. This is when tactical opportunities will begin to materialize.

2 - When your position is cramped, exchange pieces.

3 - When ahead in material, exchange pieces, not pawns.

4 - When you have a bad or inactive piece, exchange it.

5 - Don't launch an attack on the flank until the centre is secure.

6 - When the opponent's king is exposed, look for tactics and combinations.

7 - When the opponent's development is poor, look for tactics and combinations.

8 - Attack your opponent's weak and backwards pawns.

9 - Occupy your opponent's weak squares. Knights are particularly good at establishing outposts.

10 - Don't make unnecessary pawn moves in front of your king. This weakens your position.


Puzzles that highlight the finiteness of the chessboard I'm curious as to whether there are compositions of chess puzzles/problems where the solution really emphasizes the boundedness of the board. Put differently, cases where the solution would be impossible on an infinitely large board.

Now that's a refreshingly different kind of question :)

It's probably easier to compose such a problem than to search for one, but that said, there's one that comes to mind:

 [Title "White to play and win"]
 [fen "8/5N1k/8/7b/1b5N/1K6/1B6/8 w - - 0 2"]

Hint:

   You want to keep all 3 pieces as white in order to win. Try to set up a trap on the b4 bishop by setting up a discovery on the black king.

Solution:

   1.Ng5+ Kh6 {only possible attempt to keep material} 2.Bc1 {Double threat: discovery on the king and threatening to take on b4, the trap is set} Ba5 {Any other move drops the bishop to a discovery check} 3.Ka4 Bb6 {only move again} 4.Kb5 Ba7 5.Ka6 Bb8 6.Kb7 {bishop falls.}
 From move 3.Ka4 it had become clear where this is going: the white king keeps shouldering the bishop until it hits a wall and cannot escape anymore. Now on an infinite board, this trap would have been impossible as the king and bishop dance would have continued endlessly.


What is positional play in chess? I have played chess so many times, understood tactics (pins, discovered check, overloading, deflection, skewer), but I never understood clearly the positional play.  I have noticed not many tutorials available that explains positional play.

What exactly is positional play? Why is it important?
Please can you show some nice examples to understand the concept?

Sorry for being so naive, but very curious on this.

Classically positional play is what is described in part 2 of Nimzowitsch's "My System". Part 1, The Elements, is more tactical in nature. It describes play in open files, using the 7th and 8th ranks, passed pawns, pins, discovered checks and a few other features.

Part 2, Position Play, deals with stuff like

Fighting for the center, which you do by moving pawns and pieces (firstly knights and bishops, later rooks) so that they occupy, support or attack the center.
Over protection of important points or squares, in the first instance central ones later they may be points important for attack or defence, is important because it strengthens those points. This in turn gives more freedom and flexibility to the pieces involved. They are not firmly tied down because other pieces are sharing the burden. And it gives prophylaxis. Because these points are over protected you are not going to get caught by a sudden attack from your opponent.
Certain static features are described and discussed which have positional characteristics. Doubled and isolated pawns are usually positional weaknesses. Very occasionally they may have good features but mostly they are bad. The IQP (isolated queen's pawn) is covered in great depth. Depending on how the two sides play the IQP can be a dynamic attacking tool or it can be a static weakness which will eventually fall.
The two bishops (when you have two bishops and your opponent has either two knights or one bishop and one knight) is positional plus because of the way they can work together. They can cut an impassable diagonal line across the board in the same way that a rook can cut such lines orthogonally.

Why are these concepts important? Well, when you first start playing you don't really know what to do with your pieces. As Nimzowitsch says you probably think you should get your pieces out, castle on the opposite to your opponent and then each of you should launch a pawn storm attack against your opponent's castled king. First one to break through wins. It can certainly be a lot of fun but it's just not going to work against somebody who has mastered a more positional way of playing.

These positional concepts give you guidelines of how to play when the position doesn't call for a tactical solution. In some respects it gives you guidance of how to build up your position so that you can either start your own tactical attack or frustrate your opponent's tactical attack.

Mastering tactical and positional play will likely take you to somewhere round about the 2000 level, which is no mean feat. To make progress much beyond this level you will have to start to learn and understand when to break these positional guidelines.

My System has many examples and games which Nimzowitsch uses to illustrate his points. He also wrote a follow on book of more examples and games called Chess Praxis which is highly recommended for further study of positional play.


Is this rook endgame won for white? In Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, 2nd Edition from 2006 the following important practical rook endgame with a distant passed pawn is analysed. The whole analysis (of the same position with white to move and black to move) is on pages 194-200.

 [Title "White to move"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/R4p2/P4kp1/7p/7P/4K1P1/r4P2/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1.Kd4! Rxf2 2. Rc7 Ra2 3. a7 Kf5 4. Kc4!! {Johannes Steckner} Kg4 5. Kb3! Ra6 6. Rc4+ Kxg3 7. Ra4 Rxa7 8. Rxa7 Kxh4 9. Kc3 Kg3 10. Kd2 h4 11. Ke2 Kg2 12. Rxf7 h3 13. Rf2+! Kg3 14. Rf6 +-

The author claims, with very long analyses to back it up, that white wins after Kd4!, but he warns:

  Nothing could be further from my mind than to label the analyses presented [...] as the "last word of theory" - long, complicated variations rarely turn out error-free.

Have there been any new developments since 2006?

I know 11-men tablebases are a long way off, but are we still confident this endgame is a win for white?

This entire endgame has been analyzed thoroughly on ChessPub. It seems that member Wes was right -> ...g5 is the main move. This was confirmed with a lengthy analysis at ChessCafe -> see the first position on the page ( there are some other games analyzed after the analysis of this position finishes ). I am sorry for posting links but the analysis is huge!

Good luck and hopefully this answered your question!

Best regards!


I heard professional chessplayers must train physically as well as mentally. Why is that? I heard that both Fischer and Karpov felt that physical training was extremely important to their success and that the Russian coaches also felt a certain amount of physical training was necessary.  Why is that?  How is it supposed to help?  What sort of exercise is supposed to help.

You've heard it right. Physical training is as important as mental training in chess. Thinking is an energy intensive activity and often has a direct effect on the physical body.
Quoting this scientific american article by By Ferris Jabr on July 18, 2012, brain weighs about 1.4 kilograms, only 2 percent of total body weight, it demands 20 percent of our resting metabolic rate (RMR)—the total amount of energy our bodies expend in one very lazy day of no activity.

Karpov had lost 10kg (22lb) over the course of 1984-85 Kasparov-Karpov world championship match. Quoting Kasparov from this interview, I pay a lot of attention to my physical condition; to be fit under the terrible pressure of big competitions. Obviously this is becoming more important with age.

From a study by Speakman JR et. al , being physically fit improves resting metabolic rate (RMR) which is a major contributor to daily energy reserve and thus any increases in RMR in response to exercise interventions are potentially of great importance.

Chess, as you know is a brain intensive activity and thus RMR plays an important important role. Therefore from the 1st and the 3rd paragraphs, it is clear that physical fitness improves mental fitness and therefore beneficial to chess.


Energy drinks for chess tournament I am planning to participate in a tournament, and I was thinking about using energy drinks or caffeinated drinks to enhance my performance.

Is this a good idea? I normally don't take any energy drinks. Will it be counterproductive if I suddenly take up energy drinks, or is it better since I won't develop reliance on energy drinks?

If it is good, how much energy drinks should I take (in milligrams of caffeine), and when is the best time to do so?

Or does energy drink has no effect on chess performance whatsoever?

The only side effect I know about energy drinks is that it is diuretic, but it won't be much of a concern as the time control for the tournament is long.

Thanks.

From a guy that drinks for too many energy drinks.

Don't.

They give a rush for 40 minutes tops and then a crash.

Anxiety is also massively induced/increased.


Must chess studies be composed? My question is on the definition of the term "study." If there is an interesting endgame position that occurs in a real game between two real players, and the position is later posed to somebody who has not seen the game, would it be technically incorrect to call this a "study"?

The Wikipedia page seems to suggest this terminology as technically incorrect, but to me it makes the most sense to differentiate "composed studies" from "studies." I'm happy for any input.

There are a number of rules for what constitutes a proper problem / study which are extremely unlikely to be satisfied by a position arising in a real game -

there must be only one solution
there must be no superfluous pieces - i.e. if any piece is removed then the solution no longer works or is no longer unique

Sometimes positions arise in a game which come close, usually when there is only one solution which is also rather difficult. Then the position is called "study like" but usually not all pieces on the board are essential.


Chess software to evaluate move and give marks Well, I am new here and I am not quite sure whether this question is appropriate here. In case it is inappropriate, please tell me the correct site for it.Well, my question is :

I want a chess software in which I can play against chess engines or players and also I want the software to evaluate each move and give me marks accordingly and instantaneously. (Note : I have already tried Ubisoft's Chessmaster but I want a software that will evaluate how much percent I am correct not just whether my move is the best move or not.)Can anyone please name any such software. I am ready to buy it in case it is not free-ware. Lots of thanks in advance.

I want a software that will evaluate how much percent I am correct not just whether my move is the best move or not.

Chess engines do not usually evaluate moves as percentages (and I'm not even sure how that would work tbh), but by evaluating the position in terms of a normative standard (like the material value of 1 pawn, with +1 meaning white is up by 1 pawn, and -1 meaning that black is up by one pawn) assuming optimal play.

Simply put: every position has an evaluation based on positional and material considerations (which is  engine dependent, hence why different engines would often assign different evaluations to the same position). Every move you make causes a transition between two distinct positions, and the quality of your move is the difference of this evaluation from the before to after position.

If the engine got the evaluation right, the optimal move has value 0. The value is 0 because the engine believes that this is the optimal move, and assigned the evaluation based on that move. From white's perspective, a sub-optimal move would have a value of < 0. A value of -0.3, for example, would typically mean that the position after the move was made is now 1/3 pawn worse than before.

