What chess openings require less study? I am new to chess and I am very confused by all the opening choices.  What openings can I adopt for tournament play that require minimal study time?

If you are new to chess, you should not be concerned with openings at all.

Several reasons for this:

As a beginner player you are much more likely to lose a game because you blunder a piece or because of some other simple tactics than because of lack of opening knowledge.
It is essential to have a decent understanding of chess before you start studying openings. This will allow you to learn an opening together with its typical plans (and not just learning moves by heart.) If you do this, you will know how to punish an incorrect move of your opponent and also how to continue the game in the middle game (when you are on your own). Contrary, if you just learn moves by heart you will not know what to do if your opponent plays a move that is not in your memory.
You have not developed a style yet, so would not be sure which opening suites you best.

What should you be doing now?

Focus on tactics, i.e. solve tactics puzzles. First and foremost avoid blundering pieces in one move. When solving tactics puzzles make sure that you always recognize the pattern(s) that are used in the puzzle.

Get a feel for how the pieces move. I am sure you know how they move, but you need to be able to quickly assess a position, seeing what is attacked, where pieces can move, etc, without having to consciously think about each and every move. This is also sometimes called "board vision" and it will improve as you play or train chess.

Learn some basic general principles like "piece activity, king safety, central squares control, ...". Reading/watching annotated/commented games and recognizing these principles in the games of master players will help you a lot.

Studying basic endgames can be instructive as well.


What to do about my low initial rating? My initial rating came out to be 1166. At the time I played the games against the rated players, which gave me this rating, I did not know much about the rating system and would often agree to draw with lower rated players. But now I see that it will be really difficult to improve my rating even if I improve my play, as defeating higher rated players will not give me much of a push. Can I reset my rating and become unrated again? What can I do?

I think you are too obsessed with ratings in general. Try to not think about your and your opponents' ratings and just focus on playing a good game.

Ratings only get important:

if you want to get a title such as IM, GM
if you want to be invited to some (usually high level) tournaments
for prestige, e.g. if you want to teach chess for money

In any case you are very far from these and the only effect your rating currently has is that it affects pairings in (some) swiss tournaments. But if you play much above your rating, winning the first few rounds you would soon be paired to stronger opponents anyway.

A rating of 1166 is rather low and if you do improve your chess you will automatically also improve your rating. For example if you play at a level around 1800 you should be able to gain around 50 rating points in a tournament. (this rating gain will slow down as you get closer to 1800, unless you increase your playing strength further).


How can I play sharp in positional openings (English, Closed Sicilian, Giuoco Pianissimo)? Learning to trust your intuition is an important part of developing as a strong player. If you sacrifice and you are wrong, you will probably lose. On the other hand, if you do not sacrifice and you are wrong, you might be able to draw. - Mike Henebry

I have realized that I am a sharp player. I benefit quickly from lines where a mistake by either side can quickly end the game.

What are some lines which...

give sharp middle games?
are easy to transition to?
lead to open lines?

Lines like the Sveshnikov Sicilian that favor creative over principled play. Rules to be broken.

First of all, you must build an opening repertoire. One as White, one against e4, and one against d4. As a sharp player, I suggest you always play 1.e4 as White, the Sicilian Defence against 1.e4, and the King's Indian against 1.d4.

When you are white, I'm sure you won't get to play the English (since you are the one to choose not to play it!). If he responds with Sicilian, make it open. If he responds with French or Caro and you really want to open lines, exchange pawns. If he responds with 1...e5, I suggest you to go to the Italian. Avoid Giuoco Pianissimo with the Evans Gambit or even the Italian Gambit! If he responds with anything else, build up a big pawn center and crush him.

Now, when you are playing the Sicilian, I know that some of your opponents does not play d4 and give you the position you want (this is my own experience). Therefore, I have prepared a setup if he does not open the position. That is, Nf6, Bg7, e6, d6, g6, Nbd7, a6, b5, Bb7, Qb6/Qc7, Rc8/Rd8, c5-c4, Nc5, and so on. Break with d6-d5 if possible.

For the King's Indian, if you haven't tried it, I'm sure you'll love it. It's closed, but extremely aggresive, since it's a race between Q-side and K-side.

To sum up, never rely on your calculation skills alone. You must have a plan for every opening you play, and never hope for your opponent's mistake.

  A bad plan is better than no plan at all - Emmanuel Lasker, 2nd World Chess Champion.


Win an exchange vs winning a piece I'm black. I took the rook and ended up winning the game. Did I make the right choice? Instead of winning a bishop, and after queens are exchanged, i would have got tripled pawns.

The Lichess engine says to take the bishop, then Qxc6 Bxf1, but I'm not convinced by that line. I mean, everyone would save the rook, as mentioned above. I think if I were to take the bishop, queens would be exchanged and white would save the rook.

And says if I took the bishop I'd have 3.6 points advantage, whereas taking the rook is 0.4 only. Again I'm not totally convinced by engines so I'm asking humans. I don't like having tripled pawns. Maybe the computer approach is best, but I don't think humans would play what Lichess suggested.

It is a typical beginner's mistake to overvalue the importance of having a good pawn structure. A friend of mine once gave a whole piece away to avoid getting doubled pawns, and you argue similarly in this position. That is very understandable if you have just learned about hanging, isolated and doubled pawns and want to adhere to this newfound wisdom.

BUT: It is very, very rare that an advantage in pawn structure is worth a full piece. The disadvantage from having doubled or even tripled pawns usually varies between zero and one pawn.

General advice: Don't worry too much about structure or pawns in general, having active pieces is much more important. Also: Having more material is more important, if only because a piece that your opponent doesn't have, cannot become active.


How did I overperform in this rapid tournament? My bullet rating is currently 1400 and it's pretty much the only time format I play as it is quick. I figured that I wanted to think my moves more thoroughly so I played some rapid games in a Lichess tournament. My rapid rating was around 1100, still having the "?,"  so you can imagine I wasn't playing much rapid.

I was amazed that I was able to beat 1800 players if I did not rush the moves. I even berzerked and won having 5 minutes to think. As black, usual features of the games were play on the kingside, opposite side castling, me having a bishop queen battery aiming at h3, and a rook on g8. Usually there is a white knight on f3 and a pawn on h3 and I gain initiative by playing g4 to force him to take with the pawn. They usually never make space to run with the king. Here is an example game.

Additionally, here is a different type of game in which my opponent blundered. Another game is also interesting even though my opponent’s rating wasn't high. I would definitely like you to take a look at it.

Was this just luck or I would be able to climb up someowhere around 1600-1700 if I played longed time formats?

There is a game theory of why 1st round NFL drafts don't perform as well as expected.  The reasoning is that the player had an above average couple of games and returned to his average performance.  By the same logic, there are later round drafts who have stellar careers.

I'm not going to make a judgement based on three games, or even your archive on lichess.org, as this would be as effective as making a prediction based upon your avatar.  I would say that guess that this tournament was lucky for you (assuming that your not a teenager who just improved naturally), but that, just by experience alone, you could achieve an 1800 rating on lichess.org at any time control.

EDIT:
Stacia Pugh (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn2k14U03rNRHApDIloxOkA) is a chess example.  She started off well and achieved a peak rating of 1791.  This can be considered a fluke as she quickly dropped to her floor rating.  She's still a good player and is trying to improve.


Queen vs rook & knight with all pawns I'm going through a chess tutorial (Shredder). One of the exercises begins where all pawns are in their starting positions. I have a queen and my opponent has a rook and a knight, again all in starting positions.

    [FEN "r5n1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/3Q4 w - - 0 1"]
    [Title "Exercise - Capture all the pieces"]

I need to eliminate the opposing pieces or at least prevent them from moving. At the "hard" setting I can't even get close to succeeding.  Can anyone give me some clues, or things to consider as I try to "win" this?

Attack those pawns on side where is no rook. Once he makes a hole, get your queen on his backs. This way you will be able to grab like 2~ I'd say. Then run with a pawn on a free file.

1. e3/e4 - Nc6 2. Qh5-h6 3. Qg4-g6 4. Qf4-h5 5. Qh6
just an example


Positions for visualisations where I can download positions for visualisation training? I am not looking for diagrams, I would like to have only position record saved in standard chess notation.

Or are there such a book?

Visualization training is visualizing moves on the board WITHOUT looking at the board, like:

Tell all the squares controlled by a knight on d4
All the shortest paths to move a knight from a3 to h8
How a Qa5 can attack a Rh4 without being captured
How a Nc4 can check a Kb7 defended by Bb6 without being captured

etc., etc.

you might laugh and think it is easy, but it is not. Try a series of them randomly created and write down your answers then compare them to what you see while looking at the board.

Fun stuff.

Purpose?
It makes you a better calculator when looking at positions during your game. You will eventually instantly see multi-move paths that pieces can take across the board, especially knights.


A chess problem (need help with analysis) my question is about the position below.

This is, if I copied it correctly, from a book called "How Good Is Your Chess" by Evans.  I'm an amateur so pretty much every single problem is difficult and not the book I had thought it would be but as I was returning this book, I tried another problem in the first few pages, where white is said to have three options:
1.Rac1 2. Rfc1 and 3. Bxf6

We are then told the answer is 3.  I had chosen number 1.  In explaining the answer I had chosen and why it's wrong, he says that if you choose that, then it leads to loss of initiative and endgame:

1 Rac1 Nc5
2 dxc5 Qxc5+
3. Kh1 Qxg5
4. Qa4 Qa5
5. Qxa5 bxa5

Eventually now we get to my question.  Why do I have to take the black knight on my second move anyways?  What if I just moved my queen to a square defending my knight?  Can I get out of this with a winnable endgame?

2r2rk1/p1qn1ppp/bp1ppn2/6B1/2PP4/PQ1B1P2/1P2N1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

If white does not take the knight on c5 after 1. Rac1, Nc5, the c4 pawn will be lost after 2.Q-somewhere, Nxd3 3.Qxd3, Bxc4. And that is just horrible for white.


How can a >2000 player stop making basic errors? For the last 3 months or so I've been unable to concentrate and play chess to the level that I am used to. I'm rated 2050.

I've been suffering from the following symptoms:

Being completely unable to see the board in it's entirety. I've done silly things like put my queen en prise because I just didn't see that an enemy rook is on the same file
Being distracted whilst playing. I have this odd habit of working hard to gain a winning position, then my mind drifts to some music that I like. Inevitably I throw my advantage away
Playing 'hope chess', i.e. I may analyse just one variation a few moves deep and conclude it is good for me. Of course I miss my opponent's best move

My question is, how can I get out of the rut?

