Is it common for super grandmasters to have the ability to play simultaneous blindfold chess? Magnus Carlsen against 10 blindfolded. Timur Gareev plays 30 players blindfolded. I was wondering if these super grandmasters all can at least play 7 masters blindfolded and beat them.

This is more a comment than an answer.

The attached fragment is Mikhail Tal commenting  his blindfold simul against 10 first category (approximately 1800-2000 Elo) players - as the match goes, board by board. The fragment is a part of 1968 documentary on limits of human mental abilities.

The movie is in Russian; if there is an interest, I may try to translate.


Play chess in Python programming language? I am searching for a program/library in Python which will let two users or a user and an AI play chess with each other.

PS: I have found python-chess. Can this be used for the above along with a chess engine?

Yes. You can use the package to play against yourself and an engine. While I don't think there is one function that can do everything for you, but I can give you hints:

To setup up a game against an AI:

Read UCI documentation (you can find on Google)
Read the UCI functions for python-chess here
Spawn an engine thread by engine = chess.uci.popen_engine("/usr/games/stockfish")
Start a new game by engine.uci()
Send a move by engine.position
Start analysis by engine.go
Get engine results by command.result()

You will need to read the documentation carefully.

To setup a game against yourself (copied from the package documentation)

>>> import chess

>>> board = chess.Board()

>>> board.push_san("e4")
Move.from_uci('e2e4')
>>> board.push_san("e5")
Move.from_uci('e7e5')
>>> board.push_san("Qh5")
Move.from_uci('d1h5')
>>> board.push_san("Nc6")
Move.from_uci('b8c6')
>>> board.push_san("Bc4")
Move.from_uci('f1c4')
>>> board.push_san("Nf6")
Move.from_uci('g8f6')
>>> board.push_san("Qxf7")
Move.from_uci('h5f7')


Initial FIDE rating Question According to FIDE, if I win half of my games in my first FIDE tournament, then my rating = the average of my opponents ratings.
If a tournament has 10 rounds, and I can only play the first 3 (and in this example let’s say I win 1.5 points), will my initial rating become the average of these 3 opponents or will this not count as a part of my full initial rating?
Looking through the handbook, I see no rule that says I can’t just leave a tournament after drawing the first round against a 2000 and my rating becoming 2000 (because the average of 1x2000 player/#of players = 2000.
Can anyone clarify from the rules exactly what determines an initial rating given one does not fully finish a tournament?

if a tournament has 10 rounds, and I can only play the first 3 (and in
this example let’s say I win 1.5 points), will my initial rating
become the average of these 3 opponents or will this not count as a
part of my full initial rating?

No and no.
The FIDE rating regulations say

7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3, a minimum of 5 games.
7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive
rating periods of not more than 26 months are pooled to obtain the
initial rating.
7.14d The rating is at least 1000.
7.14e The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at
least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

So, if you only play 3 games you will not have a rating. However if you later play another tournament then the results of those 3 games will be carried forward.


Watson's strategic chess pgn file I am looking for the PGN file corresponding to Watson's strategic chess opening repertoire for white; is it available? If the PGN is not available, I would be interested to know what other opening books have a PGN companion available.

as a side note I've though about writing a python script to read in chess books as PDF and extracting the variations as PGN. Has anyone done this yet?

Given that PGN files are just plain text, then you can create your own.

From wikipedia you need 7 tags:

  PGN data for archival storage is required to provide seven bracketed fields, referred to as "tags"...:

  Event
  Site
  Date: the starting date of the game, in YYYY.MM.DD form. ?? is used for unknown values
  Round
  White: the player of the white pieces, in Lastname, Firstname format.
  Black: the player of the black pieces, same format as White.
  Result: the result of the game. This can only have four possible values: 1-0 (White won), 0-1 (Black won), 1/2-1/2 (Draw), or * (other, e.g., the game is ongoing).

An example might be:

[Event "QGA: Main line with 7.Bd3"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Me"]
[Black "The other guy"]
[Result "*"]

d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. Bd3 *


What is the fastest possible checkmate? What is the fastest/shortest possible checkmate? What is the minimum amount of moves to checkmate a side?

Two moves! And this has a name as well! It is called Fool's mate!

 [title "Fastest Mate"]
 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1. f3? e5 2. g4?? Qh4++


What is the idea behind playing 6.a3 in the Sicilian Najdorf? What is the idea behind playing 6.a3 in the Sicilian Najdorf?

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. a3

This seems to be getting popular at the highest level (e.g. yesterday/today's games at the Tata Steel Masters, Carlsen - Wojtaszek, Karjakin-Giri).

Is it just a waiting move or is there some deep idea behind it? As far as I am aware in most lines black is not aiming to put any piece on b4 (which would be prevented by 6. a3). In the poisoned pawn variation a3 prevents the capture Qxb2, but other than that, I don't see what white wants to achieve with 6. a3. Is he preparing to play b4?

The move a3 serves basically two functions:

White can develop the bishop to c4, and keep it aimed on d5, even if Black attacks it with b5, or, as Giri did, with Be6. In the lines where Black plays ...e5, the battle for d5 is often very important so it could be worth spending a tempo in it.
Black often plays b5 to gain some space on the queenside. The move a3 then discourages a further advance of the pawn to b4.

Another reason to choose this line could be that the main line is heavily analyzed, beyond the 20th move, and the White players didn't want to engage in a theoretical battle. This would especially apply to Carlsen who often plays 'sidelines', and this tweet from Karjakin confirms it as well:

  The only reason why I played 6.a3 against @anishgiri is that I forgot adaptor for my laptop and I urgently had to create a new ideas

Thanks @DagOskarMadsen and @DavidRicherby for drawing my attention to this tweet.


ChessBase 15 "fast" reference search I am actually drilling methodically several lines (1...e5 and 1...e6 2...d5 but the question won't depend on that) of the english opening, using ChessBase 15 fast reference search.

The qualifier "fast" is from ChessBase as I am facing really bizarre behaviour, more precisely : I highlight the "Reference" window and start playing moves on the board, and then, even for the first moves (even the very first) I have lags. After the 4th or 5th move the lags are huge and the reference window is really slow to refresh.

Plus, if I change to "Notation" window and come back to "Reference" window then the window is empty and stays empty. I sometimes succeed in making it refresh (and being non empty) by taking back the last move and replaying it, sometimes not. By the way, I am not totally convinced by the fact that the results in this windows are put in some cache so that the whole result in the window is re-searched again. (Yes, really).

Two facts :

one playing against me : my reference database it a fully up to date Mega Database 2020 with 8.1M games ; I can conceive that searching in a fairly big database can take time (but cache should be used and I hope/guess it is used, but then I don't understand the behaviour I am facing)
one playing for me : I have a machine with quite aggressive specs : Intel Core i7 7700K CPUs @4.2Ghz, 32GB RAM, 2x GeForce GTX 1080Ti all supported by an MSI Z270 Gaming pro carbon (that I don't use for gaming though, ah ah)

Has anyone experienced such a behaviour ?

I have the same behavior for both parts of your question, and the first behavior (the slowness to populate the reference) is by necessity since it has to search all 8 million games to populate the "Reference" window. The second behavior is just a bug, but I will tell you how to refresh it.

Regarding the slowness of populating the "Reference" pane, I want to make sure that you have done two things:

Gone to File>Activation>Update program, and that you are running the latest build.
And this, which may be exacerbate your problem: Right-click on the Mega 2020 Database, and go to Tools, and "Delete Search Booster". Then "Create Search Booster". I do this every time I add new games.

To refresh the "Reference" pane after coming back to it, just play any move, and if necessary, then go back to the previous move. You can also click on the "Openings Book" tab, among others, and then go back to the "reference", and it will refresh.

I agree that it is not cached, and re-searched, but with the search booster and now that the database has been read into memory, for me, it only takes under a second for the refresh.

P.S. Go into File>Options>Limits, and set the "Cache Size Reference DB" to at least 6GB since right now, it is barely over 5GB. That way, once you read through it once, it will all be cached in memory.


Do strong players (2400+) really not double-check their calculations? (For reference) I'm a candidate master.
However, I've been trying to improve the tactical side of my game, especially calculations and time-management.
One thing I do a lot is double-checking my calculations. While it obviously contributes to my time trouble, this practice has saved me from quite a few blunders.
I've been reading a book by GM Smirnov, Champion Psychology. He strongly insists that it's a very bad habit, as it is a waste of time and proves my lack of self-confidence.
I'm shocked that in my many years of training I've never came across such a blunt opinion (except in Kotov's books, which are, however, strongly criticized e.g. by Nunn in Secrets of Practical Chess).
So what's the deal here? Do strong players (2400+) really not double-check their calculations even in classical time-control?