Almost every chess engine I've come across can show you the difference in evaluation between two positions, or it is at least easy to calculate (if the evaluation went from 1.2 to 0.7 after white's move, then the move quality was -0.5, or half the value of a pawn, which is typically considered a reasonably big blunder). Shredder and DroidFish (which is free and available on Android) are examples of chess apps that provide this feature, but there are many others on pretty much every conceivable platform.


Closed Game effect for White As my friend said a moment ago, the Closed Game type is bad practice for White because it brings White often to draw rather than win.

If I want to get a better chance of winning, I should choose Open Game but be careful about counterattack.  However, there seem to be openings which are categorized in the middle [between Open game and Closed game].

I am annoyed a bit. But when I checked with Shredder, it seems rather true.

Is it true??

Closed games (1.d4) and open games (1.e4) perform equally well at high levels.

It is usually recommended that less experienced players (say, under 2000 FIDE) play open games to learn, since tactics show up more often in them, and tactics is the most important aspect of the game to become fluent in.


Arrange 5 non-attacking knights on a 5x5 toroidal board The celebrated British mathematician and lover of public transport, Simon Norton, was one of those who passed in 2019. He was the subject of a wonderful biography and one of my favourite human beings: an amazing and innocent man.

He was not a particular fan of chess, but here is a tiny gem due to him.

How many ways are there to arrange 5 knights on a 5x5 toroidal chessboard so that none of them attack one another?

“Toroidal” means the board has no edges. You can leave on the left and just appear in the board on the right. You can leave at the top and just appear at the bottom. And vice versa.

EDIT: Jörg P. has totally nailed it, so I have to give him the green tick. But his solution doesn't give any insight as to why the number is what it is. So I guess that's a bonus question:

Bonus question: why do you get this number (120)?

I noticed a simplification of @RosieF's solution:

  Label the squares with two-number labels as follows:

4,2 0,3 1,4 2,0 3,1
1,0 2,1 3,2 4,3 0,4
3,3 4,4 0,0 1,1 2,2
0,1 1,2 2,3 3,4 4,0
2,4 3,0 4,1 0,2 1,3

  Then two knights may occupy two squares x,y
  and X,Y iff those squares' first numbers x and X are different and
  their second numbers y and Y are different.

Since there are 5 knights and only 5 different numbers in each direction, that means that every x-value must be occupied by a knight, and each of the possible y-values must be assigned to one of those knights.  If we sort the knights' coordinates by their x-value, then list only the y-value, then we wind up with some permutation of the numbers from 0 to 4.  Every valid placement of the knights produces a permutation of the numbers 0-4, and every permutation of those numbers corresponds to a valid arrangement of the knights.

The total number of valid arrangements of the knights is thus 5!, or 120.


Chess knowledge and understanding I am not a beginner, but I am absolutely not a practicing chess player, although I would like for that to change. I am inquiring about which direction I should take in advancing my abilities and understanding of the game. I am probably a 1300-1500 level player, but it is all free wheeling and personal experience. I haven't studied much and I am starting to realize that I am not going to improve if I don't actively work on my game. Hopefully someone can guide me in the right direction! Thanks!

Generally the first advice is always to train lots of tactics.

That means you should start solving tactical exercises regularly. On your level this will lead to rapid improvement. You can train online on a variety of sites or get a good beginner's book.

The second important point is just to play. Over time you will get an idea of where your weaknesses are and you can start to look up opening lines, specific endgames or strategic themes.


What should be White’s move here in which each side has just a king and a knight? [FEN "8/8/8/2k2N2/2n1K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Is this position a draw?

Most people agree that this is a draw due to insufficient material, but FIDE and some chess websites say that a mate is possible.  Once you could also claim insufficient losing chances, but with increment clock, this rule has vanished.

To eliminate any possible mate, I would try to lose the knight.  The best move is Nd6 and chase the black knight until the draw is agreed upon.  An equally good move is Ne3 with the same objective.


On-line live analysis board? Here is the situation. I have a friend with whom I very much like to discuss chess (our games, other games etc.). We are not living in the same country, so we discuss chess on-line. During our on-line discussions, we often, of course, need a chessboard. Usually, we use our wooden chessboards (which we see through our computer cameras), but this is inconvenient, as it causes synchronization difficulties.

My question is: Is there a site or a chess program with a chessboard which both my distant friend and me could see and alter, in such a way that every change in position is simultaneously shown to him and to me. In other words, something like a "live analysis board". If we were at the same place, we would have a chessboard on which we would analyze a game. He could alter the position, and I would see it, and vice versa. Now, I need the same thing, just on-line. Does anybody use something similar and/or has a suggestion?

I hope my description above is enough to understand what I mean. Obviously, my English is far from perfect, but I hope it will do.

Finally, I would like to stress that I am NOT asking for a suggestion for a site for PLAYING chess, but for ANALYZING games and discussing different positions.

Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thanks!

Chess.com has an analysis board meant for doing analysis with other people. But its available only for premium members. Also I am unsure if it has voice support in built when doing the analysis.

For the free alternative, its worth to look at FICS- It has a very cool feature for analysis called "examine", that combined with "mexamine" will give you exactly what you are looking for. Along with this, you could just setup a skype or gtalk (replace your fav free voip program here) for chatting with voice when you are examining the game. You could use Babaschess the free and best FICS client available.


Which opening will develop both bishops like the following diagrams? I'm looking for a chess opening that would result in something similar to the following end-positionings:

A nice open diagonal for the bishops.

or maybe the other way:

Also, what are the strengths & weaknesses?

Danish Gambit is a possibility. There is no free lunch, no strong players will allow you develop your bishops like what your described without any compensation. You will need to gambit two pawns for this line.

From wikipedia


How does Stockfish ensure an incremental change made is beneficial? Does Stockfish's testing framework get the new engine to play the old engine many times in a match? Since Stockfish thinks on each move according to a time limit (and not a depth limit, which gives a deterministic amount of calculation), randomness in the OS' speed affects the engine's performance. This means that the match result could be more determined by randomness in the OS than by the incremental change made to Stockfish, causing the new engine to lose.

I'm working on my own engine with this testing framework, and I've found this to be a problem. Are there any other testing frameworks for engines that aren't subject to how the OS is performing? I also run matches with a depth limit for the engines, but these matches aren't ideal because in some positions an engine needs to calculate more or can get away with calculating less.

Disclaimer: not an expert.

As I understand the so-called "Fishtesting", you write a patch and submit it to the queue. The system then plays your patch against the previous engine at short time controls. Very many games are played (this is why computing power is needed to improve your engine). If the patch proves to be stronger at short time controls, another test is performed and longer time controls, and if the patch passes again then it's promoted to become the main version.

Example: this patch. You can see the user submitting the patch is "protonspring", and he was trying to simplify the passed pawns code. Fishtesting played the new patch against the old version 5451 times, with a result of 20.1% wins, 23.3% losses, and 56.5% draws. The new patch is inferior, so it's rejected. As you can see from the Fishtest main page, most patches fail.


playing C00 French:KIA `2. d3 d5` When played C00 French:KIA 2. d3 d5, I choose to move my pawn 8. ... b4 to reply 8. Bd2.

After that, 'the battle at early game is held' with 9. a3 bxa3 10. Nxa3 Bxa3 11. Rxa3 and at the end of game, I forced to resign in game..

I feel that 8. ... b4 is my first bad move because it enabled 'battle' at developing phase when I actually not ready for that. What should the right move to reply 8. Bd2 in this case??

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d3 Nc6 3. d4 a6 4. Be2 d5 5. e5 Nge7 6. c3 Ng6 7. g3 b5 8. Bd2 b4
(8... b4 9. a3 bxa3 10. Nxa3 Bxa3 11. Rxa3 )

Best Regard,
Ahmad

I'm answering without an engine to back me up, but I do have some knowledge of French positions and can answer on that account:

The move b5-b4 is not necessarily a bad move.  What Black always should worry about in the French is placing all his pawns on white squares and then exchanging his dark squared bishop.  It is a common theme in the Winawer variation of the French.

Here it is Bxa3 which is the most strategically dubious move.  In the French, do not exchange this bishop unless you get something for it. Look at your remaining bishop, all closed in by the pawns.  Your bishop at f8 was stronger than the white knight at a3.

Besides, the move bxa3 is not so strong either. It opens the a-file for Ra1 and the principle for pawn exchanges is to capture towards the center, not away for it. That put aside, Bxa3 is strategically much worse as you give up the fight on the dark squares and your bishop pair for a knight in the rim.


Is it illegal to write clock time in the score sheet during tournaments? I have the habit of noting the clock time near my moves in tournament. I've been doing this for years now, but today a friend told me it is illegal according to FIDE. I wonderwhat the regulation related to it is.

According to the FIDE rules, it is not forbidden; clock times are actually explicitly stated as one of the items that a scoresheet may contain. See the following excerpt (emphasis mine):

  Article 8: The recording of the moves

  8.1

  a. In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponentin the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to Appendix E.1 a.

  b. The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.

  c. A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another.

  d. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet with a symbol (=).

  e. If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.