From the way the question is written it seems like these flaws in your chess are uncharacteristic, and that you recently noticed that they've suddenly become way more apparent than before. The first point about putting pieces en prise does indeed seem uncharacteristic for any player >2000 Elo, unless we're dealing with very short time controls.

For a beginner, putting a piece or two en prise during a game is to be expected, but for someone of expert strenght it's indicating that something is going on. Most likely it has to do with momentary lapses of concentration, and it is very difficult in general to know why these happen. Has something happened in your life recently that puts you under a lot of stress? Then that is very likely the culprit affecting this area of your game, and you should work on improving your personal life in order to get rid of these annoying mistakes.

The second part, about getting winning positions and then not being able to convert them, is not uncharacteristic for a ~2050 Elo player in my opinion. Strong players tend to be remarkably resilient, and they will not yield an inch unless you force them to. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that it is very dangerous to think of your position as "winning". That way of thinking makes it much more likely that during a game you will start relaxing too early thinking the position will win itself, and consequently letting your opponent off the hook. Instead, I believe it is much more appropriate to always keep in mind that your position is nothing without you! Without you there to accurately improve it, your position will most certainly deteriorate, no matter how good it is to begin with. Don't forget this; do not relax until the game is over!

The part about "hope chess" should be taken care of if you remember that your opponent is not supposed to be your friend during the game. If they can avoid it, they will never actively cooperate with your plans. However, if the hope chess has increased in the last couple of months it could be caused by the same thing that is causing you to drop pieces. Stress has a way of making people mentally exhausted, and this will inevitably lead to chessplayers 'letting go' the moment they think they see a solution to their problems, unwilling to strain themselves mentally even further by double-checking to make sure the plan is air tight. In this case the solution to the issue should be to work on improving your personal life to eliminate mental exhaustion as a factor in your game.


What is the shortest number of moves from the starting position required for Black to mate White with a pawn? Interesting puzzle that is quite hard to stop.

4 moves, as far as I can tell.

[FEN ""]
1. e3 e5 2. Ke2 Qh4 3. Kf3 d6 4. Qe2 e4#

Another one:

[FEN ""]
1. d3 d5 2. Kd2 e5 3. Kc3 Be6 4. Qd2 d4#

And one more:

[FEN ""]
1. e3 e5 2. Ke2 d5 3. Kd3 Qf6 4. Qe2 e4#

Same theme for all of them, really.


Weakest player to ever beat the mature Bobby Fischer? Who was the weakest player to ever beat the mature Bobby Fischer in a tournament or match game? I understand that it's a bit hard to define the "mature" Fischer indeed, since he was incredibly strong even as a teenager, but I mean roughly, let's say, from the early 1960s on, e.g. not counting his very early years.

Summary:

Cesar Munoz from Ecuador is the last untitled player to beat Fischer, in 1961. Kovacevic is the last non-grandmaster to do that in 1970, but obviously he was already very strong. Janosevic in 1967 was a grandmaster but not the most famous of them. And Spassky in 1992 was not that strong anymore...

Detailed answer:

From 1960 onwards, Bobby Fischer lost 100 chess games that are registered here.

You can browse this list to pick whom you consider "the weakest" winner. About a half of the games were played in simultaneous displays so they don't qualify as tournament or match games. The answer might also depends whether you include blitz and rapid tournaments.

Fischer lost a couple of games to non-grandmasters in 1960 (IM Bernardo Wexler) and 1961 (Cesar Munoz, The unknown Ecuadorian caused a sensation in the preliminaries of the Leipzig Olympiad when he beat Bobby Fischer.), but if we limit ourselves to 1963 onwards, my suggested answer would be Dragoljub Janosevic in Skopje, 1967. It seems any other person who beat Fischer after 1963 was a world-class grandmaster (technically Kovacevic was still an IM in 1970 when he beat Bobby Fischer in Bled, but he was already of GM-strength).

Since Janosevic was a (less famous) grandmaster not far from his peak in 1967 who also won games against Tal, Petrosian, Larsen, Bronstein and an aging Botvinnik, there is also an argument to be made that the weakest person to beat the mature Fischer would actually be former world champion Boris Spassky in Belgrade, 1992, when his level of play had already gone down.


Where to find Tactical Exercises on the Decoy A decoy tactic is forcing an enemy piece to move to a square that prevents it from guarding an original square.

For example, if the black queen is at c7 and the f7 square is being attacked, getting the queen to move to c6 would be a successful decoy tactic.

Where can I find such puzzles?

The paid version of chesstempo allows you to search the problem database for all kinds of tactical motifs. Depending on your exact definition of "decoy tactic", you should look for what they call "attraction", "distraction", "clearance", "coercion", "sacrifice" and perhaps more.


Is takeback allowed in real chess? Is takeback allowed in real chess?

All chess engines allow take backs, but that's not important, it's just a computer, we make mistakes and correct them.

My question is about real chess, is it allowed? both online and in real tournaments? What about the one touch rule?

The answer for tournament chess is clear - one cannot request or approve a takeback. On certain chess servers, takebacks are allowed if agreed to by both players. The Internet Chess Club supports this feature, but others like Chess.com do not.


Why wasn't Caruana able to maintain the level he played in Sinquefield Cup - 2014 ? I recently found out about Caruana's performance in the Sinquefield Cup - 2014. I only started watching chess recently. I was convinced that Carlsen is head and shoulders over everyone else when I started watching two months back. Now I've realized anyone above 2750 is very dangerous. Recently I came to know about Caruana's performance in 2014 and I am wondering why he was not able to maintain that level of performance .

TL;DR: Caruana says that his performance depends on 'luck', which can be boiled down to Caruana's effort in the game compared to his opponent's effort. And by effort at this level, he mostly means fighting spirit and opening preparation, but also external factors affecting the players' psychology.
This interview records Caruana's changing fortunes in his own words:

Interviewer: You’ve managed to be the 3rd highest rated playe[r] in chess history at your young age. To what do you owe this success?
Caruana: I think I was having an extremely good period. I won 40 points in one tournament. It could have gone another way - I could have just had a few good tournaments, but all my success was basically concentrated on one tournament and that’s why I (laughs a little) won seven games in a row and my rating went up to 2840… I still wonder why I had that result and some results after it were very good, like the European Club Cup and after the Grand Prix. For some time I was playing extremely strong chess, probably stronger than I deserved (laughs). Maybe I had some luck as well! Because I had the strong period, and for a couple months after that I was struggling. In Wijk aan Zee, Zurich the next year I had like a six-month period where I was struggling to show good results, but for that especially one tournament (Sinquefield Cup 2014) I was unstoppable.

Source: chess24.com, emphasis is mine.
So Caruana says that he put a lot of effort into one tournament, the Sinquefield Cup 2014, but after that it is hard to maintain such a dominant position in chess. From the same interview, Caruana says this about fluctuating performance:

Let’s say you’re playing an opponent who is 2750. There’s a chance that one day he will play like, let’s say, not 2750 but 2300, 2400 or 2500 – he’ll just have a very bad day. Just a recent example - Nakamura against Ding Liren in the last round of the Sinquefield Cup was just an example of a very strong player having a very bad day, but I think it all balances up. You might have cases where your opponent is playing very poorly, but also cases where your opponent plays just unstoppably and doesn’t give you a chance, or you fall into preparation and lose because your opponent just had a new opening idea. Or the reverse! You win because of your new opening idea. I think in general it balances up, but there are ways to increase your luck just by fighting and never giving up. The more resistance you put up the more chances there are that your opponent will screw up.


When and where is it a good idea to make a pawn break in a closed centre position? I've read that you want to make pawn breaks by advancing your pawn on the file next to your most advanced pawn in these closed centre positions. What exactly is the reason behind this. Is it just to open up the files for the rooks and why specifically with this pawn? I'm finding this topic incredibly confusing so any help will be appreciated.

Opening a file for your rooks is one good reason to play a pawn break. Although, you should make sure that opening that file doesn't help your opponent's pieces more than it helps yours. As for breaking through near your most advanced pawn, this isn't really a rule that has to be followed closely. But the idea behind it is that once your advanced pawn becomes unblocked, it can push forward into the enemy position. Maybe this will allow it to become a passed pawn. Or, it could open lines for the rest of your pieces to break through. This may be more dangerous for your opponent than if you had broken through further back on the board.


What counter-measures for cheating exist? Given how huge an advantage real-time external feedback to a player during championship games would give the player, do any of the major chess championships deploy counter-measures to prevent the same sort of cheats you might expect to find at a casino? If so, are these counter-measures well known?

There have been tournaments that require the players pass through a metal detector, and play in an isolated environment with no spectator contact.  Still, there was the whole Toiletgate incident during the 2006 Topalov-Kramnik match, so even these measures might not seem like 'enough.'  Besides resorting to strip searching the players, what else can be done except isolate them from the outside world during the games?


What's the point of attack board inversion? In tri-dimensional chess some rule sets allow for the attack board to be moved from the peg on top of the main board to the peg on the underside (as long as the attack board is unoccupied). What is the point of this inversion? Especially since some rule sets deem it okay to ignore inversion rules.

Inversion seems redundant since the attack board's level under a board is the same as the level if it's on top of the board below. i.e. KL under neutral board is equal as KL over white's board.

The Star Trek set I'm familiar with has connection points for the attack boards at the corners of the main boards, but not elsewhere.   So you can have the attack board above the middle board in 4 spots (the corners), or inverted from the upper board, halfway across the middle board.

If the middle board is labeled a1-d4, then the attack board can be placed 'upright' at the outside corners of a1, a4, d1, and d4.   It can also be placed inverted at the outside edge of a3 (near a2) and d3 (near d2) beneath the upper board.

You can also invert a board without moving it along the file.  Moving it between boards requires at least a 1 'peg' move along the file.


software to analyze my own database of games with statistics I've been playing on lichess.org for my online games, and is the primary way I enjoy chess. One of the big reasons why I started playing on lichess.org was that they offer a simple way to export your games from their database into pgn format.

So far playing casually I have logged over 250 games at this point and downloaded the pgn files. I'm interested in getting some statistics out of this data. Is there a chess database application that I could use?

The primary goal of analyzing these games en mass is that I want to identify my strengths and weaknesses with my game openings. For example I enjoy playing the queens gambit, but I'd like to know my win percentages with it. Which ECO codes I am currently struggling with, which variants am I coming against most often? Am I truly a tactical player? or a positional player?