At shorter time controls, there is little time for conscious double-checking - perhaps there is a kind of parallel awareness of tactical risks and opportunities?
But at longer time controls: there is still a question of what economists call “opportunity cost” - what must I forego if I spend time instead double-checking certain lines?
I am not a serious chess player, but I do compose and solve chess problems, and in both these areas, I reckon that one weakness is I don’t consider enough candidates. I can plunge prematurely into examining detailed lines.
Sometimes that’s productive, but other times I miss better possibilities that I would discover through breadth-first strategic thinking. Effective strategic thinking is hard, but at least I’m aware of the issue and consciously try to work against it. It’s best to do the strategic thinking first, before I go deep and get emotionally invested in particular lines. Once I have an idea of the space of different strategies, then I can triage the most promising ones, then allocating appropriating time to each of them becomes easier, and brief double-checking is a later stage.
By the way, I think this applies to life in general, not just chess. There is no doubt a rack of self-help books about the importance of strategic thinking.


Current top player with most aggressive style? Which current top player (at least ELO 2600) is the most aggressive and most
 compromiseless player (of course only on the chess board :) ) ?

Beliavsky is a candidate for this topic, but I do not know, if he still has this
 style.

Baadur Jobava is probably the most aggressive top player right now. If you go even further up the ranking, Mamedyarov is very aggressive as well.

And although he is not one for wild and dubious attacks, Caruana is actually quite uncompromising, his draw rate is very low.

Topalov and Morozevich are two names that stand for aggressive chess. But I think they both slowed down in recent years. The same could be said for Nakamura.


Are there still wins by an actual checkmate? At the international level, I normally see games that are either decided by a draw or one player resigning.  It seems that players at the international level don't let the game result in an actual checkmate, and resign before that happens.  Do actual checkmates still happen at the international level, or has it pretty much stopped?

In my own experience, which is not international, I used to play games to the very end; even if I knew I was going to lose, I always lost by checkmate. Later, I came to the realization that it was pointless to drag games on that I knew there was no chance for me to win, so I mostly resign now. This sometimes has a negative impact, especially against weaker players, because sometimes when you are losing there is still a chance to salvage a draw.

Generally speaking, it's true, high level games don't play out all the way to checkmate. But there are some exceptions, and the most typical scenario that I have seen for this is a game that features, say, a nice, well-conducted attack, perhaps with a pretty mating pattern or particularly nice combination, and the losing player allows mate to show up on the board as a gesture, a congratulatory "hat tip" to a quality piece of work. For example, I believe that was the case in the game Adams - Short (London Chess Classic 2011).

Other than that, there are also the occasional instances where mate occurs during a time scramble. Or even more rarely, a top player might just overlook a mate in one and end up getting checkmated: it can happen to the best of us. Edited to add: Just the other day at the Olympiad in Istanbul, GM Dragan Solak of Turkey had a similar slip-up against Nakamura, overlooking the fact that a pin on his f7 pawn made possible a sort of epaulette mate:


What was Black's last move? It's White to move. What was Black's last move, and what could have happened before that?
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/3P2P1/3P2Pk/2KR3N w - - 0 1"]

There is only one black piece left, so the last move was with the king. Black's last move was obviously Kg1-h2.
The king could not have come from h3, because there is no way the white pawn could have given check from g2 (its initial position). All other squares around h2 are occupied by white pieces.

Since the black king came from g1, it was in check from the rook on d1 before the last move. Obviously the rook could not have moved to d1 from somewhere on the d file because the pawn on d2 blocks the way. So there are two possibilities how the rook could have given check:

discovered check, i.e. a white piece moved away  form e1 or f1 making space for the attack on the black king on g1
long castle

As for "1" None of the pieces currently on the board could have moved away from the 1st row (i.e. from e1 or f1) to give way for the check. However if a white knight moved from f1 to h2 giving check that would be a discovered check and the black king captured this knight on h2. Obviously this is the only option for a discovered check.

As for "2". If white castled long, that means that the white king never moved (castling rules) before, meaning the white king was always on e1. Then the question is: How did the black king get to g1? With the white king on e1, the black king could not have entered via f1 or f2. Neither it could have come via g2 (where there is still the original white pawn).

This would mean that it came via h2. But is that possible? In order to get to h2, it would have to come from h3 (not possible because of the original never-moved pawn on g2) or from g3.

However the black king could never have entered via g3, because the square was either i) attacked by a pawn from f2 or ii) occupied by that same pawn from f2.

That leaves as the only option, as last moves 1. Nf1-h2+ Kxh2

Going back one move further, what was the last move of black before Nf1-h2+? There are two possibilities: it could be a move by the king or it could be a move by a piece which got captured on h2 by the knight.

Let's analyze both options.

Black moved the king in move 0

If the last move was by the black king it could not have come from f1, g2, h1 (which are blocked by white pieces) and neither could it have come from f2, because there is no way the knight on h1 could have given check. That leaves only h2 as possible option. So assuming the king came from h2, where it was in check, the last white move must have been Ne3-f1+. So the moves are now 0. Ne3-f1+ Kh2-g1 1. Nf1-h2+ Kxh2.

That is not the end of the story yet, because looking at the position before 0. Ne3-f1+ you note (basically for the same arguments as before, that the last move of black must have been Kg1-h2. On g1 the king would have been in check. This check (for the same arguments as presented before) could only have been a discovered check by the knight on e3.

So we have a situation where the black king is shuffling between g1 and h2 while the white knight is moving between f1 and e3. How can this infinite loop be broken? The only way to break this is, if there was a black piece at some point on f1, which blocked the check from the rook. This black piece on f1 got captured by the white knight when the black king was on h2.

Black moved a piece to h2 in move 0

If black must moved another piece that  got captured on h2, this piece can be a black pawn, knight, rook, or queen. It can not be a black bishop, because it could not have moved to h2 (because g3 and g1 were occupied by pieces).

Summary

Two possible solutions:

0. .... N/Q/R/pawn h2
1. Nf1xh2 Kg1xh2

or

Initial position:

white: pawns on d2,g2,g3; Nh1; Ne3; Kc1; Rd1;
black: Kh2; some piece on f1

-n. Nx piece f1+ Kh2g1
[any number of repeating moves with the knight shuffling between f1 and e3 and the king between g1 and h2]
-1. .... Kg1h2
 0. Ne3f1+ Kh2g1
 1. Nf1h2 Kg1xh2


Chess as a De Jure National Sport or Pastime Capoeira was declared the national sport of Brazil by law in 1972. Sri Lanka legally declared volleyball its national sport in 1992.

I'm interested to know more about which countries have (or have had) chess declared a de jure national sport or pastime and the circumstances surrounding the declaration?

I'm not talking about a de facto national sport or pastime but rather one which the law has declared as such.

According to the committe behind the Olympics, it is considered a sport. However, I don't think any country is actively participating in it.

Per Wikipedia:

  Chess is recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee (IOC); since June 1999 FIDE has been the recognized International Sports Federation. As a member of the IOC, FIDE adheres to its rules, including, controversially, a requirement for doping tests. The prospects of chess becoming an Olympic sporting event at some future date remain unclear. The use of the name "Chess Olympiad" for FIDE's team championship is of historical origin and implies no connection with the Olympic Games.


What are some good resources one may use to get better at chess? (training etc) What are some good resources one may use to get better at chess? (training etc)

i don't mind paying for a software like Chessbase or a website or any magazine subscription.

Thanks.

I don't think this question is a duplicate, but I'm going to shamelessly reuse my answer to a related question anyway:

The internet is an amazing tool - for good or for ill. All of the following will help people at a wide variety of levels.

I'd suggest looking into some sort of tactics training. chess.com has a good reputation; I personally use lichess; I used to look at chesstempo. Practicing a few a day (or an hour or so a day) can give you an amazing boost; this is probably the best "bang for the buck". (I speak from experience!)

Find a good YouTube channel with a presenter who speaks to your level and has a teaching style you enjoy; there are a TON of options out there. Depending on your level, something like the Backyard Professor, IM John Bartholomew, any of the St. Louis Chess Club, MetoJelic, Dereque Kelley, etc. I enjoy all of those and many more (they're at widely different levels) for different reasons. (I enjoy others like the Ginger GM, too - but I definitely wouldn't watch him at a "lower" level... he'll give you bad habits that he can get away with.)

If you want to improve some openings, I can't stress chessable enough. My online rating jumped about 200 points just by going to this site every day for two months. (Yes, online ratings are "worthless": it's the relative level, not the absolute.)