Note that the rules above pertain to competitions starting on or after July 1st, 2014. The older version has the same rule placed in article 12.4. (thanks to @chaosflaws)


How to view Arena Chess analysis in a chess program? I made an analysis of a chess game in Arena Chess with stockfish engine. The analysis completed successfully. My question is how can I watch this analysis in a chess program.
Arena chess says it made the analysis output to C:\Program Files (x86)\Arena\Analysis.log file.
But I am not able to view this file in any chess program (including Arena chess).
The content of the above mentioned file looked like this:
8. Ra1-c1
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): Qd1-b3
    Not found in: 00:04
   21-12-2020 18:42:31, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:30
8. ..Bc8-d7
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): a2-a3
    Not found in: 00:04
   21-12-2020 18:42:39, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:34
9. c4xd5
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): a2-a3
    Not found in: 00:04
   21-12-2020 18:42:48, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:38
9. ..e6xd5
    Best move (Stockfish_20090216_x64): a2-a3
    Not found in: 00:04
    30/38-  00:45        27,081k    593k    -0.19
   21-12-2020 18:42:56, Time for this analysis: 00:00:04, Rated time: 00:42

How can I open this file in a chess program?

This is a log file and can't be parsed. You can view the results in the GUI after the analysis has finished; then you can save the game as PGN (so that it can be parsed by Arena). You can do this by clicking PGN → Save current game in PGN format.


From where to start learning new tactics? I know the basics and some basic tactics in chess, but I want to learn new and advanced tactics. Can anybody tell me any source for that?

I have tried some of the existing sites that provide exercises.

If you are searching for common tactical position, chesstempo is sure one of the best options with ilimitated free exercises.

If you are searching for incredible checkmates, sacs etc, chess.com has a nice trainer, the problem is it is not free.

You have also lichess. The exercises at this site are taken from blitz games of the players. They use stockfish to generate them. Some of them are doubtful, but a punctuation system is doing his task.

If you want to become a good player in long games (90+30) I recommend you to do lots of exercises at chesstempo, but lichess exercises are nice for tricks and so and totaly free.


Why have engines not increased top rated chess players' Elo? The arrival of strong chess engines as Stockfish, Houdini or Rybka allow top players to deeply prepare lines in openings or to study better endgames.

I would expect a rating increase of top players. However, Kasparov's top score from 1999 is still the second best rating score of all time and Karpov and Fischer are still in the top twenty historical rated players.

Source: Wikipedia

If those engines have a 3600 Elo, shouldn't top players have profited from it to leave Kasparov's 2851 score in 1999 far away?

And shouldn't more than 18 players surpass Fischer's 2785 in 1972?

I think they certainly have increased their ELO, but more importantly, their overall chess strength. ELO is only a rating relative to others in the pool so it may tend to go up more slowly if everyone in the pool gets better, which they have collectively.

First, you need to take an average of the top players, rather than look at just two incredibly special players, Kasparov, and Carlsen, and their peak ratings. Fischer was a total anomaly for his time, and again, you cannot base a lot on one person. Humans probably have a limit mentally much the way runners will eventually hit a speed wall that they cannot break. It is the Bell Curve in action: Easy to make progress in the middle, but harder on the end.

ChessBase, and the first strong engine, KnightStalker (aka Fritz 1.0, renamed at version 2.0) came out in 1990, and the Internet was still in its infancy. In January of 1990, there were only two players over 2700, Karpov at 2730, and Kasparov at 2800. Today, there are 37 players over 2700, and of those, three are over 2800.

I have been playing for a long time, and anyone, who knows my handle, has seen me watching relays of the top tournaments on ICC for more than 20 years, and I can say that it is not just inflation from having actually watched the level of play improve over the years. Players at the Master-level, including even normal Masters, are MUCH better now due to the tools available today than the tools available when I first became a Master.

When I first started playing, all we had was books, and a local club. Today, I can logon virtually any day, and play a GM. I was also a ranked tennis player as a teenager, and I can tell you from that experience, playing better competition makes you better, so being able to logon and play stronger players than ever has increased the overall level of play. In addition, we now have ChessBase, and a database of about 8.3M games that can be sorted efficiently and studied. We also have engines, as noted in the question, and they certainly have also added to our chess knowledge, and fundamentally changed how the top players prepare. Lastly, I mentioned books, and as an avid collector (I had 1800 at my peak), I can tell you that even the quality of the material in books is on another level since when I started.

I cannot tell you what proportion of all these advances have played toward X-number of rating points increase, but I can tell you that without a doubt, they all have lead to players at the top levels, and even down some, being much better overall.


Question about the move h5 I recently played a chess game whose link is:
https://lichess.org/pCFw1h2w/black#5

After running a computer analysis, I found that in this position:

I know that even though Stockfish does not tell me so, up to the 9th move,  I made several small inaccuracies among which the 6th move ( 6. ...Bg6) which I think was worse than 6. ...Bh7.

Now here is where my question arises.

On the 8th move I did not play 8. ...Ne7 yet because I thought that then White would play g5 and the great square f5 for my knight would be off-limits. So I played 8. ...Nd7 first without committing to anything yet.
Now on the ninth move I would like to move my knight to e7 (with the idea I mentioned before). So what I played was 9. ...h5 in order to prevent g4 from White. However, Stockfish says h5 is not a good move. Why?

I an unable to understand why according to Stockfish I could directly play 9. ... Ne7 and White's expected answer 10. g4 is marked as a mistake, which I cannot explain. The line which is given for Black does not provide a good square for Black's knight on e7 (which remains stuck there) and yet Black has an advantage. Why?

f5 is a decent square for your knight, but it is not doing all that much from there either. Ok, it is attacking d4, but that pawn is overprotected by knight and queen, so nothing to worry about for white.

I am not a Caro-Kann player, but I believe a much more natural plan is trying to push c5 exchanging the d4 pawn after which the pawn on e5 gets weak.

Even if you get in Nf5 first, I don't see how you would proceed without playing c5 as black.

Regarding the move h5. Yes it does prevent g4 for the moment, but it also weakens the square g5, which can be occupied by white knight and bishop. For instance after h5 castling short is almost impossible for black, because after white Ng5, Qh7 mate is very difficult to prevent.

After Ne7, immediate g4 is not good, because

it weakens the white king
it only prevents Nf5 which is not all that dangerous anyway (see above)
if you want to prevent the black knight from occupying the square f5, you could just wait until black moves Nf5, then play g4 and you would gain a tempo, because the knight would have to retreat to e7.


Trying to remember a zugzwang puzzle/study position I am trying to remember a puzzle position, or maybe was it originated from a real game, i dont remember.

 After Rook c8, we have a nice zugzwang, which forces black to have as only legal move Rook from a7 to a8, making it en prise for white's rook.

Something like (white to move):
7R/rp6/pk6/p7/P7/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 1

I would like to know where is this puzzle/game from. I'm not sure that this was the exact position, but it was quite similar.

The original position has the White King on a4, no White pawn.  It's the end of a composed study by Gorgiev that I find as #753 in Sutherland and Lommer's 1234 Modern End-Game Studies (1938, Dover reprint 1968), pages 126 and 290.  The full study is:
[Title "White to move and win (Gorgiev, Pravda 1928: Mention)"]
[FEN "1k6/rp6/p7/p5B1/K7/8/8/7R w - - 0 1"]

1.Rh8+ Kc7 2.Bd8+ Kc6 3.Bb6! Kxb6 4.Rc8! 1-0

The final position is mutual Zugzwang: Black loses (the only legal move is Ra8, and then 5.Rxa8 wins easily) but would draw if it were White's move.


What is a "big pawn"? I've seen the term "big pawn" come up a few times (such as here and here), but I can't seem to trace down an exact definition. What is it?

A piece (often a bad bishop, but in your second example a queen) which is doing nothing more than protecting a few squares is often called a big pawn. To be honest, I don't find your second example a real case of a 'big pawn', because the queen can easily move away and do something useful. And, as Dag Oskar Madsen mentions, in the first example the pawn breakthrough is big, not the pawn itself.

In the position below, the white bishop is a typical example of a big pawn, because of Black's dominance on the dark squares:

[FEN "r4r2/5pkp/1q1pb1p1/2p1n3/2P1P3/1P3P2/2BN2PP/1R1Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]


Aggressive Attacking Lines for Black in the French Defence Exchange Variation I have recently taken a liking to the French Defence as black because I enjoy the counter-attacking options that black has to undermine white's center in the Tarrasch, Advance, and 3. Nc3 variations.  However, when met with the exchange variation I'm not sure what the best plan of attack because I find the position rather dull due to the relieved central tension.  My preferred line at the moment is 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 c5 to immediately get some queen-side counter-play but I would like to know if there are any other lines that give black aggressive attacking options.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 c5

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do. You will have to adapt to White's play and that is it. Only White can sharpen the game, by entering the line with isolated pawn ( by playing c4 at some point ).

The line you chose gives White minimal advantage, according to ECO C ( 2006 ), so I would stay away from it. The position is symmetrical, White is slightly ahead in development, e-file is open, and White has no weaknesses whatsoever. Meanwhile, you are behind in development, you will not castle soon, and now you create isolated pawn without reasonable compensation ( isolated pawn gives you free development, but you are not cramped here so you do not need this! ) which will put you in a long defense.

I hate being "passive" in this line as much as you do, since I play the French and QGD, but reality will not change -> White has a pleasant situation where he can win or draw, if he doesn't blunder, while for Black the only reasonable result is a draw, providing he plays accurately.

You must use your creativity in this line, to outplay the opponent. Set him difficult choices to solve, something along these lines:

Offer him exchanges that are bad for him ( offer your bad piece for his good one );
Offer him to enter into endgame, but try to trick him so the endgame is better for you;
Try to generate mating attack with pieces ( f4 square is very useful for this );

The point is that heavy pieces will be exchanged on the e-file so the only option is endgame. You could exchange only one pair of rooks and try for mate with Qf4 + Ng4 setup, but that requires a lot of maneuvering. Still, it is a thought... The point is to keep trying to invent a plan, don't just fall into stereotypical "exchange all and draw" mindset.

Finally, instead of the line you listed, I would rather go with something like this:

[Title "French defense, Exchange line"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6!