I believe that the data can help me identify trends in my game that I am currently unaware of.

I already use engines like crafty and stockfish to help me analyze individual games, but I'm having difficulty finding tools to help me analyze my entire collection.

Any suggestions?

There are quite a few programs - commercial (Chessbase, Hiarcs) or free (ChessX, Scid, Scidb, ChessDB, Arena). More or less, all will provide what you need.

I personally prefer ChessX (under MacOS and Windows) using the following steps:

Open your database
Select Menu View->Players which enables the player explorer
Filter the games for your own name

You will get a statistics for each ECO code played with White or Black.
Now you can tell, which ECOs provide good or poor results. If you need further details or statistics, you can create a ticket on ChessX homepage.


Help needed to find the big mistake Below is a a game in which I played as black. A chess engine analysis told me that I made big one mistake. Can someone point out what it is?

[FEN ""]

1. d4 b6 2. e4 Bb7 3. Nd2 g6 4. Bd3 Bg7 5. Ngf3 e6 6. O-O Ne7 7. Qe2 a6 8. Re1 d6 9. c3 Nd7 10. Nf1 h6 11. Ng3 b5 12. Bd2 Nb6 13. Rad1 Rb8 14. b4 Na4 15. Rb1 c5 16. e5 cxd4 17. cxd4 d5 18. Rec1 Rc8 19. Be1 h5 20. h4 Bh6 21. Bd2 Bxd2 22. Qxd2 Rxc1+ 23. Rxc1 Nc6 24. a3 Ne7 25. Qc2 Nc6 26. Bxg6 fxg6 27. Qxg6+ Kd7 28. Qg7+ Kc8 29. Ng5 Qf8 30. Qxf8+ Rxf8 31. Nxe6 Rf7 32. Ne2 Nb2 33. Ng5 Nd3

There's more than one mistake in this game, but the biggest one is the last move: 33...Nd3. Probably this is the mistake that was pointed out. It allows White to win a piece (e.g., 34.Rxc6+ Bxc6 35.Nxf7). A better move would have been moving the rook away with 33...Rf5.


Chess Hustlers in the Park/Street: Where do they place in terms of skill? Assuming the species still exists, has anyone researched this enough to provide insight into their approximate rating class/skill level (exclusively at blitz time controls)?

How do they typically get into the business or for that matter, demonstrate an above-average strength level (enough to make and not lose money!), given their difficult life situation. Is there a top dog / ringer type who trains the rest and personally deals with some of the stronger "ordinary folk" challengers?

I've been lucky enough to play a few dollar-games in San Francisco but not enjoyed their company enough to gauge if they are all A/B players or even  Experts.

Curious ... and I am positive that Hollywood paints a fairly distorted picture of the archetype, such as  the Disney-like Searching for Bobby Fischer or even the more gritty + over-the-top Fresh.

Movies like to present "chess hustlers" as playing chess for a living.

In reality, most of these people are playing chess for fun.  The "hustlers" are often just down on their luck financially and like to make some money while still having fun.

There's certainly no J.J. Peachum-type figure who trains chess players to go into parks and make money from innocent passersby.

As for their strength, it's entirely dependent on the city or area you're looking.  They're just a collection of chess players, there's no strength range you have to be in.  In New York, master-strength players have been known to hang out on the street playing chess.  In New Orleans you could catch a world-class player like Jude Acers sitting around in his red beret taking all comers.  Where I am, in Cleveland, it seems like the strength level is in the 1000-1800 range, but hey I'm 2050 and I play around there fairly often, and I've known masters and even an IM to join in at various times.  The guys who are into gambling are usually among the stronger players in their setting, which is again entirely dependent on where you look.  At any rate, gambling isn't as common as the movies like to make it out to be.  Having played all over I've only encountered it a few times and usually not from secret masters but rather guys who had learned enough tricks over the years to be able to beat most clueless people and were pretty confident.

It's not a business operation, it's an informal chess club where gambling is a part of the culture.


Mate in N. What is the largest N known? What known position has one side with a forced mate in N moves, with N the largest? I came across one with 517 moves using only 7 pieces, so there should be much be larger. (Ignoring the 50-move rule).

Dont know if this is on-topic here, - but how large can we make N (asymptotically) on an nxn chess-board with any number of pieces and placements?

I think answers to this question fall into 2 categories : problem composition and computer-driven few-pieced endgames' thorough analysis. The second one — to which your discovery belongs — being a tad bit more efficient than the first, that's probably all there is to say about it, if you're about sheer numbers. Art still has a long way to go on this road.

Regarding computer-driven endgames, the longest known so far is 549 moves long.

[FEN "1n1k4/6Q1/5KP1/8/7b/1r6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]


Are there any resources where one can view the popularity of a move by year? I am currently under the impression that White players are allowing the Nimzo-Indian more and more, whereas before they were dodging it via 3. Nf3.
I wanted to check if that is true, but usually databases do not contain this information explicitly. Are there any resources (software or websites) that have this feature?

SCID's Opening Report shows some statistics which may be useful here. From a given position, one of the things it does is generate a table which shows what moves are common from a given position:
4.2 Moves from the report position
    Move   ECO       Frequency    Score  AvElo Perf AvYear %Draws
 1: Nf3    E10a     8561: 50.8%   56.1%  2622  2665  2009   56%
 2: Nc3    E00d     6495: 38.5%   55.6%  2607  2654  2008   54%

The "AvYear" column there shows the average year in which the move was played.
And another table looks like this:
1.4 Current popularity

Year               1800-99 1900-49 1950-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09
Once every X games   ---     24      19      13       6      33      12

Frequency in all years:   once every 12 games
In the 10 years to today: once every 13 games (down 7% from all years)
In the  5 years to today: once every 12 games (no change from all years)
In the  1 year  to today: once every 0 games (no change from all years)

which seems like it would be useful.


Traps and alternate variations in the Spanish Game Which opening traps do the Spanish Game (ruy lopez) offer - and are there experimental/alternate variations (apart from non 3. ...a6 variations) to the opening that could be forced on either side of the board?

I don't play the Lopez, so I can't answer the part relating to experimental variations, but I can list some of the common traps:

Tarrasch Trap in the Open Variation

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Re1 0-0 11. Nd4 Qd7?, White wins a piece:

[FEN "r4rk1/2pqbppp/p1n1b3/1p1pP3/3Nn3/1BP5/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 w - - 0 12"]

   12. Nxe6 Qxe6 (or fxe6) 13. Rxe4

Tarrasch Trap in the Steinitz Variation

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. 0-0 Be7 7. Re1 O-O, White wins a pawn:

[FEN "r2q1rk1/pppbbppp/2np1n2/1B2p3/3PP3/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 8"]

   8. Bxc6 Bxc6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Qxd8 Raxd8 11. Nxe5

Mortimer trap

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Ne7 5. Nxe5?, Black wins a piece for 2 pawns:

[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppppnppp/5n2/1B2N3/4P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]

   5...c6 6. Nc4 d6 7. Ba4 b5 8. Bxb5 cxb5

Noah's Ark Trap

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. d4 b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?, Black wins a piece:

[FEN "r1bqkbnr/2p2ppp/p2p4/1p6/3QP3/1B6/PPP2PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]

   8... c5 9. Qd5 Be6 10. Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5 c4

Mate in the Exchange Variation

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 7. hxg4?, Black has good mating chances:

[FEN "r2qkbnr/1pp2pp1/p1p5/4p2p/4P1P1/5N2/PPPP1PP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7"]

   7... hxg4 8. Nxe5 Qh4 9. f3 g3 lead to mate

Mate in the mainline

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 7. d4 Bb4 8. dxe5 Nxe4 9. Qd4 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Ba5?, White has a mating attack:

[FEN "r1bqk2r/1ppp1ppp/p7/b3P3/B2Q4/2P5/P1P2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - 0 11"]

   11. Ba3 b6 12. e6! Qf6 13. Bxd7+ Kd8 14. Bc6+! Qxd4 15. e7#

Suggestion for the community: should we turn this answer into a community wiki? I realise I've listed only a handful of traps.


The Knight is stronger in Rapid/Blitz than it is in classical time controls. How many centipawns does the Knight gain in Rapid and in Blitz? In blitz, the knight is stronger than the bishop. - Vlastmil Hort

I am using this point value system for classical time controls (at least one hour per player):

Pawn = 1
Knight = 3.25
Bishop = 3.25
Rook = 5
Queen = 9.5
Bishop pair = +0.5

But as we all know, the Knight gets a little bit stronger in Rapid (from 15 minutes to 60 minutes per player), and it perhaps gets even more powerful in Blitz (from 3 minutes to 15 minutes per player). I would like to quantify/evaluate the average strength of the Knight in Rapid and in Blitz.

Therefore my two questions are:

How many centipawns does the Knight gain in Rapid?
How many centipawns does the Knight gain in Blitz?

Even though it may not be easy, please try to make estimations as precise as possible.

.

.

@Wes : Well I have at least three sources that confirm that Knights get stronger in Rapid and Blitz.

The first is GM Vlastmil Hort which I previously quoted. He had a peak rating of 2620 Elo and even reached the 1977–78 Candidates Tournament.

The second is this news report from Chess.com about a "death match" which happened only a week ago.

  "Before the match, I thought it was easier to play in blitz with the knight, not the bishop," GM Kosintseva said, reflecting the popular notion that knights can be very tricky with minimal time.

The third source is this Chess.com thread, where a National Master said:

  It does matter and knights are better in blitz !  Take it from someone who has played more than 50,000 blitz games ! Most titled players I talk about this with agree that knights are better in blitz than bishops.

The Knight is not stronger in blitz, such a statement is nonsense.

It is you that are weaker at calculating at blitz, and the Knight is simply more difficult to handle with less time to calculate due to the kind of moves you can make with it.

So it's matter of how your brain handles Knights nothing intrinsic in the Knight.


Problems: record for most mates-in-2 Does anyone know what the record for most mates-in-2 is for a composed problem?

Example: this one has 58 different moves that mate in 2.

[FEN "6R1/8/8/8/3Q3B/5K2/7k/1R6 w - - 0 1"]

Sir Jeremy Morse, in Chess Problems: Tasks and Records, Introduction, cites this construction by E. Luukonen:

[Title "E. Luukonen, Uusi Suomi, 1936"]
[fen "kr6/pnPPPPPPPP/P2N4/R7/3BBN2/1Q6/3K3P/6R1 w - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

All of White's 117 moves lead to mate in 2. White has no mate in 1, but if Black's rook were to move, or if (after White captures that rook) Black's king were to recapture, White then has a mate. Thus a waiting-move is enough.