Another option would be to find a player whose style you like or have empathy with, and go to chessgames to look through all of their games. Walk through them slowly, trying to figure out why they made the moves they did (when they did) - and why their opponent did what they did.

Beyond that, play games - and then analyze them afterwards. Even just walking back through slowly, trying to identify what went right or wrong (and what could have been better) can help a LOT. Lichess has the option to analyze your games for free - which is a HUGE boost. I've seen the advice "play slower games" (10+ min. on the clock) from quite a few people, as those games give you more time to calculate, analyze, and think. Practice visualization!

If you don't like the internet, there are always physical books - but I'll let someone with more experience on them weigh in. I've got some, I enjoy them, but I don't know enough to make recommendations.

Good luck!


Make Arena send last move to chess engine I am building a chess engine using AI and have succesfully connected it to the Arena Gui, by implementing the UCI protocol.

My goal is to train my AI by facing other AIs that Arena offers.
Everything works well except the checkmate part where one of the engine loses.
More specifically Arena does not give the last move made(that ended the game) to the losing engine,but instead it starts a new game when in tournament mode.

eg(from Arena debug):

2016-09-13 14:48:26,119-->2:position startpos moves d2d4 d7d5 a2a3 e7e6 a3a4 b8c6 a1a3 f8a3 e2e4 a3f8 b2b4 f8b4 c2c3 b4a5 f1e2 d5e4 g2g3 c6d4 e2d3 e4d3 c1g5 d4c2 d1c2 d3c2 g5d8 c2b1q e1e2 b7b6 g1f3 c8a6 c3c4 a6c4 e2e3 b1b3 e3e4 c4e2 d8g5 b3f3 e4d4
2016-09-13 14:48:26,119-->2:go wtime 295296 btime 231219 winc 0 binc 0
2016-09-13 14:48:26,121<--2:info score cp 3343 lowerbound depth 1 nodes 1 time 0 pv f3h1
2016-09-13 14:48:26,123<--2:info score cp 3343 depth 1 nodes 2 time 0 pv f3h1
2016-09-13 14:48:26,126<--2:info score mate 1 lowerbound depth 1 nodes 5 time 0 pv a5c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,128<--2:info score mate 1 depth 1 nodes 6 time 0 pv a5c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,129<--2:info cpuload 0
2016-09-13 14:48:26,130<--2:bestmove a5c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,130*2*Found move:Ba5-c3
2016-09-13 14:48:26,290********Game end: 0-1 {Mate}
2016-09-13 14:48:26,291********Last game won by AnMon 5.75 with Black in 20 moves

In the example above my engine lost to its adversary(AnMon). As you can see the opponent gave the move a5c3 to the interface, and Arena just ended the game without sending a message to my engine before beggining a new game.

The problem lies in the fact that my goal is to train my engine's AI and to do that i need the last move made so that i can determine who won and who lost.
Is there a way to make Arena give me that information?

If not what other engines that meet my needs would you reccomend?

I think for this you actually want the XBoard protocol, which specifies:

result RESULT {COMMENT}
After the end of each game, xboard will send you a result command. You can use this command to trigger learning. RESULT is either 1-0, 0-1, 1/2-1/2, or *, indicating whether white won, black won, the game was a draw, or the game was unfinished. The COMMENT string is purely a human-readable comment; its content is unspecified and subject to change. In ICS mode, it is passed through from ICS uninterpreted. Example:
result 1-0 {White mates}
Here are some notes on interpreting the "result" command. Some apply only to playing on ICS ("Zippy" mode).
If you won but did not just play a mate, your opponent must have resigned or forfeited. If you lost but were not just mated, you probably forfeited on time, or perhaps the operator resigned manually. If there was a draw for some nonobvious reason, perhaps your opponent called your flag when he had insufficient mating material (or vice versa), or perhaps the operator agreed to a draw manually.
You will get a result command even if you already know the game ended -- for example, after you just checkmated your opponent. In fact, if you send the "RESULT {COMMENT}" command (discussed below), you will simply get the same thing fed back to you with "result" tacked in front. You might not always get a "result *" command, however. In particular, you won't get one in local chess engine mode when the user stops playing by selecting Reset, Edit Game, Exit or the like.

(emphasis mine)
UCI protocol is designed to be stateless, so an engine does not know when a game begins or ends, but is merely given a position to search.
As a compromise, you could trigger learning on a ucinewgame command, but this is not nearly as useful, because UCI does not send you the winning move. Perhaps perform a depth-1 search to see if there was a mating move, then assume they made that.


What are some chess games that feature Zugzwang despite many pieces remaining on the board? The game Saemisch - Nimzowitsch (Copenhagen 1923) has come to be known as the Immortal Zugzwang Game, as a play on Anderssen's swashbuckling Immortal Game. I am interested in finding other examples of what might be called a "grand Zugzwang," where there are still many pieces on the board (rather than a less-cluttered endgame position, where Zugzwang most commonly occurs) but one player is stuck in a situation where the compulsion to move will ultimately ruin his or her position.

It turns out there is already a great wikipedia entry that lists several fantastic examples, including my personal favorite Podgaets - Dvoretsky (Odessa 1974), which includes the one move in chess history I would most like to have played: in the position

[FEN "5r2/p5k1/Pp1p2p1/2pP4/6nq/8/1PP2PQ1/5RKB b - - 0 1"]
[White "Mikhail Podgaets"]
[Black "Mark Dvoretsky"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

Dvoretsky played the spectacular 29. ... Rf3!!, leaving white completely paralyzed in a position where any move (after he runs out of pawn waiting moves) leads to immediate ruin. This brings me to my question:

  Can you point me to other "grand Zugzwang" games, ones that are not mentioned on the wikipedia page above?

Since wikipedia can be a moving target, I'll list the games (beyond the two already mentioned above) that are on the wikipedia page as of my writing:

Steinitz - Lasker (1896 Match, Round 3)
Harper - Zuk (Halloween Open 1971)
Van Dongen - Wijsman (Eindhoven 2005)
Zhilin - Chernov (USSR Ch. 1960)
Fischer - Rossetto (Mar del Plata 1959)
An example from Euwe and Meiden's book Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur

The game Alekhine-Nimzowitsch immediately comes to mind; a great example of both a zugzwang in a position full of pieces and the infamous "Alekhine's Gun" (the tripled major pieces on the c-file):

[FEN ""]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5 Bxd2+
7. Qxd2 O-O 8. c3 b6 9. f4 Ba6 10. Nf3 Qd7 11. a4 Nbc6 12. b4
cxb4 13. cxb4 Bb7 14. Nd6 f5 15. a5 Nc8 16. Nxb7 Qxb7 17. a6
Qf7 18. Bb5 N8e7 19. O-O h6 20. Rfc1 Rfc8 21. Rc2 Qe8 22. Rac1
Rab8 23. Qe3 Rc7 24. Rc3 Qd7 25. R1c2 Kf8 26. Qc1 Rbc8 27. Ba4
b5 28. Bxb5 Ke8 29. Ba4 Kd8 30. h4 1-0

Nimzowitsch resigned here, as Alekhine will be able to just sit tight, making waiting moves with his king, say, and once Nimzowitsch runs out of moves with his g- and h-pawns, any piece move will spell disaster:

The c6 knight is pinned to the queen.
The c7 rook has no squares.
The c8 rook and e7 knight can't move because both are needed to defend the c6 knight.
Finally, if ...Ke8 or ...Qe8, then the c7 rook is inadequately defended after the move b5 kicks
the knight away.


Difficulty of attaining USCF rating in different states. USCF is the chess federation for all of the United States. My question is if there is difference in a rating given in one state and another. For example, is a 1900 rated player in California on average better or worse than a 1900 in Indiana? I'd be interested in people's insights and/or data which draws you to your conclusion.

Ratings are not exactly "given", but determined from the outcome of games.

If 1) there is enough mixing (players from Indiana play against those from California, etc) and 2) if many games are played, the ratings should be comparable between states.

Conversely if a group of players is separated because they only play among themselves, this can lead to distortion of their ratings compared to players outside their group.


Did Stockfish regress from October to December 2020? If so, why? NCM data
If the NCM data is to be believed, somewhere around October 2020, Stockfish dev hit +370 elo vs. Stockfish 7, but has since regressed to only +360. What's going on?
Only thing I can think of is a statistical fluctuation, which is plausible since the error bars are +/- 5. However, the gap between the October ratings and the current ones appear to be too large to fully attribute to statistics. This is especially the case if we believe Stockfish improved between October and December (which it presumably must have since engines are constantly improving). On the other hand, if the October versions of Stockfish are truly stronger than the latest ones, the newer versions ought not to have been accepted.