This will prevent Bf4 so White will have slightly passive position. This is a thematic idea for both sides ( remember that in symmetric positions everything counts ). If he responds with c4 you have your sharp position ( according to ECO ), but if he goes for the same idea of stopping ...Bf5 then you play ...Nge7! so you can still get ...Bf5. This way you get free development and active position. This is the best you can do in this line. Now is the time to give you the full lines:

[Title "French defense, Exchange line"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 ( 4.c4 $13 ) 4...Bd6! 5.c4 ( 5.Bd3 Ne7! 6.O-O O-O 7.Bg5 f6! 8.Bh4 Bf5 9.Bg3 Bxg3 10.hxg3 Nbc6 11.Nc3 Qd7 12.Ne2 Bxd3= ) 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 c6 7.c5 Be7 8.Bd3 b6 9.cxb6 axb6 10.O-O Ba6 11.Bxa6 Rxa6 12.Qd3 O-O $13

You can still outplay the opponent in this position... If you need help or you have further questions leave a comment. Best regards.


What are the differences between Chess and Go from the perspective of computers? Please list the differences between the game of Chess and the game of Go for engine programming in a similar format as this one:

Go:

Item 1
Item 2
...

Chess:

Item 1
Item 2
...

Chess:

Chess programming pretty much consists of optimising the tree search. All attempts at introducing "human like knowledge" into the engines have been dropped for more and more sophisticated search heuristics.
The ultimate goal in chess programming has been reached. In fact one could argue that chess programming overshot it's goal by a mile or two. Since the mid-2000s no human player stands a chance against the top engines.

Go:

Apart from searching a search tree of possible variations the latest advances in go programming have included such divers techniques as Monte Carlo simulations and neural networks.
The best human players are still stronger than the engines, so arguably there is still more to accomplish.


Infinite sequence of consecutive checks allowing more pieces (say 9+ queens) This is a task related to this question: Theoretical limit for the number of consecutive checks?.
By a sequence of consecutive check, what we mean is white giving check, black replying with a check, white replying to that with a check and so on. Note that we are talking about a theoretical situation so that 50 move rules or three-fold repetition are irrelevant.
In the linked question, he is asking for the longest sequence of consecutive checks with two conditions:

Initial position should be legal
Initial position should not contain promoted pieces.

Suppose we remove the 2nd condition, and relax the 1st one to allow more pieces than legally possible (say, 9+ white queens or 3+ white knights). With these relaxations, is it possible to have an infinite sequence of consecutive checks?
I think the answer to the above question is no (but no complete proof yet).
If such an infinite sequence is there, it should contain a loop for sure. Therefore, the sequence cannot contain pawn movements or captures.
A second question is to construct longest such sequence. Alexey Khanyan's record 54 with conditions 1 and 2 may be surpassable because we relaxed them. (By the way, even with conditions 1 and 2, Khanyan himself thinks that 54 can be improved).
PS: For this question, I am not interested in involving fairy chess pieces or chess variants.

No, it's impossible to have an infinite sequence of checks
Let's remember that there are 3 ways to parry a check :

Move the King to a safe square
Capture the enemy piece giving the check
Move a piece between the King and the enemy piece giving a check (except against a Knight check as it can jump over pieces)

2 and 3 aren't sustainable over an infinite number of moves, because the chessboard has finite space, only 64 squares and necessarily less pieces than there are squares. So the only way to get an infinite cycle of checks going would be for both Kings to escape checks with method 1, by continually moving them.
This also implies that the King movement gives check. Since Kings can't come into contact, that means their movement must deliver a discovery check from a long range piece. This in turn, implies that after each move, both Kings stay aligned over some axis (rank, file, or diagonal), otherwise there would no longer be any discovery checks for lack of an alignment.
Let's say we're in such a position and it's Black to move. To summarize the constraints, the Black King must :

Be on 1 of the 8 lines passing by the square where the White King is (otherwise it can't deliver a discovery check), and
Move to another of these 8 lines (otherwise White won't be able to deliver a discovery check), and
Follow normal rules of chess, e.g. move only one square in any direction and not on a square where it would be in check

Let's say the White King is on e4. The only way to move from one of the 8 lines passing by e4 to another by jumping only one square is to either go to or from one of the 4 squares diagonally adjacent to the White King : d5, d3, f3, f5. But because these squares are in contact with the White King, it's not possible for the Black King to perform such a move. It can't be on these squares because the position would be illegal, and it can't move there because the move is illegal. So it's impossible to follow these constraints.
Hence, from all the above, I'd conclude that under the normal rules of chess, it's impossible for both players to perform at all an infinite cycle of checks. This is also valid under the 2 conditions you mentioned in your question, as they don't affect the reasoning used here.


Stockfish 11 for Android - binaries I have an Android app that uses precompiled binary files of Stockfish. There are both arm64-v8a and armeabi-v7a binary files for direct use in version 10.

On Stockfish site there's however not such an update for latest SF 11 for months!

https://stockfishchess.org/download/

What is the way to go now, are we supposed to wait or is it no longer supported?

I don't want to make any additional steps like compiling source code myself, as long as it's not absolutely necessary. I am currently also not overly interested in supporting custom engines in my app.

I found it to be very comfortable to use these binaries. Or did Android Stockfish turn to something else?

I checked some talk chess forum but I am not part of it, I don't know people there and downloading whatever executable thing from unknown sites just because someone says it's replacement of Stockfish seems a bit loose and unresponsible to users of my app. That's why I am still running on SF10.

Stockfish is a free project, people don't work for financial returns. Unfortunately, that would mean your request might never be honoured. As a programmer with technical skills, you are expected to compile the code yourself.

Sorry, this is how a free open source project work. They give you the code for free, so you just have to do some works.


Moving into check for a draw as black, why is it illegal? Comparison to Racing Kings I am confused why you cannot move into a check when it can force your opponent to capture your king and expose theirs. In such a case why is there no extra move to result in a draw?

In the "Racing Kings" variant, if white reaches the end of the board, black has an additional move to force a draw if they also reach the end of the board on that move. However, this does not seem to be the case in standard chess which seems to put black at a disadvantage. That is black must "defend" and white seems to have an advantage since it "attacks" from the very beginning of the game.

Here is an example of what I mean:

[fen "8/8/2k5/3R4/2r1PK2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

If it is black to move, why can't they capture the rook (d5)?
This would force white to recapture with the pawn and open up the king to a check from black's rook. Since black started second, it should have the chance to capture the king and force a draw.

Imagine a variation of chess without the rules about check and checkmate, where a player wins simply when he captures his opponent's king. In this variation, Kxd5 loses the game to exd5.

Turns out, that's more or less how real chess works. The objective is to capture the opponent's king. If your king is under attack, you must deal with that threat. If there's no way to remove the threat, then you lose.

The explicit rule that you must end your move not in check (both by eliminating the check if you're in check, and by not moving into check) and the rule that ends the game with checkmate simply ensure that the king is never actually captured. Check can almost be seen as a safety measure for weaker players who might not notice that their king is under attack. Notice that announcing check is not actually in the rules, and grandmasters never do it. The rule is effectively unnecessary for experts. And checkmate is sort of like the game forcing a resignation when the result is inevitable, much like how experts will resign when they see that their opponent has forced mate.

If we think of the rules of check this way, then it's clear why Kxd5 is illegal: your opponent would take your king, and the fact that his own king becomes exposed is irrelevant because the game is over.


Advance of d4 in the Ruy Lopez I was White in this position, and Black had just played f6.

[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppppn1pp/2n2p2/1B2p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 1"]

I played c3 to prepare a push of d4 and strike the center.

When analyzing this position later, the engine suggested that 5. d4 Nxd4 6. Nxd4 exd4 7. Qxd4 was superior (+1.7) than my 5. c3 (+0).

I don't really understand what White advantage has in this line. In general, I don't really know when I should exchange the d4 pawn in the Ruy Lopez and what benefit I get from such exchanges of central pawns. Can anyone help me understand?

First, I agree that f6 is both weakening and a waste of time.

The real crux of the matter is that in most double-king pawn openings, white tries to play d4 and after the trade e5xd4, he tries to outpost a N on d5, which exerts great pressure on black. If black can play d5, and I do not agree that he has the initiative there after the better d3, he does get easy equality with plenty of space.

In both this opening, and in most Sicilians, you should be on the lookout for when black can play d5. If he gets it in, then he usually has gained equality, so you want to think prophylactically, and play moves that inhibit d5.

Your plan of trying to put two pawns in the center is admirable, but if it were possible, it would be excellent, however, it is just not possible there.


50-move rule: FIDE wording seems weird FIDE rules seem to say that I have to claim draw (3-repetition and 50-move) before I actually touch/move my piece. And if I move my piece first, and then claim the draw, it doesn't count.

1) Is this really what FIDE is saying?

2) If so, why??? It's the (seeming) inconsistency which confuses me.

Why not either:

a) I cannot claim draw before I move, nor can I claim draw after I move

a) I am able to claim draw before I move, and I am able to claim draw after I move (but before I hit my clock)

Here's the sentence from the rules:

If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

Here is more context:

9.2

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

        a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and
        declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or

        b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

    Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has
    the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and
    the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.

    Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en
    passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is
    forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is
    moved.

9.3

    The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:

        a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his
        intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves
        having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and
        without any capture, or

        b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without
        the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

9.4

    If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the
    draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

Hi thanks for the question!

Yes this is what FIDE are saying. If you are about to play the 50.0th move of the sequence, or to cause a position to occur for the third time, then you need to claim before you move.

I think this is because after you have moved the piece, your opponent is allowed to respond, without waiting for you to punch the clock. If you then say "hey wait a minute" then this could be disruptive when one or both players are in time trouble. Best make the draw claim when it's clearly your turn to take the next action, i.e. before the piece is moved.