How to play against higher rated (much stronger) players I am about to play a master. This is an important game, and I want to win it. What should I do and how to prepare? Is there something special I can do, such as special openings, sharp lines, etc.?

Unless you have gotten much stronger than your 1542 FIDE rating, you have to realize that your odds of winning are not very good. It is fine to be realistic, but just do not let that overwhelm your emotions.

You want to keep calm, and do not be afraid. I would not be afraid at all if I were playing Magnus Carlsen. Oh sure, I know what the result is likely to be as I am not crazy, but there is no point in having any fear, and I would just try to play the best chess I can.

It helps if you are white, but if possible, I would aim for a position where I can reasonably gambit a pawn, or two, for a wild tactical position. If you play a quiet position where your master opponent's stronger positional skill is not challenged, you are destined to lose. On the other hand, even low-level masters can make tactical errors, and over look something.

If you have a lot of time to prepare for him, like in a one-game-per-week tournament, go over every game of his you can get your hands on with a computer. It is not likely, but you might find some opening move that he has played that is a hidden blunder, and if so, you could aim for that position again.

Although rare, lightening does strike. Here is a game that I still recal reading during my first year of playing. This is from the 1980 U.S. Open, and a 1621 player, W Stanley Davis, beat GM John Fedorowicz, who was rated 2479 at the time, so good luck. Please note that it was an aggressive, tactical game.

This is from the December 1980 issue of Chess Life, and I took it from the free archives the USCF now puts out online.


What are the reasons why I should not try to take a Knight with my Bishop if it'll result in doubled pawns? For instance, in the Ruy Lopez, after

[FEN ""]
1. e4   e5
2. Nf3  Nc6
3. Bb5  a6

why shouldn't I take the Knight?

4 Bxc6 dxc6

Now Black has a doubled pawn.

It isn't a very popular line of play, which is why I think I shouldn't play it; but as to the principle, is it because I'm opening up Black's game?  I don't see any significant advantages/disadvantages for either side.

This is a variation that was played fairly frequently, but it has been more or less worked out to a draw, so it is less common at the top levels now.
The Ruy Lopez is a very concrete opening, and the capture on c6 has to be carefully considered as it relates to the exact position.
In terms of opening principles, you're giving up a bishop for a knight in an open position.  If you could take the pawn on e5, it might be good, but the pawn is protected via the tactical shot 5.Nxe5? Qd4! when white has basically given up the two bishops for very little compensation in a wide open position.
Another downside to Bxc6 is that the black's light square bishop is developed by dxc6, allowing it to come to g4 without waste of time.  Indeed, one of the most critical lines continues 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 when black is offering a piece for attacking chances along the h file.
With all of that said, this is a very common motif in the Ruy Lopez (Bxc6).  The pawn structure after d4 and exd4 is very good for white.  If all of the pieces were traded off, white would win the king and pawn endgame by making a passed pawn on the kingside and black cannot make a passed pawn on the queenside.
There are also many cases when spoiling your opponent's pawn structure is very good.  For example, if black has castled kingside, and a bishop can take on f6 and force ...gxf6, this is almost always good for white.  The king becomes very exposed with the g file open.  In the Spanish Four Knights, one player or the other will very frequently take on c6 or c3.


Is Bg4+ good in this position in the Alekhine Defense? This is one of my games

[FEN ""]
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.Bf4 dxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1, Bg4+ 9.f3 Bh5 10.g4 Bg6

Black to move, I played dxe5, dxe5, Qxd1 Kxd1 and now I played Bg4+ so that he plays f3 and block his knight, well if he blocks the check with his knight i take it.

flip the board to see from my point of view, i don't know how to flip it by default.

and after f3 I played Bh5 so that he plays g4 stretching his pawns and then Bg6

Is this setup good for black? Is there a better setup?

I rarely play this defense and there isn't too much material on balogh variation, so i was trying to avoid some common traps if I fianchetto the black bishop so I tried to block the knight.

I'm not asking to analyze this particular game because my opponent is below 2000 so if you play correctly you could beat him, I'm asking is Bg4+ playable at the GM or masters level? If not, why not?

[FEN ""]
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Bc4 Nb6 5. Bb3 Nc6 6. Bf4 dxe5 7. dxe5 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1, Bg4+ 9. f3 Bh5 10. g4 Bg6

I think that the position after 10...Bg6 is better for black. The white bishops are not collaborating very well. In fact, the white bishops are virtually useless at the moment. In addition, the white king needs to make a couple of moves to find a reasonable position, if it will find it at all.

Black wants to play O-O-O, e7-e6 and h7-h5. White could very well become crushed here. I think that 6.Bf4 was not the best choice for white, 6.e6 or 6.exd6 should be better.


Options for following the Norway Chess tournament live I've heard a new tournament format is being adopted in the new series of Norway Chess, where each drawn classical game is followed by an Armageddon game in order to conclude with a decisive result for each match-up.

What are the recommended (free) websites for following the event live other than the official coverage of the tournament?

You can follow the event live from various platforms, to name a few:

Chess24: live broadcast of moves and engine analysis available to all
users, and the live commentary provided by Jan Gustafsson and Peter
Svidler restricted to premium members for this event.
But all broadcasts are recorded and available freely on their youtube
channel, including Peter Svidler's analysis of a game of the round.

Chess24's page for current round
Related uploaded videos on their youtube channel

Lichess: also provides the live broadcast of moves via its dedicated
study page for each round of the tournament. The advantage is more
freedom to customize the engine analysis while following a game and also more suitable for following the moves live from your phone.

Dedicated study page for current round

Miscellaneous: There are also various streams providing commentary for the event (see e.g. the twitch page of chess streams), among them is the chessbrah channel having Yasser Seirawan and Nils Grandelius currently as guests.

Twitch page of live chess streams
Chessbrah channel, with invited guests providing live commentary.

So there's plenty to choose from given what you're most interested in.
If there's one thing I would definitely recommend, is to watch Peter
Svidler's post analysis videos of the game of the round
as they are highly instructive and fun.

All of his uploaded sessions on chess24's YT
Restricted to the Norway Chess event


Why isn't chess played with flat pieces? I was wondering why Chess isn't played with flat pieces, as Shogi is, or as Chess itself is represented online (where people mostly play with flat 2d pieces, even though most sites also have a 3d theme).

Personally, flat pieces seem more clear to me, albeit less pretty. When the pieces are tall, they start blocking each other and it's not immediately obvious where each piece is.

For example, here's a simple example. This board isn't even close to being cluttered, and yet I still need to glance at White's pawns to make sure they actually are there, because they are close to being blocked by the other pieces. In particular, the f2 pawn is a bit hard to see. Likewise, Black's c7 pawn is blocked by the knight.

I know that this can be fixed by getting closer to the board and looking at it from a top-down perspective, but... first of all, that's annoying: sometimes I just want to lean back in my chair and stare at the board from a distance in a relaxed position, yet I can't, because now all the pawns are blocked by taller pieces. Second: if you are going to be looking at it from a top-down perspective... then why even bother with tall 3d pieces? Your perspective will make them look like 2d anyway.

It's probably for historic reasons. Chess is very old and a metaphor for two armies making war, and people chose to make 'statues' to represent the pieces. Since this has worked well so far, nobody felt the urge to change them to 'tiles', that is, until computer chess came into being. I've never played Shogi on a real board, but I can imagine 2D pieces are harder to grab than 3D pieces. At least, that is my experience with playing draughts; with moves, you can push a piece, but with captures you have to pick up a piece.

But why is Shogi, which also has a rich history, played with tiles? Well, one good reason might be promotions:

They are much more common than in chess
A piece promotes to a predefined other piece (there is no choice like in chess)
In case it's captured, it matters what the original piece was

Flipping a tile is an elegant solution for this problem, unlike replacing it with another piece from outside the game.


What are the ideas of 6. Qf3 in the Scotch? In the following sequence of moves, what are the main ideas of the fashionable 6. Qf3 in the Scotch? Can White hope for a real advantage by letting Black trade Queens so early and worsening (at least from a theoretical point of view) his Pawn structure?

[FEN ""]
[Startply "11"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nxc6 Qf6 6. Qf3

PS: Another strange-looking early Qf3 by White that has become popular recently! Others are in the Sicilian Taimanov and in the Exchange Alekhine...

I only see three alternative moves to defend the f2 square: 6.Be3 Bxe3 7.fxe3 results in doubled isolated center pawns, not something I would like to play with. 6.Qd2 and 6.Qe2 block the bishops.

I guess it's a matter of what you like to play with. If you block one of your bishops, you can later play the queen again or fianchetto the bishop. 6.Qd2 and then fianchettoing your dark-squared bishop requires more moves as the black queen controls the b2 square. 6.Qe2 blocks in your light-squared bishop taking you longer to castle (short).

After 6.Qf3 Qxf3 7.gxf3 you can still castle long and you have quite a strong centrum pawn formation. Perhaps this looks better than the alternatives.


Does playing correspondence chess improve your game? My rating is around 1200 and I want to improve my chess.  Will playing correspondence chess improve my game?

Whether or not playing correspondence chess will help you to improve depends a lot on how you play.  If you move after a quick look at the position and use it more like a Blitz game with the possibility of pausing, then I do not think you will improve much.  If on the other hand, you use it to study the relevant openings, pawn structures, endgames, etc. then they can provide a real asset for improvement.  In particular if you combine them with some theoretical inputs from books etc. as you can then immediately try to turn the things you learn into praxis (which means you really learn them).

Another thing that may be worthwhile is to keep notes during the games of what moves you were considering and how you evaluated them.  In the post mortem you can then check your analysis and evaluation of the game and spot areas for further study and improvement (e.g., good moves you did not consider, or moves where your evaluation deviates strongly from that of, say, a chess engine or a coach).

Of course not everything improves by correspondence chess.  For example, if in OTB games you often hang your pieces or fall for simple tactics, then you really need to work on this separately.  The fact that you can try the moves in correspondence chess should help to eliminate these simple mistakes from your correspondence games but they will likely be back in OTB games.