It is of course always possible that Stockfish did regress. The way changes are tested for Stockfish, or most engines for that matter, always allows for regressions to pass some of the time. (you simply can't play long enough test matches in reasonable time to be very sure that you don't regress) This is not much of an issue since most of the time you will detect which changes brought improvement and which did not. However you can "run unlucky" and hit a couple not so good changes in a row. In fact I do recall an instant when Stockfish was reverted a number of commits since such a regression was measured.
However, in this case if the tests were run against Stockfish 7. I think a more likely explanation may simply be that the newer Stockfish did slightly worse against that specific opponent. Strength is not absolute, you can be better against some opponents and worse against others. The interesting thing then of course is to be on average stronger than the older version however that can still allow an engine to be weaker against certain opponents. Especially, if like the case here, the opponent is several hundred points weaker. At that point it is less about playing the absolute best move and more about beating up the much weaker opponent more efficiently. And especially since the supposed regression is only 10 rating points, I wouldn't interpret too much into it.


Chess games ownership, databases to use in app to sell There is plenty of sites offering database searches and I wonder how to make it without breaking any laws. I'm looking for games source (pgn ideal) that I can download, process and use in my application. Looking for both human and correspondence sources. No big problem if the work is heavy or difficult. Interested just in new games so if some sources started just a few years ago, no big deal. How complete various sources are? Can I just pack the database to my own format and offer it as a free download?

Nobody has copyright to raw PGN games, so you are free to distribute it. You may pack it to your own format, you may offer it as a free download, or you may sell it.

However, you can't sell annotation. You may use Chessbase's 2017 Mega Database, get the games, remove annotation (if any) and use the games for your app.


Why can't the king castle in this position? In a video I'm watching (requires register), it has this setup.
[FEN "r3k2r/pp1qn1pp/2p2p2/8/3P4/5N2/PP2QPPP/2R1R1K1 b kq - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

The instructor says:

The king cannot escape, he cannot castle kingside or queenside,
because of the white's pressure on e7 [...]. Black wants to escape
this pressure by castling by hand.

I don't understand why can't black castle. It won't castle from, through, or into check. Why is it?

Executive summary:

Black actually can castle, but if he does castle he will lose the knight and the game (due to material loss).

Detailed answer:

Black and White have equal material.

The black knight is protected by two pieces: the king and the queen.
The black knight is attacked  by two pieces: the queen and rook.

If the king castles, the knight will be protected only by the queen, and White will be able to win the knight which will lead to a big material advantage: a knight, which is worth about 3 points.

"Castle by hand" (meaning moving the king and the rook over several turns until they reach a castle position) will allow Black to keep protecting the knight. (E.g. By moving the king to F7 to protect the knight, followed by a rook to E8, etc.)


Why is en passant only possible on the first opportunity? Quoting FIDE rulebook:

  This capture is only legal on the move following this advance and is called an ‘en passant’ capture.

Quoting Wikipedia:

  The en passant capture must be made at the very next turn or the right to do so is lost.

Why?

I know the basic story of en passant and I'll just paraphrase it here: A rule was added to let pawns move two squares forward on its first move. Someone said something like, what if a pawn uses this to escape from an enemy adjacent pawn? Then the basic pawn skeleton/framework would be changed! So we must have an en passant to preserve the same chess framework.

Okay that part makes sense, but why does it have to be on the very next move? Was that part of the rule only added later? Why was it added at all? When two pawns are diagonally adjacent confronting each other, they don't have to capture immediately or else forefeit the ability to capture. So the concept of the "ghost pawn", if you don't capture it immediately, and the other player doesn't move it, seems to me like it should still be there and available for capture as long as it's there.

Does anyone know why this part of en passant was created?

Optional Background: In case you're curious, I come from a programming background. Of all the special moves, en passant is (was, see below) the hardest to program. Not only is it the only move where the capturing piece moves to a blank square, but it's the only move that "disappears" if you don't take it. That means it's a move where the total board position is not enough information to generate all moves. (That's true for castling too, which already has its fair share of tricky rules.) Two enemy pawns could be adjacent on the 4th or 5th rank, surrounded by blank squares, but you still don't know if en passant is possible. You have to check the previous move.

Or so I thought. Now that I'm revisiting this, I figured out a clever way to implement en passant without checking the move log. Don't generate it at turn start. Generate it at move_take, specifically at the end of a 2-step pawn move. But store it in a special move array since the normal one gets cleared at every inc_turn. Then migrate and clear appropriately at gen_all_moves. That way, if ep is not taken, it doesn't generate itself on the next move because you didn't move that same pawn two steps on the next move. Just remember to check both sides of the pawn and create two ep moves if two enemy pawns are there.

Castling was implemented with the help of a "moved" boolean in every piece, which is also useful for a pawn's first move of course. Even if the King and Rook are in the right spot, you use that to see if the King/Rook has moved before. No need to check the move log. But I will say that Castling is now the hardest move to implement because you gotta check if the path is under attack. En passant is no longer the hardest now that I thought of the clever way.

A pawn which 'exposes' itself to en passant will be distinct from one that doesn't. Say, for a black pawn on a4 and a white pawn on b4: giving black the option of playing ...axb3 at any time after b2-b4 means that the moves b2-b4 and b3-b4, which seemingly lead to the same position, have long-term implications as it depends too much on the past. In particular, when the pawn stands on b2, white would need to weigh the pros and cons of moving his pawn to b4 in one or two moves (where the con is giving black a long-lasting right to take on b3).

Or, in the spirit of the motivation of en passant that you correctly described, permanently stopping a two-square pawn from 'escaping' would greatly neglect (or complicate) the benefit of being able to move two squares forward.

Another practical reason because it's just much simpler for humans: with more than one pawn on the board, it would be complicated to keep track of en passant rights on all of them. (Someone once suggested that pieces be able to capture en passant at some FIDE meeting; needless to say, it was laughed out of the room --- that said, I can't recall the source of this story.)

One may ask a similar (opposite?) question about castling rights; the 'simpler' option may arguably be to always allow castling as long as the pieces are back on their original squares, but that too has strong implications, one of which is a reduced importance of development.

Generally, the special moves in chess have restrictions associated with them to ensure that they don't change the way the game 'looks' after the time these special moves are made (playing ...axb3 to take a white pawn on b4 looks completely unlike the old game, so it's only allowed for one move). After all, the rules were designed by humans, arguably arbitrarily.


How to choose a chess opening? I want to start studying chess but one thing I'm having trouble with is the openings. I don't know what openings to use. Should I learn a bunch, then choose one randomly before a game, or should I choose a couple of openings and get good with those? Is there really a better thing to do or is it mostly based on personal preference?

Take the following factors into account:

roughly how many moves you can memorize (if you can't memorize 5 moves or so, at least avoid stuff like the Ruy Lopez)
style (don't play the King's Gambit if you are a positional player)
your ability to gauge whether an opening fits or doesn't fit any of the above (this is kind of an abstract concept)


Where to buy my favorite magnetic chess set From childhood I have this favorite chess set which I use every day. The Black King and Queen no longer have the small white balls on their heads and the board is scratched in many places. I would like to buy a new one but cannot find it in any of the chess stores in Poland where I live. Can anyone point me to a seller of this kind of magnetic chess set anywhere in the world?

EDIT: I have already purchased a set like that thanks to Aric Fowler's answer, which is going to receive a 100 point bounty. Unfortunately, this new set is even more damanged than my old one. I have only managed to replace my damaged queen with a healthy one but I am still looking for another set, so this question is still open.

Is this what you're after?

Chess set

Vintage plastic magnetic chess set in carton box.
Made in USSR, Latvia.
Material: Plastic, magnet.
Circa: 1980s.
Has vintage condition. One white figurine has a crack, black king missing the top.
Measurement: the box is 250 x 130 mm (9 7/8" x 5 1/8")

One problem is the black king in this set is also missing the white top, in which case you would have one incomplete piece. Also, the board has a black edge instead of white, however hopefully that isn't a problem.


Is this the position from TCEC Season 18, Game 80 a win or a draw? This position from move 42 of TCEC Season 18 Game 80, with Black to move. Is it a win or a draw?
[FEN "8/1k5p/1P3pp1/K1P2b2/5P1P/8/8/2B5 b - - 0 1"]

The key point in this endgame is that the bishops are of opposite colours. It is a trivial draw. White is a pawn up but with nothing more than barely competent play by black, white will never be able to advance his pawns. The black king can never be moved from b7 and the black bishop can take station on the diagonal between c6 and h1 making the pawn move c6 impossible. Black will also play h5 at some stage leaving him with only the g6 pawn to protect. The f6 pawn is an irrelevance.
To be able to win an opposite coloured bishop endgame one player has to have two passed pawns separated by a minimum number of files. That isn't the case here. The problem for the side with the extra pawns is that the opposing king and bishop can always blockade the colour of the bishop and the attacking bishop cannot help.