I am sure that people sometimes forget in the excitement though, which must be very frustrating!


Fritz: Full analysis Vs Blunder check In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check.

The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.

Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.

The following can be found on USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips:

“Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced
chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative
variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that
variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical
values.
Blundercheck gives much more "hard" information than does "full
analysis".
The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show
where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played
instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much
simpler form.
“Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves
which are actually worse.

You can find much more information on the website provided
above.  The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.


Android Stockfish communication works differently than on PC? How is number of threads to use written on Android versions of Stockfish? Whole communication works but somehow I still can't change number of threads. I even have working code for PC version of Stockfish where changing number of threads works.

This is what I do:

SendLine("setoption name Threads value " + threads.ToString());

And this is what I get as a reply from Stockfish...

  "Unknown command: setoption name Threads value 3"

When I send the same line with multiPV, Stockfish does everything as expected, sending desired number of PVs.

Is there something to consider when changing number of threads? Something that must be done prior to sending this command? Or is another command expected?

EDIT: I checked that when I "later" send meaningless line 'setoption name abc value true' it returns different text "No such option: abc". While the engine is silent when sending number of threads "later". So I expect it actually works after some time, so my question is, what must be done before sending command to change number of threads? As on the very initialisation it doesn't work for me.

I'm not sure what exactly happened, but looking through the source code, it appears your first token (setoption) is corrupted or not read properly.

Have you modified the code yourself? If so, please revert all your changes.
Please double and triple check the source code where you compile Stockfish.

  As on the very initialisation it doesn't work for me.

You don't need to initialise anything to make SF work. The common uci is absolutely useless (look in the source code to convince yourself). There is nothing you should need to do to initalize the engine.

I believe the problem was in how you compiled the engine. There's not enough information here for me to give you a complete answer.


1k gamesanalysis (PGN) I've been playing chess on-line for about 7 years now. I've downloaded my past games since 2011, its about 1k chess games. The download is in PGN format. Now I want to do an analyses on the data.

Is there a way to analyze all these games on-line or off-line, payed of free?

I'm interested in: The repeated mistakes to learn from, Personalized tips/hints, Statistics, learning curve (move rating, statistics).

Thanks for the info.

I am sure there's a starving master (redundant, I know) who would analyze your games for money. The Chess Life magazine used to have (still has?) classified where these services were offered.  This is surely the most personalized way.

Many free chess engines will analyze your games.  They play at the 3200+ (USCF) now so they should be somewhat better than what you can do in most cases. I use Stockfish and SCID but I have to say I find SCID to be clunky.

You may find a two-pronged approach better.  Get master analysis. While that's in progress, chew through the games using an engine.


My bishop is attacked by a rook-pawn, now what? I usually get into this position, where I just recently moved the bishop to g5 (or b5), and his response is moving h6 (or a6):

Usually here, I only consider two possibilities:

Take the knight
Retreat my bishop*
Do anything else (rarely profitable)

* either to h4 (or a4), or back in the long diagonal where it came from

I know this position strongly depends on how the other pieces are in the board, but I am sure there are standard responses, with their pros and cons.

I would like to study this position in-depth, possibly read some books that talk about it, anyone can point me in the right direction?

Also, in case of moving it to h4 (or a4), is it considered a mistake for black to attack again moving the other pawn two squares?

Usually the bishop doesn't end up by chance on this square, so why did you move it there in the first place? I can think of three reasons:

pin the knight in order demobilize it (e.g. an indirect attack on a pawn)
pin the knight in order to take it (e.g. to give the opponent a doubled pawn)
provoke a weakness in the opponent's pawn structure

Be clear which of these motives apply in your case before you move, then you know what to do afterwards. Obviously "development" isn't a motive, but just an excuse here.

By the way, if your bishop is on b5 and the bishop on c8 isn't developed, sometimes Qa4 is an option (axb5 Qxa8).


Draws, castling rights, and the FIDE's 2014 rulebook revision A question of rulebook pedantry:

Effective July 2014, the FIDE has revised its Laws of Chess.  As you know, the Laws have long allowed a player to claim a draw by repetition.  The July 2014 Laws, sect. 9.2, however append this curious sentence:

  When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling
  rights, if any, only after it is moved.

Sect. 9.2 does not explicitly link this sentence to the draw by repetition.  The sentence floats alone.

Because there seems to be no other reason for the sentence to be in sect. 9.2, one tends to read it to imply that, at game's start, four castling rights exist—White's kingside, White's queenside, Black's kingside and Black's queenside—and that these castling rights are as much features of the position as, say, a white pawn on b3 is a feature of the position.  White's kingside castling right vanishes when Rh1 or Ke1 is first moved, or when Rh1 is captured (though, actually, sect. 9.2 does not mention the rook's capture), and cannot vanish at any other time or in any other way.  Specifically, White's kingside castling right vanishes neither (a) when White is temporarily prevented from castling kingside nor (b) when no legal continuation exists in which White could castle kingside.

In other words, a castling right exists even if it can never be used; and this affects when a draw can be claimed.

Could one read sect. 9.2 in any other way?

For example, this (nonsensical but technically illustrative) game is not yet a draw:

[Title "White to open, illustrating sect. 9.2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 b6 6. Bxa8 Bd7 7. Qh5 Qxh5 8. Rb1 Nc6 9. b3 e6 10. Na4 Bd6 11. c3 O-O 12. Nh3 Qe5+ 13. Kf1 Qf5 14. Ke1 Qe5+ 15. Kf1 Qf5 16. Ke1 Qe5+

After 12... Qe5+, three castling rights have already vanished, but White's kingside right remains, even though no continuation exists in which White might eventually castle.  On the other hand, after 14... Qe5+ or 16... Qe5+, all four castling rights have vanished.  Therefore, triple repetition has not yet occurred.

Is my understanding correct?  Or is an alternate, reasonable interpretation possible?

Further reading:

Geurt Gijssen.  Arbiter's Notebook.
Bill Smythe.  USCF discussion.

My interpretation of the rules (which in this aspect I believe to be correct) is the same as yours. Although the example you provide with castling rights is conceptually a little more challenging, the problem is exactly the same as the one arising when the "en passant" rule is allowed on the first move:

[Title "White to open, illustrating sect. 9.2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Result "1/2 - 1/2"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. d5 c5 {First time this position happens.} 4. Qf3 Ng8 5. Qd1 Nf6 {Second time this "position" happens, but now white cannot take the pawn en passant, thus making actually this the first time this position happens.} 6. Qf3 Ng8 7. Qd1 Nf6 {Second time this position happens. This is not yet a draw.} 8. Qf3 {EDIT: As the OP pointed out, technically this is the first time a threefold repetition occurs in the game.} Ng8 9. Qd1 Nf6 {Now this is a draw.} 1/2 - 1/2

However, nowadays the FIDE rules are very clear and misinterpretations on this subject should (fortunately) no longer be a problem. Article 9.2 now covers both cases, and reads:

  9.2
  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):

  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
  has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

  Positions areconsidered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:

  at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
  a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

So, your (our) interpretation is the correct one, and there is no other possible alternative interpretation.


Is this endgame won for white? With the missing g and e pawns still on the board and a roughly symmetric position, I made a mistake that led to 17 moves of what I think of as quite difficult defense. My opponent walked into the following fork and then resigned.

 [Title "Game's Final Position"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/5pp1/7p/1n1R3k/4PP1P/8/8/r3BK2 w - - 6 1"]

I know that I definitely would not have resigned in that position.

  Is the above position won for white?

Conceivably, black could play Kg6 and try to put together something like a fortress, or even play g5 immediately after Rxb5. However, I believe the correct continuation would be

1 ... Kg4 2. Rxb5 Kxf4 3. Rf5+ Kxe4 4. Rxf7 g5 5. h5, resulting in the position

 [Title "End of My Main Line"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "8/5R2/7p/6pP/4k3/8/8/r3BK2 w - - 6 1"]

with black to move.

From tablebases (e.g. this site), I know that if I instead played 5. hxg5 and black responded with hxg5 then the position would be a draw. In fact, even if all three remaining pawns disappeared and it became my move, the position would still be a draw. Thus, white's strategy at the end of my main line presumably involves threatening/trying to win the pawn on h6, possibly after exchanging rooks.

(I don't know whether or not the "rook endgame" tag is appropriate, since there's also a bishop on the board.)

According to my analysis, it seems like a clear win. Black can't force the exchange of the remaining white pawn,  White has the Bishop of the appropriate color, and Black can't prevent White to improve the position of its pieces.

An important tactical finesse:

1..Ke5 2.Kg2 Rxe1 3. Re7+, winning the Rook.

Another important idea:

1..g4 2. Rf6 g3 3. Rg6! (3. Rxh6 g2+ 4. Kxg2 Rxf1 5. Rf6 =) 3..Ra5 4. Rg4+

and the g pawn falls.

(Note that 2. Kg2 is also possible, with the same idea as above.)

It should be a matter of time for Black to lose its remaining pawns, since the black King is cut off from them.  I can't offer any concrete lines, so perhaps I'm wrong here. But what I know is that

W: Kf1, Be1, Rh6, h5
B: Ra1, Kf5

is a win in the tablebases. It does not seem to be possible to prevent White to play Rh8 and h5-h6, after which the pawn is immune. As soon as it gets attacked by some Rh2, White has Rg8+, repeating the same tactical theme as above, or Bd2, protecting the pawn directly.

I've played some games with an extra Black pawn, and I have yet to save one game against Stockfish. One annoying bug of having a pawn on g4 is that black King can't move on g4.