Please critique my Engine game Two of my engine's played against Garbo engine. (without a opening Book on my part.) Both lost :( Which played better? I need a comparative analysis. Both shared the same evaluation. frankenstein played much faster :(

[Site "Chessrig app"]
[White "garbo"]
[Black "frankenstein"]
[Opening "Mieses-Kotroc Variation, Center Counter"]
[Event "Simmulation"]
[Date "2017-11-13"]
[TimeControl "unlimited"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Checkmate by white in 75 moves."]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd4 4. Nf3 Qd6 5. d4 Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 7. g4 Bg6 8. Ne5 Qe6 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Bc4 Qd6 11. h4 e6 12. h5 Bxc2 13. Qxc2 Qxd4 14. Qe2 Qd6 15. Bf4 f6 16. Ng6 e5 17. Nxh8 Ne7 18. Bf7+ Kd7 19. Rd1 Nd5 20. Bxd5 exf4 21. Be4 Na6 22. Nf7 Qxd1+ 23. Qxd1+ Ke8 24. Nd6+ Kd8 25. Qb3 Bxd6 26. Qg8+ Kc7 27. Qxa8 Bb4 28. Bxh7 Nc5 29. Qxa7 f3 30. a3 Nd3+ 31. Bxd3 Bd6 32. Ba6 Kd7 33. Qxb7+ Bc7 34. Ne4 Kd8 35. Qc8+ Ke7 36. Qxc7+ Kf8 37. Qd8+ Kf7 38. Bc4# 1-0

game1 analysis using chess.com

[Site "Chessrig app"]
[White "garbo"]
[Black "prospect"]
[Opening "Mieses-Kotroc Variation, Center Counter"]
[Event "Simmulation"]
[Date "2017-11-13"]
[TimeControl "unlimited"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Checkmate by white in 59 moves."]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd4 4. Nf3 Qd6 5. d4 Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 7. g4 Bg6 8. Ne5 Qe6 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Bc4 Qd6 11. h4 e6 12. h5 Bxc2 13. Qxc2 Qxd4 14. Qe2 Qd6 15. Bf4 f6 16. Ng6 e5 17. Nxh8 Ne7 18. Bf7+ Kd7 19. Rd1 Nd5 20. Bxd5 exf4 21. Be4 Na6 22. Nf7 Qxd1+ 23. Qxd1+ Kc7 24. Qf3 Re8 25. Qxf4+ Kc8 26. Kd2 Re6 27. Bf5 Nc7 28. Re1 g5 29. Rxe6 gxf4 30. Re8# 1-0

game2 analysis using chess.com

I would start by asking why your engine is making horrible tempo loss moves with the queen?  8...Qe6? in game one and 3...Qd4? in game two.  You need to consider "developing with tempo" somehow.


How can one easily learn chess board coordinates? I am relatively new to chess, and I wonder, what is a fast (and hopefully easy) way to learn chess board coordinates? This is so when I am watching a video where the commentator says, for example, "Knight f6," I know to look quickly at f6, and I don't waste time looking for coordinates on the edge of the board or count it.

Some websites offer "coordinate drills". I'm not sure how effective they are for learning, but you can certainly give them a try. I found it to be surprisingly entertaining to try to beat my personal record number of coordinates per minute (or whatever the time limit is). Here are the two I know of, but maybe there are others (and maybe there are apps, as well):

https://www.chess.com/vision

https://lichess.org/training/coordinate

Personally I've found that studying openings (and to a certain extent, checkmate patterns) helps learn coordinates because you start associating coordinates with certain moves, which gives each square its own "personality". For example, c4 is not just c4 anymore; it is the square where the bishop goes in the Italian game, or where the pawn goes in the queen's gambit.


Has the success of computers reduced the stature of chess as an 'intellectual' sport/game? As human beings, we know that there are different aspects of intelligence. Often, innovation and creativity are considered to be higher levels of intelligence, whereas the ability to calculate is considered to be a lower level of intelligence. Mere calculational ability alone does not imply intelligence. For example, even a top scientist may not be able to compute the square of an 8 digit number, but a computer would be able to do it in a fraction of a second. However, a computer cannot do many of the things which humans are capable of, like invent a new device, or discover new science. It is a credit to the human intelligence that he is able to invent a device - the computer - to do things he would not be able to do ordinarily, just as other devices such as cars, aircraft, etc. have been invented.

Computers don't use real intelligence for playing chess, they just calculate millions of moves until they find an advantageous combination. Does this prove that chess is just about calculational ability and does not really involve any real intelligence?

Firstly, I think it is fallacious to consider chess a measure of intelligence (even though that is the general view). Chess ability, like almost any other skill-based activity, is a function of hard work and dedication far above raw talent. Wikipedia has an entry on this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Chess_and_intelligence) - researchers have found that there actually exists a somewhat inverse relationship between chess ability and intelligence amongst novice players - the reasoning being that smarter chess players do not work as hard on their skill as their less-gifted contemporaries - and in the long run, hard work pays off.

Secondly, you have to consider that computers and humans play chess very differently. Where a computer engages in millions of raw calculations, humans rely more on experience and pattern recognition to evaluate positions. The fact that computers can beat humans are essentially meaningless, as we are not comparing a like-for-like ability.

To say that chess computers have diminished the human skill of chess is, in my opinion, equivalent to saying that auto-mobiles have somehow diminished the skill and ability of marathon runners.


Why is the centre of the board considered important in chess? Yes, we have all heard phrases like 'control the centre'. I would like to know the concrete reason why the centre of the board - in particular the 4 squares - e4, e5, d4, d5, are considered important in chess. What makes them different from any other square? What is the reason that these squares supposedly enjoy such a privileged status compared to other squares? Are they important only in the opening and not so important in the middle and end game? Why? Or is it all just a myth?

While (e4, d4, e5, d5) are generally regarded as the central squares, the same principle can sometimes be extended to the adjacent squares like (c4, c5, d3, d6, e3, e6, f4, f5). So we have a kind of central polygon -

Controlling the center is not an end in itself but a means to an end. The end results could be any combination of the following-

1. Greater influence over the board.

Normally, if you control the center, then your pieces have more control over the whole board in general. Thus, a knight centralized on e5 generally controls more important squares than a knight passively placed, say, on a4.

Recommended Game:

Karpov vs Kasparov World Championship Match (1985), Game 16 - Kasparov anchors a Black knight on d3 which was famously described as the "octupus", controlling several key squares in White's position and greatly influencing the entire board. White's knights on the other hand are pushed to passive squares like a4 and b1, exerting almost no control over the board.

  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
  [White "Karpov"]
  [Black "Kasparov"]

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6
  8. Na3 d5 9. cxd5 exd5 10. exd5 Nb4 11. Be2 Bc5 12. O-O O-O 13. Bf3 Bf5
  14. Bg5 Re8 15. Qd2 b5 16. Rad1 Nd3 17. Nab1 h6 18. Bh4 b4 19. Na4 Bd6
  20. Bg3 Rc8 21. b3 g5 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. g3 Nd7 24. Bg2 Qf6 25. a3 a5
  26. axb4 axb4 27. Qa2 Bg6 28. d6 g4 29. Qd2 Kg7 30. f3 Qxd6 31. fxg4 Qd4
  32. Kh1 Nf6 33. Rf4 Ne4 34. Qxd3 Nf2 35. Rxf2 Bxd3 36. Rfd2 Qe3 37. Rxd3 Rc1
  38. Nb2 Qf2 39. Nd2 Rxd1 40. Nxd1 Re1 0-1

2. Greater mobility of pieces.

Often, if the central pawns are not advanced two squares, they can hinder the bishops from development. They provide less space for the pieces to move. If these pawns are advanced to the central squares, then the mobility of the pieces is greatly enhanced. Thus, e2-e4 frees the bishop on f1 and d2-d4 does the same for the bishop on c1. Besides, these moves also make room for the queen on d1 and later for the rooks to come into the game on the d or e files if they have been opened.

Recommended Game:

Paul Morphy vs James McConnell, 1849 - Morphy follows basic opening principles; develops pieces towards the center, advances pawns to e4 and d4, his bishops come to life and the Black queen is at the mercy of his centralized pieces.

  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
  [White "Morphy"]
  [Black "McConnell"]

  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 Qg6 6. Bd3 Qxg2 7. Rg1 Qh3
  8. Rg3 Qh5 9. Rg5 Qh3 10. Bf1 Qe6 11. Nxd4 Qe7 12. Ne4 h6 13. Nf5 Qe6 14. Nfd6 Bxd6
  15. Nxd6 Kd8 16. Bc4 Qe7 17. Nxf7 Kc7 18. Qd6 Qxd6 19. exd6 Kb6 20. Be3 c5
  21. Bxc5 Ka5 22. Rg3 b5 23. Ra3 1-0

3. Restricted mobility of enemy pieces.

Suppose white manages to place both pawns on d4 and e4. This makes it difficult for the Black bishops to find good squares like c5 or f5. They thus have to remain passive or try a fianchetto, which might not always be convenient. Also, the pawns on d4 and e4 restrict and also have the ability to attack the Black knights which might normally be developed on c6 or f6. This constant potential to threaten the Black knights can make it difficult for Black to develop pieces comfortably.

Recommended Game:

Karpov vs Kasparov World Championship 1986, Game 5. - Karpov demonstrates how pawns in the center can restrict a fianchettoed Bishop.

  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
  [White "Karpov"]
  [Black "Kasparov"]

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 c5 6. dxc5 Qa5 7. Rc1 Ne4 8. cxd5 Nxc3
  9. Qd2 Qxa2 10. bxc3 Qxd2 11. Kxd2 Nd7 12. Bb5 O-O 13. Bxd7 Bxd7 14. e4 f5 15. e5 e6
  16. c4 Rfc8 17. c6 bxc6 18. d6 c5 19. h4 h6 20. Nh3 a5 21. f3 a4 22. Rhe1 a3
  23. Nf2 a2 24. Nd3 Ra3 25. Ra1 g5 26. hxg5 hxg5 27. Bxg5 Kf7 28. Bf4 Rb8 29. Rec1 Bc6
  30. Rc3 Ra5 31. Rc2 Rba8 32. Nc1 1-0

4. Pawns move closer to the enemy king.

Generally, in an attack on the enemy king, it is important to have a few pawns near the enemy king to make it difficult for the opposing pieces to defend the position. If the Black king (for example) castles to the kingside, then it usually helps White to have a pawn on e5, because then Black cannot place a knight on f6, which is the most natural defensive position for the knight on the kingside.

Recommended Game:

Fischer vs Myagmarsuren, 1967 - Bobby Fischer fixes a pawn on e5 to drive the Black knight from f6 and then proceeds to win with a kingside attack in instructive fashion.