Where does the expression "checkmate" come from? While watching The Queen's Gambit my partner asked me: why do they say "checkmate"? But she wanted to know what is the origin of this expression, not its meaning. And I realized I didn't actually know. So, what is the origin of the expression "checkmate" and its etymology?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, checkmate comes from the Middle English chekmaten, which is derived from the Anglo-French eschec mat. And this came from the Persian shāh māt through the Arabic language.
The Persian word shāh means king. (With a definite article, it becomes as-shāh, the king.)
But I found two different interpretations for māt:

unable to escape (Merriam-Webster)
dead (Dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy, Treasure of the French Language)

So, as-shāh māt -> checkmate = the king is dead!


Strange pawn double move in McDonnell attack I was going through a Chessable opening line, and it recommends black to play 6...d5, moving the d pawn immediately after it was just moved in 5...d6 6.Nc3.

What is the reason behind moving the same pawn twice?

[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp2bppp/2npp3/2p5/4PP2/2NP1N2/PPP1B1PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 1 6"]

6... d5 7. O-O Nf6 8. e5 Nd7 9. d4 cxd4 10. Nb5 O-O 11. Nbxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Nc5

Full line here:

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. d3 Be7
5. Be2 d6 6. Nc3 d5?? 7. O-O Nf6 8. e5 Nd7
9. d4 cxd4 10. Nb5 O-O 11. Nbxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Nc5

I checked the position on Stockfish and its 1st or 2nd recommendation is to play 6...d5 after 6.Nc3, so your Chessable opening line is sound.

The reason for playing 6...d5 is that White's c3-knight is misplaced. If you were to attack it by pushing ...d4, it doesn't have a good square to move to (normally, it would like to move to e2 but a bishop is sitting there).

The reason for not playing 5...d5 on the fifth move is that White doesn't have to bring his knight to c3. Instead, he can move it to d2, where it won't be attacked by your pawn.

In the line you posted, I think White went for the stuff with 8.e5 and 9.d4 in order to prevent Black from playing ...d4 at an opportune moment. The pawn structure that arose after 9.d4 is favorable for Black, since White's missing his centre pawn.


Blitz Touch Move Rule In a "friendly" blitz game I got into an argument with my opponent in the following scenario:

My opponent's knight was pinned to his king. He did not notice and touched his knight to move it. I became excited and before he had a chance to press his clock, I took his king.

The question is: by official rules does my opponent lose the instant he touches the knight? (Making any action taken after this instant irrelevant?) Or does he need to "complete" the move by pressing the clock?

The touch-move rule never compels you to make an illegal move. It may compel you to make a stupid move, but not an illegal one. For example, you'd be forced to move a knight that's pinned against your queen and lose your queen as a result, but you'll never be compelled to move an absolutely pinned knight which would put you in check.

See this related question for more discussion, but I'll quote here the relevant FIDE rule here:

  4.5 If none of the pieces touched in accordance with Article 4.3 or
  Article 4.4 can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal
  move


Have endgame tablebases ever been compiled for smaller variants of chess? I am interested in compiling endgame tablebases for a few miniature chess variants, such as Chess Attack (5x6) and Los Alamos Chess (6x6). Have these ever been created before, and if so, are they publicly accessible?

Please see http://membres-lig.imag.fr/prost/MiniChessResolution/
Perhaps you should ask contact these people since they have solved Gardner and Mallet Chess and are trying to solve Los Alamos Chess which Prost believed to be a draw.


Is it ever posible to win if the only pieces left are two kings and a knight? If the only pieces left on the board are the two kings and a knight, is it ever possible to force check mate? I mean, if the bare king avoids the edges and stays close to the opponent's knight, I don't see how the game can ever end. I was in this situation for more than half an hour yesterday and we were forced to draw.

No, it is not possible to checkmate with a lone knight (K+N vs K).
However, Add another Bishop and you'll be able to Checkmate (K+N+B vs K)

There is a rule in Chess which goes like this "No Mating material = Draw"

So:

K vs K = Draw

K+N Vs K = Draw

K+B Vs K = Draw


Looking for a specific chess book My father taught me chess at a young age. I am still not very good, though. Now, we have started again playing against one another and analyze positions. He remembered a book, which he possessed but lost, and is desperate to find it again. Hopefully one of you will help me identify it. Here is what I know:

old book, from the 70s or before
Russian author, or at least Slavic-sounding name
included the very beginning of chess, legal moves, main principles etc for total beginners
introduced different mini-games, including the 'game of 8 pawns', played only with the pawns (no king, the goal is to reach promotion)
the cover included some white and green, and some chessboard but angled 45 degrees

Sorry, this is all my ageing father can remember. He says it is the best chess book he has ever read.

The first thing I would suggest is going to an old book site, like Abebooks.com and putting in chess titles or keywords that come to mind.  They show covers with the old books they have for sale.  A key thing you left out, soft cover or hard back?

Check "Comprehensive Chess Course series" of books by Lev Alburt and his coauthor Palatnik, Sam.  They comment in one of them about rules for the "pawn game". He apparently references the Soviet Chess Program or schools as the source of the game.  One Title of the series: The King in Jeopardy: The Best Techniques for Attack and Defense (Comprehensive Chess Course Series)
Alburt, Lev, Palatnik,Sam.

I have seen the cover you are describing in my searches for books but I do not remember who it was I was searching.  I commonly look for Chernev and Botvinik so it may be one of theirs.  I will keep looking.  I too have a favorite book I learned from "Fireside Book of Chess" by Reinfeld.


Why didn't Carlsen try to force exchanging Queens on move 23 against Vokhidov? During the 2018 World Rapid Championship in 2018 in St. Petersburg, Magnus Carlsen played Shamsiddin Vokhidov.
White starts with setting up a Scholar's Mate, but Black doesn't fall for it.
Then on the 22nd turn, White neglects to get his Knight to safety in time. He ends up losing his Queen for a Rook.
[Event "World Rapid Championship"]
[Site "St Petersburg RUS"]
[Date "2018.12.26"]
[EventDate "2018.12.26"]
[Round "2.1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Shamsiddin Vokhidov"]
[ECO "C20"]
[WhiteElo "2835"]
[BlackElo "2480"]
[PlyCount "72"]
[fen ""]
[startply "45"]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 Qe7 5. Ne2 Nf6 6. d3 Bg7 7. Nbc3 h6 8. Nd5 Nxd5 9. exd5 Na5 10. d6 cxd6 11. Bd5 Nc6 12. Bd2 Qf6 13. Qe4 O-O 14. O-O Ne7 15. Nc3 Qf5 16. Qb4 Nxd5 17. Nxd5 Kh7 18. Nc7 Rb8 19. Qxd6 b6 20. f3 Bb7 21. Rae1 Rfc8 22. Bc3? Bf8 23. Nb5 Bxd6 (23. Qxe5 {threat of mate on h8}) 24. Nxd6 Qe6 25. Nxc8 Rxc8 26. Rxe5 Qd6 27. Rfe1 Bd5 28. a4 Be6 29. a5 bxa5 30. Kf1 Rc5 31. Rxc5 Qxc5 32. Ra1 d5 33. Rxa5 Qc7 34. Ra4 Qxh2 35. Rxa7 Qh1+ 36. Kf2 d4 0-1

Why didn't White force exchanging Queens on the 23rd turn? That would've cost him the Knight as well, but would've gotten rid of the Black e Pawn.

This is a tricky one, and really the only person best placed to answer it is Carlson himself.
I ran the analysis through a few engines and in all instances the best move was Qxe5. This makes me think it was an Inaccuracy as the second best move Nb5 was played. Just goes to show even the the best make mistakes.


Why isn't 6.Bc4 considered by theory in the 5.Bxf7+ Traxler Counterattack? In the Traxler Counterattack of the Two Knights Defense, after
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 (6. Bc4)

why isn't 6.Bc4 considered as a "serious" move for White by theory? Only 6.Bb3 and 6.Bd5 are seen in this fairly rare line.

Comparing 6.Bb3 and 6.Bc4, the drawbacks of the latter are obvious since the bishop is not protected and can become a target to attacks:

either by a black piece: Ne5, Na5, Qc5, Qd4...

or, more probably, by the d-pawn: the typical ...d5 will gain a tempo for development

On the other hand, I can see no advantage of having the bishop on c4 rather than b3. You will hardly ever want to retreat to e2, nor to play a queenside fianchetto.
Given how important each tempo can be in such an complicated line, it is understandable than no strong player has ever ventured 6.Bc4. Probably there isn't a direct refutation, but you might regret having your bishop exposed later on.