How can I improve after 10+ years of chess? I've played chess for almost 13 years now (I'm 23), and I don't know how to improve my game level. I'm rated ~1400 FIDE, and have never been higher. I'm also ~1300 on chess.com after 700 games, and between 1700 and 1900 on their tactics problems. But even with this, I'm still losing games against 1200 ratings.
However, I don't think that I have a bad level. I win regularly against 1600-1700 in official tournaments in South France, and I finished 38th out of 200 in the ~1500 French Championship in 2018.
I think that my biggest problem is that I don't recognize when a good move is playable or if I'm winning on the board.
I never worked on tactics, openings and stuff in my youth. Maybe it's the cause of my problem, but today, I don't improve my level much. I can sometimes win against 1600 but still losing against 1200, and more than that. I saw new players that have begun because of The Queen's Gambit and are already almost better than me. I also saw someone on this forum become 1900 in only 2 years!
So I'm really questioning my chess level at the moment, but also questioning my learning. I would like to be given some very nice tips or advice.

Some suggestions, in addition to doing some tactics regularly (that's number one).

Play at a time-control that is comfortable and not too fast, especially if you are playing blitz.(eg: switch to 5 min if you normally play 3 min); improvement is difficult anyway by playing only blitz games. Slow chess is needed at some point.
Analyze your games and see what kind of mistakes that you are making. You might even be repeating a tactical mistake in an opening and these are things that can be noticed and avoided.
Pick some opening/strategy of your choice and play that every game; over time, you'll be familiar with it and get some confidence.
Learn some basic endgames; knowing at least simple ones like King+pawn vs King will give some confidence; you can build on that and learn Bishop vs 1 pawn ending, R vs pawn.
Play stronger opponents whenever you get a chance (there are settings you can adjust to seek only players above a rating). This will force you to raise your level.


Endgame analysis : white to play and..? R3nk21B1K4/4r3/4P3/3Pb3/8/3P4/8/1B1K4 w - - 0 1

White to play and ?, D.Antonini 09/2017

I wouldn't qualify this position as a study, at least according to modern canons for study composition, as there are a few duals (interversion ones) and a few other defaults. I prefer to present it as a practical endgame position worth having a look at.

Therefore I won't even give a specific statement : white to play, and it's up to you to figure out if they can win or only draw. I must warn you it's rather difficult to analyse this position accurately. There is one concealed idea (and programs won't be able to help much figuring it out).  But I'm sure you'll feel pretty happy once you manage to figure it all out - if you do (but with brillant chess composers like Noam Elkies around, I'm sure some of you will manage to).

First thoughts:

We are obviously looking for a win for White. Making a draw is no challenge, you just have to exchange either the rook or your bishop even if you lose all three pawns in the process. 1.d4, 2.Bg6, 3.Bxe8 is a straitforward draw.

If we do nothing dramatic, Black can blockade with ...Kg7 and ...Bd6, when he cannot be worse. So let's go for direct play trying to exploit the pin on the 8th rank:

1.d4 Bd6 (or 1...Bd4 when 2.Bg6 might be the best try but the hand wants to play 2.d6 Rxe6 3.d7 Bf6 (or Bb6) and Black seems to draw thanks to ...Kg7 or ...Rd6+ - looks like a good line in which one can look for pretty ideas...)

2.Bg6 Kg7 (Black can also wait with his bishop, but White will try to bring in his king and maybe create a zugzwang of some sort)

3.Bxe8 (3.Rxe8 Rxe8 4.Bxe8 Kf8 is a dead draw) and with the rooks on the board White may well be able to break the blockade.

Well, there is probably a win hiding somewhere in those lines, but it is not an easy one.


How many possible combinations for the number of pieces on the board? My question concerns the total material available on the chess board (black+white pieces). At the very beginning of a game, there are 2 Kings, 2 Queens, 4 Rooks, 4 Bishops, 4 Knights and 16 pawns. These can be represented by an array (2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 16). As the game progresses, the total amount of material will change, thus the array will change. My question is as follows. Looking at all theoretically possible games played from the initial position, how many unique arrays are possible to reach? The fact that a pawn can be promoted to any light or heavy piece makes the problem even more tricky!

Initial Board

16 Pawns
 4 Rooks
 4 Bishops
 4 Knights
 2 Queens
 2 Kings

After a pawn capture

15 Pawns
 4 Rooks
 4 Bishops
 4 Knights
 2 Queens
 2 Kings

Only kings left

 0 Pawns
 0 Rooks
 0 Bishops
 0 Knights
 0 Queens
 2 Kings

But it get more complex when you include pawn promotion (to any piece excluding pawn and king).

So what is the total number of combinations?

I've listed 3 combinations above. Here a 6 more

 P  R  N  B  Q  K
32  4  4  4  2  2  Initial Position and remains the same until a capture
32  3  4  4  2  2  First capture frequency combinations.
32  4  3  4  2  2
32  4  4  3  2  2
32  4  4  4  1  2
31  4  4  4  2  2  Pawn
etc
etc
0  0  0  0  0  2  Only Kings

It get tricky at pawn promotion cos each of the 16 pawns can turn in one of 4 pieces (R B N Q).  Which is why I curious to know the total number of (unique piece frequencies)

It's :
numberOfPawnsPieces(=17) * numberOfRooksPieces(=5) * numberOfBishopsPieces(=5) * numberOfKnightsPieces(=5) * numberOfQueensPieces(=3) * numberOfKingsPieces(=1)
= 6375

I added one to each number of same piece in case there is no one of its kind(for queens for example, there may be two queens, one queen, or none), except for Kings where there always must be 2 kings on the board, so the number of combinations for kings number is only 1.

**

EDIT : In cas there is promotions of pawns

**
My idea to tackle this is to separate all possible cases, i.e. when there is promotion of 1 pawn, promotion of 2 pawns,...,promotion of 8 pawns. ( 8 pawns is the maximum number of possible promotions )
Generally speaking, when x pawns are promoted, we will proceed same as above, but the number of pawns will be in each case (16-x), plus an other group of 4 * x possibly created pieces. Finally we will sum all over the cases :

                17*5*5*5*3*1 + SUM[x=1-->16,(16-x+1)*5*5*5*3*(4*x)] = **1 230 375**

This is approximate, I may have forgotten some cases, or added some positions that are just impossible to happen in a chess game,...etc.


UCI engine command white giving the same move I need help from someone who knows about UCI engines. I am giving the command by double clicking on stockfishengine.exe and manually entering commands.
I wanted to play white and I am running arena to play as computer (black).

I entered the following pgns in sequence:
e2e4, e7e5 (arena)... , e2e4

Commands entered:
uci
...
ucinewgame
...
position startpos
...
go infinite
...logs here...
stop
bestmove e2e4 ponder
------------
Arena GUI using stockfish engine made move : e7e5
------------
position startpos e2e4 e7e5
go infinite
...
logs here
...
stop
bestmove e2e4 ponder e7e5

As you can see above its still giving me e2e4 it should have suggested other moves for white instead of giving me the same best move. Can anyone help me on this? Thanks

Update:

Its still giving me the same best move. Maybe their are other things that I have to set before issuing position startpos ... command?

Follow my instructions in the screenshot.


Blitz tournaments (time control around 5 minutes) I want to know if any of you could help me finding results from strong Blitz tournaments where the time control is around 5 minutes per player. It's for research. I do not have Chessbase or any chess game data base. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Blitz_Chess_Championship
By 1950, the time controls had changed to the familiar five minutes per player, hence the "five-minute game" moniker; the term "blitz chess" would not be coined until the 1960s.

Please search the games on Chessgames. You don't need Chessbase.


Where can I find collections of chess problems (ideally direct mate) with solutions? I'm working on a chess program that gives the user various compositions for them to solve.  So far I'm only including mate in n problems where 1 < n < 5, and I'd prefer to only deal with this particular type of problem, but the range is flexible.

I'm looking for any sources I can take problems from for my game without infringing on copyright or anything of that nature.  The only other requirement is that the problems need to list their solution (ideally clear enough for the layman to understand). These could be sources that are in the public domain or ones that I can get written permission from the author(s) to use.

I've done some searching but haven't found many promising sources.  The more problems available the better, but I need approximately 100+ problems in total, so ~33 for each problem type (mate in 2, mate in 3, mate in 4, etc.).

I'm hoping the community here can point me in the right direction.

TheProblemist.org

  These direct-mate problems are chosen as a challenge to chess players who may be new to the world of composition. You should try to solve each problem before looking at its concealed solution. It may be helpful to look at the commentary or hints before revealing the solution.

Edit:

Chess.com has a great page of 10 puzzles with interactive chessboards. These are 'checkmate in one move' puzzles though, and are very easy.


Computer evaluations: How trustworthy are they? Fritz 12 with Rybka gave a friend of mine an evaluation of +3 for white in this endgame position,

[Title "White to move"]
[FEN "8/8/8/3k3p/3P3K/2P3R1/8/7r w - - 0 1"]

which turned out to be a draw. But I've heard that +3 from a computer means a guaranteed win with perfect play. Did I just hear wrong? How should computer evaluations be interpreted in general? What do opening advantages of <.5 even mean?

Different engines have different "scales" for their numerical evaluations. For instance, in a typical middlegame position with plenty of play left, when Houdini says +2.00 or better, it is highly probable that White has a winning advantage (though even here I've included qualifications for a reason). But consider: one could modify the source code of Houdini and double the absolute values of all numbers involved in evaluations; one gets an engine of identical strength that produces identical play, but now +4.00 means what +2.00 used to mean. This illustrates that one shouldn't expect a uniform numerical threshold across engines that typically indicates a winning advantage.