  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
  [White "Fischer"]
  [Black "Myagmarsuren"]

  1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7 7. O-O O-O
  8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4 13. a3 bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5
  15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4 17. Nf1 Nb6 18. Ng5 Nd5 19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7
  21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3 23. Bf6 Qe8 24. Ne4 g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 c4
  27. h5 cxd3 28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30. Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7 1-0

5. A favorable exchange of pawns in the center leaving the enemy camp with weaknesses.

Normally, when pawns are placed in the center, the opponent has to challenge them at some point in the future. This can often lead to favorable pawn exchanges and may lead to isolated pawns or backward pawns in the enemy camp, which can be vulnerable in some positions.

Recommended Game:

Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908 - Here, Rubinstein creates a backward pawn on c6 and then masterfully exploits it.

   [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
   [White "Rubinstein, Akiba"]
   [Black "Salwe, Georg"]

   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. g3 Nc6 7. Bg2 cxd4
   8. Nxd4 Qb6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. O-O Be7 11. Na4 Qb5 12. Be3 O-O 13. Rc1 Bg4
   14. f3 Be6 15. Bc5 Rfe8 16. Rf2 Nd7 17. Bxe7 Rxe7 18. Qd4 Ree8 19. Bf1 Rec8
   20. e3 Qb7 21. Nc5 Nxc5 22. Rxc5 Rc7 23. Rfc2 Qb6 24. b4 a6 25. Ra5 Rb8
   26. a3 Ra7 27. Rxc6 Qxc6 28. Qxa7 Ra8 29. Qc5 Qb7 30. Kf2 h5 31. Be2 g6
   32. Qd6 Qc8 33. Rc5 Qb7 34. h4 a5 35. Rc7 Qb8 36. b5 a4 37. b6 Ra5 38. b7 1-0

As I mentioned, these are the end results that a side tries to achieve by controlling the center. If the end result is already achieved, or if it can be obtained in a better way, then there is no need to control the center.


Why are lots of different moves usually considered equivalent in the opening, but not in the middlegame? When you go to websites like chess.com and analyze your games, you'll notice that most of the first moves are marked as being "book moves"—which I assume are considered equivalent to each other when it comes to engine evaluation, since they're just different ways you could play the game in its early stage, and you merely pick one without your move necessarily being "wrong" (unless it's a total blunder than doesn't belong to any sound opening, of course). For example, after 1. e4 e5 you could play 2. f4 or 2. Nf3, and the computer will tell you they're both top moves in this position without marking either of them as an inaccuracy or a mistake.
But why doesn't this happen in the middlegame? In pretty much all positions, the engine will always agree that there's one and only one move that is best for you. Yet the middle game is the most complex phase of the game, isn't it? So it's where I'd actually expect lots of moves to be fundamentally equivalent to each other, but instead the contrary happens.

For example, after 1. e4 e5 you could play 2. f4 or 2. Nf3, and the computer will tell you they're both top moves in this position without marking either of them as an inaccuracy or a mistake.

That's because there is a line of code in the program which says something like:
If (move is in book) then set move value = accurate
else call regular evaluation function
That line is there to stop the engine from wasting time trying to calculate. Instead it can just look up its book and pick an approved move.

But why doesn't this happen in the middlegame?

Because there is no "book" move. The engine does something completely different from the opening and tries to calculate the best move.

Yet the middle game is the most complex phase of the game, isn't it?

Not really. If there are 30 book moves in a Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit line then moves 20 through 30 are likely for positions just as complex as for moves 20 through 30 in a different line where book ran out after 15 moves and the engine is calculating instead of looking up. Yet the computer can use its book for the Marshall and save calculating time and effort.

So it's where I'd actually expect lots of moves to be fundamentally equivalent to each other, but instead the contrary happens.

That doesn't make sense. If the engine is calculating each possible different move in a given complicated position then it makes perfect sense for them all to be different.
It is making calculations based on programmed algorithms. It is mot making a human evaluation of the position. The only time different possible moves are likely to have the exact same evaluation is when the engine calculates two different moves out to the exact same final result, like a draw or a checkmate.


Is the Sicilian Defense a good opening for beginners? Just discovered the chess section of this website. This is my first question here.
I am a beginner chess player(rated about 1300 on the chess websites) and play mainly for recreation. For a long time, my opening repertoire was restricted to 1) e4 .. e5 .

However, while playing black I get tired with the fact that white is always calling the shots, and also bored of playing the same lines. I've tried the french but find it a bit predictable for the white player and with less variety.

I would like to try the sicilian. I know that this is often preferred by grandmasters. However, the grandmasters typically gain the advantage only in the end game. However, the style of grandmaster play is quite different from the style of beginner/amateur play. Grandmasters would often go into the end game with no advantages of material. By contrast, in beginner/amateur play often the better player gains advantage in the middle game itself and by the time he reaches the end game he is already ahead in material by a rook or a bishop. Keeping in mind this difference is the sicilian a good opening for a beginner? Or is it more for the more advanced players and end game specialists?
Also, how to play it correctly? I've tried playing it a few times but am yet to understand the underlying principle. Which is the better second move -  2) .. e6 or 2) .. d6 ? Why is the rook pawn sometimes advanced prematurely ( 4) .. a6  or 3) .. a6) ? ... etc., etc.

The Sicilian is playable at all levels. 1.e4 e5 openings are easier to understand, so you will often see 1...e5 recommended for beginning and intermediate players (and I second that recommendation), but there's nothing wrong with 1...c5, and you should feel free to try it out and see if you like it.

To say how to play it correctly would take hundreds of pages. To answer your two specific questions:

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3, 2...e6 and 2...d6 are both perfectly good moves played at the highest levels.
The move ...a6 in the Sicilian has a few points, but the most important are that 1) it can keep a White knight away from b5, and 2) it can support ...b5 and start a queenside attack.


What is the TimeControl format for FIDE tournament? The TimeControl formats I've found on the web split the TimeControl in time periods separated by a special character, for instance:

G/90 (one period with 90min to end the game)

G/90+30 (one period with 90min to end the game and 30sec of increment)

40/90, SD/30+30 (two periods, 90min to play 40 moves followed by 30 min to end the game with 30sec of increment)

Now, in the last example the increment is related to the second period (the sudden death).

According to http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=39&view=category for all major FIDE events the TimeControl is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one. Here the increment starts from move 1.

How can I describe that in a formal notation?
Is 40/90+30, SD/30+30 the correct way?

PGN standard has a different approach (the separator character is ":" and the increment is allowed only in the sudden death period, which is simply expressed in seconds):

40/5400:1800+30

but it seems the increment is not allowed for the first period (in case of a multi-period time conrol).

How can I express the FIDE TimeControl in the PGN tag as well?
I tryed to download PGN games of FIDE events but I couldn't find any of them with TimeControl tag.

but it seems the increment is not allowed for the first period

As far as I can see from the standard it is allowed in the first period only if there is only one period. Specifically it is allowed only in the last period.

  •The fifth TimeControl field kind is used for an "incremental" control
  period. It should only be used for the last descriptor in a
  TimeControl tag value and is usually the only descriptor in the value.
  The format consists of two positive integers separated by a plus sign
  ("+") character. The first integer gives the minimum number of seconds
  allocated for the period and the second integer gives the number of
  extra seconds added after each move is made. So, an incremental time
  control of 90 minutes plus one extra minute per move would be given by
  "4500+60" in the TimeControl tag value

The only suggestion is the standard one regarding these questions about PGN which is to put the information in a comment field. The standard is old and no longer maintained as far as I know.


Deciding on an n-variable for an Elo rating system I have recently been looking into the mathematics behind the Elo rating system and its application to areas other than chess. I can understand almost all of it but I'm having a problem finding out the meaning of one of the values, and how it is determined. The value I'm talking about is the n value, which is supposed to be some number of rating points that a person n rated points above their opponent is expected to win ten times as often (If my explanation is not clear enough, it is represented by the number 400 - the value used in chess - in the fomulae on the wikipedia page).

This all makes perfect sense so far, but I was wondering how you determine that value when setting up a new system. For example, in chess the value of n is 400 - why was this number chosen and not something more 'round' like 100 or 500? About the only effect I can see that this number has is the increase in precision (though not accuracy) of the rating for higher values of n, and if this is the case, does the value really matter so long as it remains consistent?

It appears to be basically historical. From Arpad Elo's The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present:

The present range originally took 2000 as the upper level for the strong amateur or club player, and arranged the other categories above and below (1.26)
Category designations and proficiencies among federations have become generally more comparable with the adoption of the Elo system by FIDE and by many of its member federations, but the numbers assigned to any given level of chess proficiency remain entirely arbitrary. Both the class subdivision into 200 points and the choice of 2000 as the reference point were already steeped in tradition when this author arrived on the scene. [...] These features were retained for their general acceptance by the players. (1.27)

In particular, the Elo system was designed to produce ratings on approximately the same scale as the Harkness system, which had already been in use by the USCF since the 1950s. The ~200 points per class difference in the Harkness system falls out of the simple equations used to describe that system.


KID Gligoric-Taimanov Variation [E92] Black inaccuracy? Move 7 .... Nc6 Is there a specific reason why Stockfish thinks Black's 7th move is an inaccuracy?

Reference Game Aronian v Carlsen

I'm currently going over The King's Indian in Thirty Classic Games at Chessable and the move suggested is 7... Nc6 to provoke white's d5 and stabilize the center pawn structure.

Chess engines are currently not able to give you a good analysis of opening moves all by themselves. This is basically due to the huge number of possible variations during the opening phase. Engines are effectively limited to a certain depth and if the potential positions some 10-20 moves later are still roughly equal you cannot decide on a best move.

Particularly the KID is known for being tricky for engines. Usually they give white a large advantage and underestimate any counterplay of black.

Because of this, analyzing openings is usually done with human interaction. For instance a player would pick certain lines that he is interested in and have the engine look more deeply into those directions. Also other factors than just objective computer evaluation do play a huge role in openings, such as:

how playable is this line for me and for my opponent (does he have to play only moves or is it easy to play)
am I aiming for a save draw or for a wild game with chances for both sides
etc

Also, they'd use stronger engines and strong computers than the one on the lichess website.

Anyway, in this particular case you should ignore what the engines says and trust many decades of games played in this line.


How many positions per second should my homemade engine calculate? My program prints time spent on executing a function for doing/retracting move, and both take together an average of 00.0002 seconds. That means my engine can analyze at most 5000 positions per second, right? That doesn't seem to be good, given the branching factor of 30.
How bad is that, and what average/maximum speed could I expect with optimizations (on normal char[64] board) ?