A chess problem: White to play and mate in two White's turn, checkmate in two moves
[FEN "r1b2k1r/1p2bppp/p1B2q2/8/8/8/PPPQ1P1P/2KRR3 w - - 0 1"]

How does White deliver checkmate in 2 moves?

This is a fairly simple one:

   1. Qd8+ Bxd8 2. Re8#


Is it ethical to refer to opening book for the first few moves of a correspondence game? I am still learning chess (been playing ~6 months steadily now and am at ~1300) and have recently been enjoying correspondence chess with a 3 day time control. I find it gives me time to really analyze each move without the pressure of time that I get with blitz games.

I have been trying to learn new openings in detail, mostly using opening explorer in lichess or chess.com. As most of you probably know, it breaks down the most popular moves in the opening from games played and gives the % outcome of white wins/black wins/draw for each move. This is an amazing resource for someone like myself who doesn't have lines memorized yet, but is it unethical to refer to these resources during a daily game?

I would never refer to an engine for a current game and the opening explorer is only showing the data for games that have been played, not evaluating positions, but I still wonder if it would be wrong to use.

What is the general consensus of the online chess community on this?

Yes.

ICCF: Says nothing about it, or assistance of any kind, and you can even use computers legally. Here are their rules.

USCF: "3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players." Here are their rules.

With regards to the ICCF rules, my guess is that they just decided it was too hard to police computer used, so they just allow it. Books have always been permitted.


What is the probability that a position has been played before? When reading annotated games from GMs, I sometimes find annotations such as "This was tried by XXX in 1975 vs YYY". Such annotations are sometimes found very deeply in the game, sometimes past move 20.

Depending on the move number, what is the probability that my position has been previously played by someone, somewhere?

You can't calculate a percentage. But there are some interesting points to make on that topic.

1) The possibility of a position being played before goes down the more moves you make (obviously)

2) However, positions in openings with more book moves (ex. Ruy Lopez and Sicilian) come up more.

3) If an opening was played long ago but with a terrible loss, you might be surprised how few games there are with that opening.


Is White in a weaker position? Is White in a weaker position than Black? How do I analyze this position?
[FEN "2rq2kr/p1ppbp2/1pn1p1pP/4P3/3P2Qn/2PB4/PP3P2/RNB1K2R w - - 0 1"]

From this point onward, I tried a mobile chess-free app and turned the board, on each move. I mean from both ends that the computer was playing. But each time White lost or drew at max. How can I say at this stage that White is in a weaker position? What are the key points?

[fen "2rq2kr/p1ppbp2/1pn1p1pP/4P3/3P2Qn/2P5/PP3P2/RNB1K2R w - - 0 1"]

Is white in a weaker position then black? ... What are the key points?

The key points are -

White is a whole piece down for no compensation
White has no attack
White has no pawn levers
The white h pawn is weak and black can round it up at leisure and take it

In short, white is not just weaker than black, white is completely lost

Please review it again. My bad, I missed the white bishop, now edited
in Fen

Well, a white bishop suddenly appearing on d3 changes everything. The g6 pawn is now a major problem for black. With white to move (as indicated by your fen) black is just lost. The knight on h4 is en prise. White can just take it. Here's what happens if black tries to recapture.
[fen "2rq2kr/p1ppbp2/1pn1p1pP/4P3/3P2Qn/2PB4/PP3P2/RNB1K2R w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxh4 Bxh4 2. Bxg6 fxg6 (2...Kf8 3. Bxf7 Kxf7 4. Qg7+ Ke8 5. Qxh8+ Ke7 6. Qg7+ Ke8 7. h7) 3. Qxg6+ Kf8 4. Qg7+ Ke8 5. Qxh8+ Ke7 6. Qg7+ Ke8 7. h7


Is my representation of the Pirc Defense correct? I tried to represents all the main lines of the Pirc Defense to play at a 2000 ELO level. Am I right with the following tree?
What I mean by right is I wonder if I do not miss any popular line or choose a bad move at some level.

If you are aiming to use this tree for practical use at 2000 level, you should start in the Pirc tabiya position after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6. That's where it all starts, with main choices being 4.f4, 4.Be2, 4.Be3, 4.Nf3, 4.f3. (edit: Also 4.Bg5, 4.Bc4 and even 4.Bf4 as pointed in comments. And also 4.g3 and 4.h3)

That way, you will not be confused by games without ...g6 at all, like the Philidor 3...e5 or some moderns with 3...c6, 4...Qa5.

I don't think the 1.e4 d6 2.d4 e6?! branch will ever be useful to you. With Black, you won't ever want to play this. With White, if you face it you can tackle it by following general rules, and in any case a tree is not useful there. Also, I wonder how this very obscure sideline appeared in your tree. If you use popularity to select lines, have you consider how far 2...e6 lies behind 2...Nf6 ? Have you restricted your base to tournament play, if possible above a certain level (say, 1800) ?

If need be, you can build a separate tree for early deviations, like 2.Nf3, 2.Nc3 or 2.f4 - keeping in mind that they will often transpose later in your main tree in case of d2-d4. But if you have practical purposes, you want to get rid of parasitic information. That will also allow you to go deeper that move 5 - which is mandatory at 2000 level !


Theoretical relationship between Caro-Kann exchange and Queen's Gambit exchange Is there a book, or an article, which examines the relationship between these two openings? The Caro-Kann exchange (non-Panov) is 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5, and the Queen's Gambit exchange is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.cxd5 exd5.

The positions are identical except for who is on move. I know that the Caro-Kann exchange is not considered critical, and I know that the Queen's Gambit exchange (via that particular move order, i.e. without 3.Nc3 Nf6) is also not considered critical.

But does anybody know of a serious discussion of these two openings, which on the surface seem nearly identical?

Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess is a good book which treats all the common pawn structures that arise from popular openings. Its focus truly is on the pawn structures themselves and typical plans associated with them, rather than on the particular opening move-orders by which they arise. And the structure described in your question is treated in section "C. The Orthodox Exchange Formation," located in the chapter devoted to the Queen's Gambit family of structures. Soltis writes:

  Kmoch named [this formation] after the exchange systems (cxd5 / ... exd5) in the orthodox (read "normal") variation of the Q.G.D. It also occurs with colors reversed in the Caro-Kann (1 e4 c6  2 d4 d5  3 exd5 cxd5  4 c3 and ... e6) and some rarer openings.

The Kmoch reference here is to the book Pawn Power in Chess, which also gives a short account of this structure, in the form of annotations to the game R.Byrne-Eliskases (1952). Kmoch has further discussion of this structure in his chapter on pawns and rooks; see pp. 100-103 of the Dover edition.


Is it better to move a pawn or knight first? As stated in the title, I have always wondered whether it is better to move a pawn or knight first. Which one makes you generally more likely to win?

You can see statistics at a site like this one.

There are four pawn moves (1. d4, 1. e4, 1. c4, 1. g3) and one knight move (1. Nf3) that form a top tier of first move choices.

The other twelve pawn moves and three knight moves vary in terms of viability.


Finding a Seirawan game I am looking for a game played by Seirawan. I remember in the position that Black was heading for a Botvinnik formation(c5 and e5 but without d6 yet), and White had sacrificed a knight on e5 for an attack. I am 80% sure that Seirawan was Black.


Understanding Kramnik's play in game 1 of Candidates 2018 The position I'm studying is the middlegame part of the game 1 of Berlin Candidates 2018 between Kramnik and Grischuk, which Kramnik won with the white pieces.

In particular, I'm interested in understanding what Kramnik's idea is with the patient knight re-routes and doubling of rooks against a well protected d6 pawn! Intuitively, I would try to use the rooks to prepare or anticipate the opening of a central file in such a position, but instead he opts for a doubling along the semi-open d-file which is a bit odd at first glance, as it seems the rooks are facing a wall. Additionally, Kramnik seems to strongly emphasize the positioning of a knight on d5 as he invests at least 5 tempi to reconfigure his already developed knights (Nb1-Nc3 and Ng5-Nh3-Nf4).

Any insight into what white's ideally trying to achieve would be very useful. Below is the position after the rooks are doubled along the d file.

 [title "Game 1 - Kramnik vs Grischuk - Candidates 2018"]
 [fen "1qr1r1k1/1b1nppbp/pp1p1np1/8/2P5/1PN1PN2/PB1RBPPP/Q2R2K1 w - - 3 17"]

The short answer is: white's making it difficult for black to challenge the center with their central pawns. But that's not really revealing much, so let us dig deeper into this beautiful middlegame.