More than this, though, it's important to understand that a numerical engine evaluation of a position (as opposed to an outright declaration of inevitable mate) never strictly translates to "a won game," even for a single, fixed engine. A key point is that numerical evaluations have no clear-cut "meaning" in broad chess terms, and are rather just a substitute for sentient thought that is used to mechanically guide an engine toward generally desirable outcomes by influencing which move it selects at each point in the game; in this light, what is ultimately most important to an engine's play is just the difference in evaluation assigned to potential moves, rather than anything about the absolute values involved. The numbers are useful to the engine itself, which needs something that concrete in order to make a decision for one move over another, but we humans shouldn't be too quick to read more meaning into the magnitudes involved with thoughts like "+X means a win."

In particular, the further and further we get toward an endgame as opposed to a middlegame, the less we can use a rule of thumb (like my +2.00 for Houdini in middlegames above) about a certain threshold being enough for a win. One key reason for this is the difficulty that engines have recognizing fortresses, where an abundance of extra material still isn't enough to win. For instance, when I feed Stockfish this position,

[FEN "5k2/6p1/5r2/3Q3P/4K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

after a couple minutes thought it is giving an evaluation of about +7.00, and in a typical position, when Stockfish says that, you almost certainly do have a win on your hands. Nevertheless, this is a dead draw, and a human can see this easily once the fact is realized that Black can just shuffle the rook between f6 and h6, and so (1) the h-pawn is useless, and (2) the white king will never be able to help the white queen attack. Eventually, Stockfish will recognize a draw here too, once it butts up against 50 moves, say, or finally runs out of different moves to try and finally can't avoid a repetition, but those events are way down the search depth line.

The endgame position from your earlier question that you linked to is akin to this sort of fortress, in that the extra connected passed pawns White has there are nice and all, but ultimately not quite enough to win in that position. If an engine were to calculate for enough time to see as much information as is contained in tablebases, then its evaluation would come down to 0, but in the meantime, its evaluation algorithm has nothing better to go on than to give a + for that extra material (that it doesn't yet know is meaningless).


ChessKid or an adult chess site for a 15-year-old? Coincidentally, a month, or two, before the COVID-19 started spreading across the United States, and schools closed anyway, I had already started homeschooling my 15-year-old daughter. She had never really been interested in chess before, but I made chess lessons a mandatory part of her schooling because they help build logic, and chess could be very helpful on a college application in the future. She never had a great problem with confidence, but I have also noticed a difference there too.

I am happy to say that she has made remarkable progress skill-wise, and her interest has definitely increased greatly. Before it closed, she had been coming to the club at her old high school, and she likes the idea of beating the boys, and still has her eyes set on beating the club champion, a 1300-player.

I want to get her an online chess membership. I have little experience with ChessKid.com, so I am not sure if she is too old for that site, and I should just buy her a regular membership to an adult chess site, or if ChessKid.com is, in fact, the way to go.

Does anyone have any experience with ChessKid.com compared to adult sites, and its appropriateness to an older kid, in particular with regards to learning the game better, and not just as a playing site, but any comments about that are also welcome?

My advice would be to use the adult site. I've had several students but never recommended a kid-friendly site to anyone older than 8 years old.

It would be good to know why exactly you want that membership for further advice:

If what you are looking for is a site where your daughter can play and get experience, then make an analysis of those games (no engine please!), you probably won't even need to pay for a membership. chess.com and Lichess will both make the job easy for you. They also include tactical training, which is critical specially at the lower levels (see also ChessTempo, which also include a huge game database)
If you are interested in teaching material, then a subscription to a site like chess24 can be a good deal. You can find most things on YouTube but it's harder to filter out the "trash". There is just too much material to work with and no time in the world to study it all, so we have to filter out. If possible. I would consult with a chess coach what kind of material is the most helpful for her. After all, there's a lot of content that, while being good, may be oriented to players of a different skill level, or for a player of a similar level but with different strengths and weaknesses


Book recommendations on Pawn Endgame for intermediate and advanced level players? I just started preparing Endgame using Dvoretsky Endgame Manual. I am wondering if there are more books online about Pawn Endgames that I can use side by side either as an additional study material or solving book. Thanks.

Chess Endgame Training by Bernd Rosen features 16 sections on different types of endgame, with 5 of them focused on pawn endgames. Each section has around 16 puzzles to solve featuring different themes : zugzwang, space advantage, pawn break, and so on. Some were quite tricky to solve (I'm ~1850 FIDE) and the author's lines and insights were helpful, even though I already knew basic endgames.

FYI, I haven't read Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual so I can't guarantee you there's no redundancy, but I'd say it's unlikely. Rosen also divided material by section and within sections, which helps focus on particular themes for practice.


Is James Damore a FIDE master? James Damore has been in the news recently because of controversy over this document he wrote while he was an employee of Google's.

The article I had originally read mentioned that he was a chess player, so I searched Google for "James Damore chess" and found this article from "heavy.com" (which I had never heard of). The article stated that he was a FIDE Master, and cited his resume.

[ edit1: The Daily Wire has echoed this statement that Damore is a FIDE Master ]

[ edit2: FrontPage Magazine has done the same ]

However, I could not find Damore's FIDE profile, so it seems that he is not even FIDE-rated, let alone a FIDE Master.

It seems to me that there are several possibilities:

He is a FIDE Master, but somehow the record is missing from the FIDE database. This seems unlikely to me.
The resume is not actually his resume (fabricated by someone who is not him). This also seems unlikely since the website on which the resume is hosted looks like it is the official website for MIT's GORElaboratory.
He lied on his resume and said that he is a FIDE Master, when in reality he is not. This, unfortunately, seems the most likely possibility, especially since this USCF profile with his name shows a rating of 1817.

My question is: has anybody heard of James Damore in the context of chess? Is he really a FIDE Master?

I believe James Damore lied about his resume, and not just about chess.

  https://www.businessinsider.com.au/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

If he had the courage to lie about PhD in his profile (that's a very serious misconduct), why wouldn't he lie about being an FM master?

I can't think of a reason why his FIDE profile is not available, and his USCF rating is just a little over 1800. Hard to imagine we can't find a single FIDE-rated tournament crosstable with his name (he's a young guy and he had to play serious chess games to get an FM title).

James Damore is not an FM. He had cheated the media and Google.

PS: Note that the media simply downloaded the resume like we did. They had no idea this guy played well below the FM 2300+ rating. Journalists aren't chess players. They didn't have the experience verifying a chess player, but they did quickly send an enquiry to Harvard for his PhD (something they understood).


Checkmate with 3 bishops vs 1 bishop I know that you can mate with two bishops, but I do not know whether it is possible if White has 3 bishops, and Black has 1 bishop. Is there a general method? If so, is it possible for White to checkmate in all cases, where he has n+2 bishops and Black has n bishops?

White must have two bishops of one colour and a bishop of the other to get checkmate. White can then attempt to pin Black's lone bishop, which is. easier as more pieces get on the board. Then, White can checkmate.


Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess - Visual Teaching of Chess I have severe dyslexia which means that for the majority of chess books I find it very difficult to accurately read games (although having a board does help). My favorite chess book when I was younger was Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess (which I am sure many of you have picked up at one time or another); its visual style really appealed to someone with my particular difficulties. Is there a series of chess books, or an author/website which uses a similar purely visual method to tackle the more in-depth aspects of chess?

Since you have yet to receive any answers involving books, perhaps my earlier comment may serve as an actual answer: these days, for those like yourself working through obstacles like severe dyslexia, there is an ever-growing body of video-based chess instruction materials that could be well-suited visual alternatives to typical chess book fare.


What was Anand thinking in the 1994 Armageddon blitz semifinal? In the famous Blitz semifinal armageddon in 1994, Anand spends 1:43 minutes (from his 5 minutes available) on move 4, and ends up winning the game.
What exactly was he thinking? Are there any interviews (text, sound or video) available where he elaborates on his thought process?
[Title "Smirin - Anand, 1994"]
[Event "New York PCA/Intel-GP"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1994.06.??"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Ilya Yulyevich Smirin"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "C42"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[fen ""]
[startply "7"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Nxe5 {Here, Anand thinks for 1:43 minutes}
d6 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O
Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 Be6 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Be3 Bf5 12.Rc1 dxc4
13.Bxc4 c6 14.Ne5 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Nd5 16.Qb3 f6 17.Qxb7 fxe5
18.Qxc6 Be4 19.dxe5 Kh8 20.Bd4 Rc8 21.Qa6 Nf4 22.f3 Rc6 23.Qa4
Rxc4 24.Qxc4 Bd3 25.Qc6 Ne2+ 26.Kh1 Nxd4 27.cxd4 Bxf1 28.Rxf1
Qxd4 29.f4 Qxe5 30.g3 Qc5 31.Qe4 Bf6 32.Kg2 Rc8 33.Rf2 Qc6
34.Qxc6 Rxc6 35.g4 h6 36.Kf3 Rc3+ 37.Ke4 Kh7 38.Re2 Rc4+
39.Kf5 Rc5+ 40.Ke6 Rc4 41.Rf2 Kg6 42.h3 Rc3 43.Rh2 Rf3 44.f5
Kg5 45.a4 Kh4 46.Kd5 Ra3 47.Kc6 Rxa4 48.Kb7 a5 49.Kb6 Ra3
50.Kb5 Rxh3 0-1

From a YouTube comment section dedicated to the game (I did not find the primary source, so it may be untrue):

Anand was asked about this in the interview after. Smirin did not
play the opening Anand was expecting. In a finale like this, White
must win and so will play something dangerous to avoid Black forcing a
simple draw. When Anand saw that Smirin was deviating from his usual
opening, he says that he stopped to think what players and tournaments
Smirin had been in recently. He was trying to figure out if there was
some new trap or opening that had been developed recently using that
move. Once he had an idea what Smirin was going for (which could have
been ten moves out), he decided what opening he would play to avoid
that line.
The plan worked. Anand was able to prevent Smirin from getting any momentum in his attack. He sacrificed a piece to try to get a clear
path for his center pawns (to try to queen one of them), but Anand was
able to trade away enough pieces that Smirin couldn't keep the
position active enough to win.