On my old laptop with an i5 processor, running on a single thread, a recent version of Stockfish (written in CPP) makes around 1 million nodes per second (1Mnps). You must take into account that these nodes are not just the move generator, but the engine is also using its evaluation, so Stockfish's move generator should be much faster than that
My very simple chess engine (written in C), whose move generator is not optimized can make around 4.5Mnps also on a single thread (with no evaluation, just the move generator working. This is what in chess programming is called a perft test).
So at first glance something like some thousands of positions per second seems like very poor performance.
Of course part of this poor performance can be due to the language you've chosen to write your engine, but unless you've made a really weird choice, it seems like there's something odd about your program. My educated guess is either the move generator is buggy or its design is (very) sub-optimal.


Can Black punish a provocative h-pawn push against fianchetto setups? This question might sound ridiculous, but I think it needs to be discussed.
[fen ""]
1. c4 g6 2. h4!? (2...h5 3. d4 Bg7 4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 Nh7 (6...O-O) 7. Be3 O-O) (2...e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Qxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Qe3+ Qe7 7. Qxe7+ Kxe7 8. Bg5 {White still maintains pressure}) c5 3. h5 Bg7 (3...gxh5 4. Rxh5 d6 (4...Nc6!? 5. Rxc5 e5 {Looks promising})) (3...Nf6 4. hxg6 fxg6)

Doesn't really get earlier than this. All of us know this is not good play by White. But engines still think White did nothing wrong. And (in my opinion) White gets too much out of it.
Meeting 2. h4 with 2...h5 seems like a hard decision. On one hand the h-pawn is stopped, but fixing the structure also gives White all the intel he needs to coordinate an attack after opening up the kingside and it is unclear if Black's king can evacuate from the center to any other place than kingside. After ...O-O in the lines given it looks like Black will have to withstand a vicious attack.
Another idea might be to argue that White just wasted a move in the opening and play 2...c5, very pricipled. But then 3. h5 is annoying. If 3...gxh5 4. Rxh5 I think White achieved too much for "free". In some openings, like the Dragon, White gives pawns or pieces to open the h-file. Here it is just there on move 5 and it is not really clear what Black has in return.
Usually, while White is pushing his h-pawn, Black tries to organise a counter attack on the queenside or in the center with his pawns and pieces. But Black has no pawns and pieces on the queenside or in the center this early and thus White can freely exert his pressure.
It seems that the best way to deal with 3. h5 is to play around it and develop as if it was not there, but it is looming there and very unpleasant.

First off, I think you want to play 2...Bg7. As a general rule of thumb, you should always finish your fianchetto on the next move. It also protects the rook on h8 if the h-file opens. I don't think 2...c5 is a very good move because it locks up the pawn structure and is going to make counterplay in the center more difficult. (2...Nf6 and 2...e5 are probably playable too)
If white continues with h5 then 3...e5. Another rule of thumb: Counter wing attacks in the center. 4.hxg6, hxg6 6. Rxh8, Bxh8 is not a threat.
The h-pawn advance wastes a developing move and does nothing in the center. As long as you're developing and playing in the center you should be able to equalize. I would just say delay castling until the position clarifies itself. Since you're ahead in development you should be able to build an attack which may negate the need to castle. You might also want to castle queenside if white spends too much time on the kingside.


How deep should I memorize lines of the Sicilian Dragon? How deep should I memorize lines of the Sicilian Dragon?
1400s USCF
The Dragon seems to resonate with me the most, after looking at all the variations. Do I need to get a book on it, or can I get by by just watching YouTube videos, looking at games, and experience?

There's a guy on Youtube, that has like 20-25 minute videos on each of the four main variations of the Sicilian Dragon?  Example video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRoBnL1gRg

Can I get by on just watching his videos, just playing it (and checking where I deviated afterwards), and playing through master games of the opening?  First memorize the main variations like 10-15 moves in, and then as I gain experience, learn the sidelines?

As someone who recently got out of the 1400s, I think it's much more important that you figure out where you want to be developing your pieces and why certain pieces are good in certain places. When I went about memorizing a bunch of moves, I very often (then and now) played people who would do something I'd never read up on.

If instead, you learn some of the reasons and/or general plan for a given opening, I think you'll be better off in the long term.


Are there any repeated games between GMs? I know there are almost an infinite numbers of games in chess, which is actually near 10^40.

But had a thought; in the games played between grandmasters, they usually they know what the best move is, so I guess the possible number of games is significantly reduced in that scenario.

Is possible to have two repeated games? Or are the chances for this too low, even with two GMs always making some of the best moves?

It depends on what you mean by "repeat games", but even in the strictest sense of the word, repeat games have certainly happened. Here's an example of a completely repeated game:

[FEN ""]
[White "Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu"]
[Black "Gata Kamsky"]
 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Na5 11.Qa4+ Nc6 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qa4+ Nc6 14.Qb3 Na5 15.Qa4+ Nc6 16.Qb3

This is a well-known draw, and as Chessbase put it, there've been at least 75 games that ended this way. Still, you can't fault the players: Nisipeanu (who had White) had lost his first two games in the tournament, while Kamsky had the Black pieces and one can't ask for more than a draw with Black.

If you're thinking of "repeated" until a decisive result, then opening traps can easily yield repeated games. Here's a famous example:

[FEN ""]
 1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 c6 4. e3 Be6 5. Ng5?? Qa5+

Black wins since the knight on g5 is lost. A list of victims of this trap is given here.

Here's another record that might be of interest. Although the game wasn't repeated in its entirety, it was repeated up to the point where a human player might have resigned. In game 64 of the superfinal of the 16th TCEC season, between top engines Stockfish & AllieStein, the engines followed a known game for 39 moves. The original game happened in 2018, between Exxon (Toltec 4 Pro)-Attakinski (Raubfisch ME262_GTZ). Playing out the position after the book line ended was rather academic, since Black is completely lost.

[FEN ""]
[White "Stockfish"]
[Black "AllieStein"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. Na4 Qa5+ 9. c3 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 cxd4 11. b4 Qc7 12. Bxd4 Be7 13. Bd3 Nb8 14. O-O b6 15. Rc1 Nc6 16. Bf2 O-O 17. a3 Bb7 18. c4 dxc4 19. Rxc4 b5 20. Rc3 bxa4 21. b5 Rfc8 22. bxc6 Bxc6 23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Qh5+ Kg8 25. f5 Qxe5 26. Rh3 g6 27. Qh7+ Kf8 28. fxe6 Qg7 29. Be3 Qxh7 30. Rxh7 Kg8 31. Rfxf7 Bf6 32. Rh6 Bb2 33. Rxg6+ Kh8 34. e7 Be8 35. Rh6+ Kg8 36. Rf8+ Kg7 37. Rhh8 Kg6 38. Rhg8+ Kh7 39. g4 Rcb8 40. g5 Be5 41. Bc5 Bg6 42. Rd8 a6 43. Kf2 Bf7 44. h3 Bg6 45. Kf3 a5 1-0


In the English Opening, where should the d-pawn go? Whenever I play the English Opening, I usually try to achieve a c4, d4, e3 pawn structure. However, in this video by STL chess club, the instructor recommends playing d3 (and possibly e4 later) to control the white squares as much as possible.

Which is objectively better? Does it depend on the opponent's play?

Once you play d4 you are usually leaving the pure English opening and transposing to a queen-pawn opening.  Objectively there are positions where it is absolutely better to transpose to a queen-pawn opening but you can certainly build a repertoire around playing the pawn to d3 -- it may just be easier for Black to equalize in some lines.

The formation of c4, d3, e4 with the kings bishop fianchetto'd, knights on e2 and c3 was Botvinnik's baby and is a viable way to play.


Knight promotion percentages Knight promotion is the second most common promotion. Most of the time it is to give an otherwise undeliverable check. But it doesn’t always come with check. Statistically speaking, what percentage of knight promotions come with check and percentage doesn’t come with check?

ChessBase allows you to search for positions with promotions to each piece, with or without check. In the Mega 2019 database, there are 8,266,473 games.

In those games, there are 486,622 promotions to queen; 7,223 promotions to knight; 1,486 promotions to bishop; and 9,606 promotions to rook. Of the 7,223 promotions to knight, 5,733 came with check, or 79.3%. Bonus: Of the 5,733 knight promotions with check, 106 were mate on the move.

Of course, Mega does not have every game, but this can give you a pretty close idea.


When and why should I move the pawns in front of a castled/non-castled King? I have always struggled with this and I believe there is some rule that someone defined at some point, but I am not sure who (Maybe it was Steinitz).

When and why should I move my pawns in front of my castled or non-castled King?

First, I would assume it matters if the King is castled or not?

I will state my logic behind this and someone with more knowledge can let me know if it is flawed:

I usually move a pawn so my Knight or some other piece does not get pinned.
I usually move a pawn to prevent my opponent from bringing his bishop down to pin my knight or some other piece to my king.
I usually move a pawn so the bishop or some other piece(maybe queen can't put King in check)
I usually don't like to do this because it weakens the king/queen-side depending on where I want to castle.

Let's look at some examples:

In the first scenario,  I am thinking black might move 4...Bb4, which would put my King in check, so to prevent this, I will play 4. a3.  Is this the proper move or is there a better move?

    [fen ""]

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. a3 Bb4

In my second scenario, let's assume, my Knight was already on c3, so to prevent black from 4...Bb4, I would again play 4. a3, to prevent the future pin if I wanted to move the d2 pawn.

 [fen ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3 Bb4

In my third scenario, let's assume I moved by d2 pawn, so black could check or pin my knight with ...Bb4, so to prevent black from 4...Bb4, I would again play 4. a3, to prevent the future pin if I wanted to move the d2 pawn.

 [fen ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e6 4. a3 Bb4

Let's assume that black does succeed in checking my King or pinning my knight to my King, if my King is in check, is it better to do c3 or Bd2.  If my Knight is pinning, is it better to do a3 to try and force the opponent to either exchange or move his bishop or Bd2 in the event if he takes my Knight, I will just recapture with my Bishop.

All of the above assume my King is not castled, but what if it was, my assumption is that I would not want to move any pawns in front of the castled king unless necessary, but I am not sure of when these times would apply.

You should only make a move like a3 or h3 when the pin is so annoying that the loss of a tempo is a fair tradeoff.