The rook doubling is in fact part of a grander scheme that Kramnik has in mind. Once black commits to d6, Kramnik targets a very concrete objective:

To undermine black's control over the d5 square in order to establish a centralised knight on d5. Ultimately, the plan stems from the asymmetry between the light square control provided by white's center compared to black's central pawn setup (d6-e7). The plan is quite simple in appearance but becomes rather involved once we try to see how it ought to be executed.

Let's now visually unravel the whole thought process behind this plan, but given the question appears to be asked at a basic level, I'll skip certain concrete (tactical) details and only cover the gist of the involved strategic ideas.

So the question is now re-iterated to: How can we establish a knight on d5 without allowing black to easily prevent or trade on d5? and if a trade is to happen on d5, we definitely don't want to have to re-capture with a pawn, which would block a useful central square and potentially gift black a target on d5. Alternatively, you can reformulate the question: How can we turn the d5 square into a safe knight outpost?

Black's control over d5:

Kramnik's surgical strategy:

Left: Reroute knights to d5| Mid: pin the f6 knight | Right: Pressure d6

Left: We need both knights in range of d5 as otherwise in principle black could trade the light square bishop for the knight landing on d5 and white would have to recapture with the pawn, which is exactly what we want to avoid as explained earlier.
Mid: One of the best defenders of d5 is the well placed knight on f6, and one way to undermine its defense is to pin the knight by creating a battery along the long diagonal against the fianchetto'ed bishop.
Right: If black is able to play e6 without any drawbacks, then they'll have permanently secured control over d5, therefore, by pressurizing the d6 pawn white is making it more difficult for black to play e6 as it would weaken an already targeted d6 pawn.

Notice that in contrast to d5, the b5 square is not as good a post for a knight since not only it is not a central square (knights are strongest when centralised), it is also a square that is quite easy to cover for black as a6 is playable in most cases (unlike e6) thanks to the closed b-file which makes it difficult for b6 to be put under pressure (and thus stop a6).

In summary, with black's 11...d6 commitment, white sets out to establish a well centralised knight on d5, which was harmoniously achieved on move 22.Ncd5:

 ---->

It must be noted that the knight post on d5 is not permanent, but for as long as the knight can stand centralised without black being able to reciprocate a similar level of minor-piece-activity, white stands favourable - with constant pressure on key squares in black's structure (c7, e7, f6...). That's why Grischuk has tried to counter white's threats by mounting a direct attack on white's king with the rook lift.

Although there's a slight positional edge for white in that final position after Ncd5, it's by no means winning for white, in fact it's just about to get ignited [*], but it is a prime example of Kramnik's positional approach to the game, he always plays with a clear plan in mind, enabled not only by his great strategic intuition for exploiting/spotting weaknesses and calculation capabilities, but also by his tirelessness and resourcefulness in finding ways to improve his pieces. His games cannot be recommended enough to be studied, his purposeful play-style is a unique portrayal of harmony in chess.

[*]: there are many tactical lines that can ensue from the reached position, e.g., Nxd5 Bxd5 Bxb2 Qxb2 Bxd5 Nxd5 and neither Nb6 nor Nf6 are immediately playable (try to figure out for yourself as an exercise). Or Nxd5 Bxd5 Bxb2 Qxb2 Nf6 Bxa8 Qxa8 Rxd6 exd6 Qxf6 (with interesting positional compensation). Or Ne5 Be2 Ne4 ... which is what happened in the game.


Should I study players or specific games? I'm a relatively new player (1400 on chess.com, best game I won OTB was against a 1800) and I finished going through a tactics book. I still do tactics puzzles almost every day, but I realized I don't really "understand" the openings I play and I usually struggle strategically. I thought I would look at games with the openings that I play (Caro-Kann, London System, Ruy Lopez, Vienna, etc). I was wondering, is it better to look at games with a certain opening from only one player at first? For instance, I know Karpov played a lot of Caro-Kann and I really like his style of playing, so should I just go through games he played and try to understand the moves? Or would it be better to look at all Caro-Kann games? I'm a bit confused on what to do I must admit. At least for strategy I can read a book, but not so sure for openings.
EDIT: I'm asking the question because I'm afraid that studying only one player will make me miss some important theory or examples. Is that true or not?

At 1400 on chess.com, openings aren't your main issue. Five moves of theory should be fine. Your opponent will throw in a Rb8 when you're attacking his king anyways so you won't be in theory for long. At your level, chess is 99% tactics.
However, the concepts behind said 5 moves are still important to know and understand. Like in the Caro-Kann, Nd7 stops white from playing Ne5, but playing that in the 2 knights trap will get you smother-mated so you need to be careful.
Sticking to improving... The best way to learn is to play while writing down the moves. Play longer games (15-25mins+ and stop writing at 5 mins on clock). Once you've played, try to compare what you played with theory. Then try again and again. Doing that will also help your tactics and board vision so it definitely is an 'all-around' trick for improvement.
Karpov (and most top level) games have a lot to learn from, but not for someone who is new as his concepts apply to middle and endgame. Often they are minor improvements on past positions. They're nice to look at with a stronger player though, but if you want to test yourself, evaluate 2000-2200 rated OTB games and look for improvements in those.
Lectures are also important and Youtube has a lot of lectures on openings. They explain a lot of the basics you might miss at first, but don't be hard on yourself if you forget some points during your games - unlike in person lectures, you can just rewatch it after 2-3 games of yours. One I like a lot is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChxLXqMph7cRG_MHIIhlZ7A as he offers solid, yet offbeat ideas to counter specific lines.
So to answer the edit question. It's false, practice and playing your own games is what will make you remember ideas. Studying a player will have no effect either way, it should only serve as a complement to your own play.


Why did FIDE allow some random guy to open for white in Chess Candidates tournament 2018? As seen in Aronian vs Kramnik on day 3,  the opening was e4 which Levon Aronian rarely plays. It later turned into the Berlin variation.

The article from FIDE says

  Francesco Tristano, a classical and experimental pianist from Luxembourg, made the ceremonial first move for the round. By chance, it was in the game between Aronian and Kramnik, and he started with 1 e4, a move that Aronian almost never plays.

Why did FIDE allow Francesco Tristano to open for white in Chess Candidates tournament 2018? What if the person chooses a "relatively" bad opening like f3 or h3?

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f86OTmsnI1c

It is very common in top tournament that a local celebrity or other people who like attention such as politicains, people from FIDE, etc, make the ceremonial first move. This is purely for the photographers, and of course it is perfectly fine to take back this move and make your own move.

In the game you mention however Aronian chose to stick with 1. e4 which is of course also an option. I don't think that Aronian was in any way influenced by the choice of Francesco Tristano, i.e. he would have played 1. e4 anyway.


The theory of pawn breaks Does there exist a theory of pawn breaks?

Of course, there exists a theory of static pawn structure and good bishops; but I was thinking of rooks rather than bishops, and of aggressive pawns that open files rather than positional pawns that control squares.

Are rules or principles taught that guide the chess student in placing rooks early, choosing the right pawn to push, and otherwise preparing pawn breaks?

Details follow, if helpful.

THE DILEMMA

The question of pawn breaks seems to torment me whenever I have the black chessmen and my opponent opens 1. d4.  Opportunities seem to arise for my black pawns to force files open in such games, but when should one exercise the opportunity?  Under what conditions is a pawn break likely to help?  When is it unwise?  Is a standard tactic known to punish my opponent by advancing my knight during a thwarted break?  If either of two, connected pawns can lead the break, which should lead?  What position should the rook take before the break?  Which rook?

When no pawn break is advisable, what should one do with one's rooks?  What should one do, period?  What kind of play is possible without open files, anyway?  Pawn-storm play on the wing?  But, if so, then how does one prepare the pawn storm? -- or, in other words, we are back to the original question regarding pawn breaks, except that this time my pawn structure is trashed before I even ask the question.  The pawn storm (done not because it's a wise plan but because I cannot think of any other plan) leaves me an out-of-position king and a losing endgame.  I don't get it.

So, there are a dozen or so ways of asking more or less the same question:  I have the black chessmen, you open 1. d4 and start to build a pawn center, I thrust a pawn in to break up your center -- yet, early or late, whether backed by a rook or not, whichever pawn I choose to thrust in, it always seems to be the wrong pawn.  Why?

Leaving aside the question of wing play to skirt a closed center, a big trouble my central pawn breaks are repeatedly causing me is that, when I push the pawn, it tends to leave you not me the choice of which of the two files in question to open -- or the choice of locking pawns, opening no file at all.  If you are a strong opponent, then you choose well for yourself and ill for me.  Thus, my pawn breaks usually do not work.