How do FIDE rated players perform on lichess? I have been playing on lichess for a while and it strikes me how low ratings are compared to other rating systems. This is not to say that players are weaker, I have quite the opposite feeling, but ratings are Glicko, rather than Elo, and this the number of players is reasonably low, so this prevents inflation but still...

I am wondering what a typical low-2000s FIDE player's rating is on lichess. (I assume that higher rated players don't play online chess?) Thanks!

I went through the list of LiChess classical top 200 players and collected the FIDE ratings of LiChess classical ratings of anyone who I could verify on FIDE's website as actually having a FIDE rating:

LiChess FIDE    LiChess username    Name

2585    2265    ClassyPlays         Thibault Dudognon [FM]
2389    1869    nikkon2006          Nikita Konstantinov
2373    2274    PchelkinVK          Andrey Ermolaev [CM]
2357    1780    LeProfessionnel     Xavier Bohaer
2329    1963    Callmoon            Lina Nassr [WIM]
2299    2249    Peristeria          Marcus Schmuecker
2290    2214    Crocodilu1976       Adrian Stanca
2278    1899    TonoyanRob7         Robert Tonoyan
2271    1900    CamelClutcher       Daniel Herman
2269    1985    Chess-For-All       Alexey Pugach
2242    2242    weichi              Eugeny Pankin
2241    2208    kirillgenius        Kirill Shcherbinin [CM]
2241    2247    Cizar               Srboljub Zaric
2236    2065    pepellou            Jose Doval Gonzalez
2235    2093    Suleymanov_Marat    Marat M. Suleimanov
2232    2155    Son_Of_Caissa       Hrvoje Vlahov
2228    2358    VadimCernov         Vadim Chernov [IM]
2221    2010    emiliooo            Emilio Profili
2219    2274    Josip_buje          Josip Bulic [FM]
2214    1455    diarbovi            Diego Armando Bonilla Viamonte
2206    1878    hebertvr            Hebert Valera
2199    1958    MrsBlunderqueen     Jan Oltmanns
2193    2215    aconeni             Ondrej Toman
2193    2187    teddyhh             Julio Fernandes
2187    2190    yichen              Yichen Han
2181    2298    jolle23             Johan Hultin [FM]
2171    2270    Konnov_Oleg         Oleg Konnov [FM]
2164    2138    FrankDischinger     Dischinger Frank [FM]
2162    1754    moldscaien1357      Dimitrios Makridis
2145    1898    shayanaghaie        Shahram Aghaei

(I use the current FIDE rating, not the one listed on the LiChess profile; this affects 6 players.  One player had a FIDE profile page, but no rating: LiChess (2174); FIDE.)

We see some major differences in several cases, so we cannot expect a simple relationship between the two.  However, perhaps it's fair to conclude that a typical low-2000s FIDE player could likely reach a 2100+ LiChess classical rating.  However, I feel like it depends heavily on how seriously they play on LiChess.

Here's a plot of the above data, with a linear regression.  It's an incredibly weak correlation.


Why is it a good idea to fianchetto above the castled King? If I do that, should I make sure to leave the Bishop there for a while to guard the hole? I understand why fianchettoing can be helpful, even deadly to an opponent, but should it really be done on the side which the King castles into?  I realize that the King's Indian Defense/Attack involves fianchettoing on the kingside as well as castling to the kingside, for Black and White respectively; and that that position is quite strong.  But I'd like to know the principle behind opening up the N-pawn above the castled King.  Is it a weak point?  And if so, should I be careful not to move my Bishop from the fianchetto square?

I suppose more generally my question is: what should I be careful of when advancing a pawn in front of a castled King in the early to middle game?

Fianchettoes are a very common and strong setup. But watch also for the 2 most common attacks against a fianchettoed position, which are:

A. Launching the rook pawn up the board (against Black this would be h4-h5 etc.) and opening up the h-file. I have played this many times against the Pirc where Black "castles into" the attack. White plays h4-h5 followed by trading off the pawn and then plays Qh6+ with a very strong attack down the open file.

B. The sacrifice of a knight on f5 (where Black accepting the sac would play ...gxf5). This wrenches open the position and jacks up the pawn structure.

Even if the opponent trades his same-color bishop for your fianchettoed bishop, you can still become weak on that color complex (e.g. the opponent's queen can roost on h6 for example and be a thorn in your side)


Can 'Favorites' tagged with "Scid on the Go" be searched for in Scid on PC? In "Scid on the go" I can label games as favorites, but then the search filter on Scid Vs. Pc 4.8 does not show a way to search those favorites in the database. Is "Favorites" - Scid on the Go feature? Or am I missing something in SCID PC interface?

Found the answer - 'Favorites' in "Scid on the Go" show up as a "User" Flag in SCIDvsPC, and can be searched for that way as well.


How to connect a UCI chess engine play on FICS? I see that there are several chess bots playing on FICS. I would like to have my own chess engine running on FICS (guest mode is ok), but so far I haven't found any bot source code. I tried eboard and Raptor but these are only interface and do not allow a FICS - engine game.

You can use icsDrone or Zippy with Winboard to connect an engine using the Winboard protocol to FICS. You can use PolyGlot as an adapter between Winboard and UCI protocols to connect your UCI engine to Winboard or icsDrone.


How to win against queen with queen+rook, avoiding the draw with multiple checks I recently played the game where I was playing black and during end game I had queen and rook remaining and white had queen and two pawns.

I thought since I had more material, it would be easy for me to win the game but white kept checking me with his queen which left me with no option to sacrifice the rook to avoid draw. But this action got me in a position of losing but fortunately I managed to escape with a draw.

https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=2183712648.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.07.02"]
[White "rasimibrahimoqlu"]
[Black "111YearsOld"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B40"]
[WhiteElo "1229"]
[BlackElo "1101"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[EndTime "4:11:48 PDT"]
[Termination "Game drawn by stalemate"]
[CurrentPosition "7k/7P/5PK1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 71"]

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d4 Qc7 4.Bd3 h6 5.O-O a6 6.Re1 d6 7.d5 Bd7 8.dxe6 Bxe6 9.e5 b5 10.c4 b4 11.Bf4 d5 12.cxd5 Bxd5 13.Nbd2 Nc6 14.Ne4 O-O-O 15.Qc1 f6 16.Bxa6+ Kb8 17.Nxc5 Bxc5 18.Qxc5 fxe5 19.Qb5+ Ka7 20.Rac1 exf4 21.Nd4 Nge7 22.Rxe7 Qxe7 23.Nxc6+ Bxc6 24.Qxc6 Rd7 25.h3 Rhd8 26.Qa4 Rc7 27.Be2+ Kb8 28.Bf3 Rxc1+ 29.Kh2 Qa7 30.Qxb4+ Kc8 31.Bg4+ Rd7 32.Qxf4 Rc7 33.Qf8+ Kb7 34.Qb4+ Qb6 35.Qe4+ Ka7 36.Qa4+ Kb8 37.Bxd7 Qd6+ 38.g3 Qxd7 39.Qb4+ Kc8 40.a4 Rb7 41.Qf8+ Kc7 42.b4 Qxa4 43.Qxg7+ Kb6 44.Qxh6+ Ka7 45.Qe3+ Rb6 46.h4 Qxb4 47.g4 Qxg4 48.Qe7+ Ka8 49.Qd8+ Rb8 50.Qa5+ Kb7 51.Qb5+ Kc8 52.Qc6+ Kd8 53.Qd6+ Kc8 54.Qc6+ Kd8 55.Qd6+ Qd7 56.Qxb8+ Ke7 57.Qe5+ Qe6 58.Qg5+ Kd7 59.Qg7+ Kd6 60.Qg3+ Kd7 61.f4 Qe2+ 62.Kh3 Qe6+ 63.Qg4 Qxg4+ 64.Kxg4 Ke6 65.Kg5 Kf7 66.h5 Kg7 67.f5 Kh7 68.h6 Kh8 69.Kg6 Kg8 70.f6 Kh8 71.h7  1/2-1/2

How could I have won this endgame?

In general, if you are materially superior, you should try to trade down into a winning ending. Your extra rook in this situation against your opponent's queen and two unconnected pawns should normally have been enough for you to win.  Unfortunately, in your game the queen was too far away to help support your rook, and you had to permit a draw on moves 52 through 55 by triple repetition. Giving up your rook instead at that point should have ultimately led to a lost king and pawn ending for you after you allowed the queen trade.  You were fortunate to get the draw then.  Your taking the "g" pawn on move 47 led to that particular situation.


Reasons why king and rook mate quicker than king, knight/bishop and bishop? When I was very young I remember learning the point values of the pieces. And then I ran into something very confusing.

I was able to learn king and rook vs king mates pretty easily, but king and 2 bishops was trickier--and bishop/knight took me much longer to learn.

This confused me. B+B/B+N = 6 points > R = 5 points. So I did not understand why the rook did things more quickly. Was it just me seeing things linearly, or was there something about how pieces interacted?

I have some ideas for how to express this simply, but nothing concrete. It seems like there should be such an explanation.

King and Rook mate faster because the 2 pieces coordinate better together.

Recall that the mating procedure for King and Rook is about making a box with the Rook, then making that box smaller. This is quite straight forwards. Compare this to mating with King, Bishop and Knight, which is hard even for masters!

This brings me to discuss your misconception on the point value of the pieces. They relate to trading pieces. So if you trade Rook and Pawn (6 units) for 2 minor pieces (6 units), then on a point only basis, material is even.

Note also that the point value system is a guideline. It is not a cast iron law of the universe. In the example above, which side is better after trading Rook and Pawn for 2 minor pieces depends on the concrete position. But that is a different topic.