Generally speaking, bishop pins are not that big of a deal.  The pin can be broken by moving a bishop (Be2 or Bd2), the knight can be defended by the other knight (Nbd2 or Nge2), or the pinned piece can move away (for white, frequently Qd3 will both break the pin and still defend the knight on f3).

If this isn't possible, then a3 or h3 can enter into consideration, but even still, the doubled pawns might not be such a big deal.  Especially for white, the move a3 is hardly ever played.  If black takes on c3, then the extra c pawn helps white far more than it hurts (additional control of the d4 square, half open b file, etc.).  h3 is far more common, especially in the Open game.  In this case, Bg4 is prevented, yes, but moves like Ng4 are also prevented, and someday white might expand with g4.

If the bishop is already on g4 or b4, then sometimes a3 or h3 are decent moves because they will win a tempo or force an exchange of bishop for knight.  Black will nearly always play h6 after white plays Bg5, for example.  The main reason is that the bishop has far less scope on h4 than it does on g5 (cannot return to e3 or d2, no queen battery is possible).  h3 is frequently played with a similar idea for white.

To summarize, a3 is almost always a weak move for white (a6 is a different story, it can be useful for black in many cases), and these pawn moves should only be played prophylactically when the pin is so bad that the loss of a tempo is more than offset by avoiding the pin.


Is my positional pawn sacrifice justified? Today I have played a game and the following position was reached:

[fen "rn1qk2r/p4ppp/1p2bb2/1Q1pp3/8/3P2P1/PP2PPBP/RN2K1NR b - - 0 1"]

1... Nd7 2. Bxd5 a6 3. Qb3 Nc5 4. Bc6+ Ke7 5.Qa3 Rc8 6. Bg2 Qd6 7. Nd2 e4

I quickly thought that covering the check with the knight would hang a pawn, but it seems that there is so much to it.
After 10. ...Nd7 11. Bxd5 a6 12. Qb3 Nc5 13. Bc6+ Ke7 14.Qa3 Rc8 15. Bg2 Qd6 16. Nd2 e4, Black is still a pawn down but apparently it is compensation enough for Black.

However, I am unable to see why the pawn sacrifice is justified for a small lead in development which White can finish in at most 2 moves with Nf3 and O-O.

Word of advice regarding the screenshot of lichess you had posted in the OP: Whenever you're checking with an engine, try to limit the number of best variations to 1-2 lines, as the more variations you choose the more distributed the allocated resources of the engine become and the less accurate the displayed evaluation.

Black here is clearly better thanks to the dominant central control, the bishop pair (both developed too) and the extra piece white develops for you with their Qb5+ check. So even before Bxd5, as things stand, black has the lead in time (development) and in space. Therefore, white's best bet is to at least try and win a pawn, in order to claim some sort of compensation.

  However, I am unable to see why the pawn sacrifice is justified for a
  small lead in development which White can finish in at most 2 moves
  with Nf3 and O-O.

If this was really the case then indeed white would be safely getting away with the snapped pawn, but therein lies the problem: if white plays it correctly, their best bishop retreat option is to e4 and not g2, and although black has lost their castling right they've gained a huge initiative on the kingside starting from g5 (aimed for g4) to boot the knight to a passive square and launch the kingside pawn avalanche. Let's just see some of these variations:

 [title "Analysing variations after 11.Bxd5"]
 [fen "r2qk2r/p2n1ppp/1p2bb2/1Q1pp3/8/3P2P1/PP2PPBP/RN2K1NR w KQkq - 2 11"]
 [startflipped "1"]

 1.Bxd5 a6 {our aim is to boot the queen away from the defense of the bishop} 2.Qb3 Nc5 3.Bc6+ {intermezzo check: only move to not lose material immediately} Kf8 {the king is even well placed on f8 as there are literally no foreseeable threats against it.} 4.Qd1 Rc8 5.Bg2 {a poorer choice than Be4, as the continuation shows white will be losing material very quickly if black's e-pawn is not blocked} (5.Be4 {white's best chance, to maintain the position somewhat closed and block the e-pawn} g5 {important positional move, to aim for g4 as quickly as possible exploiting the bishop and knight's awkward placement on e4-f3. With the knight booted away from f3, black is ready to launch an all out attack on the kingside with h5-g4 if white were to castle} 6.Nf3 g4 7.Nfd2 h5 8.O-O h4 {next to our bishops, our rook on h8 is perfectly placed to assist in the attack. The conversion from here is technically simple, and as soon as white retreats with Bg2 we have e4 ready. So there's no easy consolidation for white's king.}) e4 6.Nc3 (6.dxe4 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Bxb2 {wins trivially}) exd3 {white's center and king safety are becoming further comprised, white has 5 active and well posted pieces in an open position against a king stuck in the center.} 7.Nf3 (7.exd3 Nxd3+ 8.Kf1 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Bc4 10.Ne2 Qf6 11.f4 Nxf4 12.gxf4 Qxf4+ 13.Ke1 Re8 14.Bf1 Qf3 15.Rg1 Qxc3+ 16.Kf2 Qe3+ 17.Kg2 Bxe2 {and the win is trivial from here.}) dxe2 8.Qxd8+ Rxd8 9.Kxe2 Bc4+ 10.Ke1 Nd3+ {and black wins trivially as further loss of material is unavoidable thanks to the comprised king position}

So you see, black is comfortably cashing in their lead in development and space in all the variations ensuing from Bxd5, and converting them into winning positions. And in most cases, the moves sort of play themselves considering how natural black's initiative and attack are as we saw in the diagram. Thus, all in all, we consistently come to the conclusion that the pawn sacrifice starting from Nd7 is perfectly sound. I encourage you to practice playing these lines and the ones we haven't considered yet against the computer.


If you fail to move the king out of check (for any reason) what is the status of the game? I will start by saying I am new at chess.

The scenario is as follows. In a particular game you are in check, but fail to move out of check because you and your opponent did not realize this. Since the rules of chess state that you must not take any move to leave yourself in check or put yourself in check, what do you do? I read that for FIDE fast paced chess they have a stipulation that benefits the "checker"(ie you messed up... sucks to be you). Is this a house rule that everyone abides by? I cannot find anything pertaining to this mistake elsewhere.

Thanks.

FIDE Laws of Chess, 7.4.1:

  ... If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

So, based on your/your opponent's written recording of the moves, the position will be restored to the last position before the illegal move. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 refer to touch move - in replacing the illegal move, you must move the same piece that made the illegal move, unless that piece has no legal moves.

In addition:

  For the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.


Blitz games relation to opening theory? How do blitz games help with your opening theory? I thought they would not help because you might tend to make a lot of mistakes during blitz or is this the reason, to keep playing them over and over until you make the right moves?

Here are a few reasons for why players use blitz games to prep for openings.

There are only a limited number of standard games (normal speed 20-30 moves/hr) that one can play. However, you can run through a lot more blitzes in one evening.
If you want to try to familiarize yourself with the positions that result from some variation, you can play a few blitzes to get the feel for it.
Blitz games serve to remind you of the standard motifs that go along with certain openings. Also, you get to see how opponents not well-versed in the openings handle your moves.
Some players try out new openings (to their repertoire) in blitzes before trying them out in tournaments.
I have encountered blitz opponents who will routinely resign after the first 20 moves or so (no matter whether or not they had a better position) just so that they can focus on the opening again. (They don't care for their blitz ratings.)

So in sum, blitzes can be of good help to the amateur, but it should not be the only preparation for learning openings.


What´s the result of this endgame? Black just played f3. [FEN "8/1KP5/8/8/5p2/8/8/6k1 b - - 0 3"]

I recently come with this position on one of my games and I would like to know the result of this endgame...

[FEN "8/1KP5/8/8/5p2/8/8/6k1 b - - 0 3"]
[Plycount "19"]

3...f3 ( On a race to promotion ) 4.c8=Q { ...that white just won. Or did he?!? } 4...f2 5.Qg4+ Kh1 6.Qf3+ Kg1 7.Qg3+ Kh1 8.Qh3+ ( 8.Qxf2 { If black takes the pawn...Disaster strikes = STALEMATE !! } ) 8...Kg1 9.Qg4+ Kh1 10.Qf3+ Kg1 11.Qg3+ Kh1

*
If black takes the pawn...Disaster strikes = STALEMATE !!

If white allows black
to promote the pawn, in order to avoid drawing by repetition, the resulting
one is also a draw as no progress can be made by either side !


Reach this position in four moves I recently came across this chess problem. The requirement is to reach this position (starting from a basic board set up board) in 4 moves. How do you do it?
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 1"]


After Bc4, is it better to play e6 to stop the bishop? In Sicilian, I see white plays Bc4 after or before I castle.
I saw a lot of players responding to this move by playing e6.

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

1. Bc4 e6

In this case people usually respond with e6.

What is good about e6?
Doesn't e6 create a weakness on d6?

You have already mentioned one good thing about e6, it blocks the c4-bishop. It may not seem very important, but the white's attack on a2-g8 diagonal can be rather unpleasant later on, especially after white's moves f4 and e5.

Other important factor is the d5 square. Nd5 can be sometimes very unpleasant, so you want to avoid it. It potentially stops even Bd5 (for example after b5).

Black in these structure usually opts for a central break with d5 and e6 supports this plan. That's another reason for playing this move.

We shouldn't also forget the fact that e6 allows to develop the bishop on e7.

To the "weak" pawn on d6:

Here's the deal. You protected c5, d5, e5 and f5, you have avoided some nasty moves like Nd5 or Nf5, you have made some space for your bishop on f8... but there's a price for that. Your d-pawn has become a bit weak.

It's not such a problem, though. Bishop and queen is guarding that pawn and later you can even put a rook on the d-file. Also, as I said, d5 should be coming. That means the weak pawn won't be there forever.

I would say e6 has many more advantages than disadvantages... so I would go for it.


Can I become a 2100+ rated player in 2 years if I train for 15 hours a day? I’m 15 years old, and my FIDE rating is 1674. I’ve been playing chess since I was one and half years old. If I train, say, something like 15 hours a day and play in 20 tournaments, is it possbile for me to become a 2100+ rated player in 2 years?

To predict someone's progress is very difficult. It depends on so many things: "chess talent", how you practice and train, opportunities to play tournaments (not too weak, not too strong), etc...

A couple of years ago, the author of following blog tried to become a grandmaster: http://roadtograndmaster.com/ and http://roadtograndmaster.com/?p=11

Maybe this blog can give you some information, ideas and tips. Of course, your situation is different, for instance, you are 10 years younger than the author of the blog.