HOW SUCH GAMES CONFUSE ME

Moreover, such closed games broadly confuse me, because tempo seems less important in such games.  Using scarce tempos wisely is a relative strong point of my game; so, when tempos are not scarce, I don't really know what to do with the extra time.  Shuffling rooks around aimlessly does not seem to help much.

REQUEST FOR ADVICE RE PAWN BREAKS

If you want an easy game, open 1. d4 against me, present a pawn center, and watch my play degenerate into purposeless futility.  I do not understand how to play these games, I keep losing them, and I should very much like to learn why.

(If relevant, I am officially unrated, put play at about USCF Class C, or FIDE Elo 1500.)

A related question, with answers, regarding the meaning of the term pawn break, is found here.

It seems like there are really 3 parts to your question:

When and how should pawn breaks be made?
How should rooks be placed to support pawn pushes?
How should plans be made around pawn breaks?

As a disclaimer, these questions are incredibly complicated, so take this answer as a starting point.  Entire books have been written about pawn play.  Furthermore, every position is different.  While there are general ideas, the features of a specific position must be the main consideration.

So to begin - pawn breaks should be made for one of two reasons - to improve your own position or to deprive your opponent of good squares.  This seems a little silly, but consider how your position can be improved - either your pieces can get better squares and lines, or you can create a passed pawn.  A space advantage falls into the category of depriving your opponent of squares.

Bearing that in mind, pawn breaks should only be made when you can guarantee that your position will improve:

If a pawn break will leave an outpost for an enemy knight, it's probably premature.  (ex. don't play d4 if there are pawns on e4 and e5 but white's f pawn is missing because e5 will be a permanent outpost).

Pawn breaks are useful if you can create an outpost for your own pieces.  (ex. black pawns on d6 and e6, pushing c5 will create an outpost)

The last major consideration is space - in a closed or semi-closed position gaining space is incredibly useful because your pieces will have an extra rank on which to operate.  In these cases, push your pawns when you can do so safely while still keeping enough tension to favorably open the position later.

Moving on to part 2...  Simply, rooks should be posted on the files that will be opened after a pawn break.  While it frequently takes some calculation to figure out how everything will work out, once done, good squares for both rooks can be found.  Usually this is behind the pawn that you will push, but frequently it is on an adjacent file.

Finally, the crux of the matter - how to plan for and utilize pawn breaks effectively.  Generally speaking, you should only open the position in a part of the board that you already control.  That means that if you have a preponderance of force on the kingside, for example, f2-f4 immediately should become a candidate pawn break.

When you prepare a pawn break, frequently you will want to recapture the pawn with another pawn.  In this diagram, white has a space advantage but will eventually have to break the position open in order to win:

1. f4 immediately would be premature because black would gain the e5 square as an outpost for the knight.  Instead, white should prepare the break with moves like g3 and Rg1.  Only then should the break be seriously considered tactically.  With that said, f4 should also be the only pawn break considered.  Black owns the queenside, so a pawn break there would only serve black.  The center is locked, so a move like d4 would only lose a pawn.  Finally, g4 and h4 don't serve any purpose other than creating holes in the white position that black might later be able to utilize.

Hopefully that gives you a reasonable starting point, but again, every position is different and must be considered based on its own merits.


What are some good defenses against the king's gambit? The king's gambit has a lot of initiative and attack. Is there a good defense to neutralize this initiative?

The best way is Fischer's way. he had a low opinion of it, and so he wrote an entire paper on it's neutralization. Here is the paper and here is his proposal

[Title "King's gambit bust!"]
[StartPly "6"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

 1. e4 e5
 2. f4 exf4
 3. Nf3 d6

What have we achieved here.

Our opponent is a pawn down
Our bishop is freed, pointing at the somewhat weakened kingside. With the idea of Bg5 and other threats.
The knight jump on e5 isn't a plan anymore
Lots of ideas for black.


"The Art of Planning in Chess: Move by Move" by Neil McDonald review? I am reading the "Move by Move" books and was curious if anyone had read "The Art of Planning in Chess: Move by Move" by Neil McDonald?  If so, can you write a simple review on it?

I currently have "Logical Chess: Move By Move: Every Move Explained" by Irving Chernev and "Understanding Chess Move by Move" by John Nunn. How does McDonald's book relate to Chernev's and Nunn's

I haven't read it, so I can't review it. But since nobody else is replying, I'll just note that

There is a review by Jeremy Silman here: http://wp.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_art_of_planning_in_chess.html
You can browse through the first pages on Amazon.com (and random pages with the "Surprise Me!" button)

in case you hadn't found those yourself.


How does White crumble Black's center? Negi suggests 18.Kh1!N but it seems Black can continue to push his pawns.

[FEN ""]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B33"]
[Date "????.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3
b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. c3 Bg7 13. Nxb5 Bxd5 14. exd5 Ne7 15.
Na3 O-O (15... e4 16. Qa4+ Kf8 (16... Qd7 17. Bb5 ) ) 16. O-O e4 17. Bc2 Rc8
18. Kh1 (18. Qh5 Rc5 ) (18. f3 Qb6+ $19 ) Rc5 (18... Qb6 19. Bb3 $16 ) 19. f3 Rxd5
20. Qe2 (20. Qb1 Qb8 21. fxe4 fxe4 22. Bxe4 Rh5 {threatening ...d5} 23. Bf3 Rh6
24. Bg4 f5 {The Black center is gone, but Black doesn't stand bad either: White's
Queen and a1 rook are misplaced.} 25. Bh3 $4 Rxh3 26. gxh3 Qb7+ 27. Kg1 Rf6 $19
) Re5 21. Nc4 Re6 22. Bb3 d5 23. Rad1 Kh8 24. Ne3 Rd6 25. fxe4 fxe4

Does White just wait for Black to overextend?

I have no idea why @Maxwell86 was downvoted. He is correct that Blacks pawns look impressive but it is not easy to see what to do with them.
The pawns are strong if they restrict Whites pieces, or if they are mobile enough to generate threats. Neither is the case here. I would regard 16..e4 as a positional blunder, because it fixes the pawn structure, and allows White to form a plan around it. This might be along the lines of Bc2-Bb3 (hold that QP), f2-f4(giving Black a protected passed pawn, but it isnt going anywhere, and White prevents Black from connecting up his Pawns with an eventual ..f4), Na3-c2-e3 (A perfect square, blockading and influencing both wings), Ra1-b1 or Qd1-d2 (protect the b-Pawn) then in due course c2-c4, Bb3-a4, b2-b4, lauching a Pawn avalanche on the Q-side.

Yes, of course Black gets to move also, but I dont see anything like this plan of campaign. White seems to me to have a big advantage because his Pawns are (or will become) mobile and Blacks will not. Whites strategy in this sort of position is always to advance on the Q-side, while Black usually looks for counterplay on the K-side, but this will not be easy with his pawns blockaded. They hardly restrict White from doing what he wishes, and they cant generate threats. It does take time for White to do everything but Blacks play is even slower. White has only one potential weakness (on g2, which the N already protects. Black will try things like Bg7-h6, Rf8-g8, Qd8-f6-g6, Ne7-g6-h4, against which White has Rf1-f2, Qd1-d2.

There is still a game ahead, but it will be the kind of game where each player forms a plan and tries to achieve their own while frustrating the oponent. My money is on White.


How to exploit the advantage of a bishop over a knight? Occasionally in a tournament game I will find myself with a material imbalance of BvN or BBvBN in a situation where I know the extra bishop should be superior (center cleared of pawns, pawns on both sides of the board, etc).

However, I don't think that I'm very good at turning this advantage into any other advantage before my opponent manages to swap their knight off for my bishop. What are some guidelines for playing in this situation, or top player games that give a clear demonstration of possible plans?

Usually you want to open the center up for the bishops so that you can attack on both sides of the board.  Or you can try to exchange bishop for knight in order to obtain a more permanent pawn structure weakness like doubled pawns or isolated pawns to attack later in the game.


Adjusting parameters in the engine stockfish 6 I downloaded Stockfish 6 (a binary file for Windows). It works, but I miss two things:

The depth seems to be rather low. How can I increase the selectivity?
How can I achieve that the engine uses the tablebases in advance? The program only seems to use them if 5 or less pieces are on the board.

I found the overview of the parameters, but I do not know the meaning of the topics.

Can anyone help?

I don't have Shredder so I can't tell you how to use it to adjust parameters for Stockfish. However, it should be similar to ScidvsPC which I have posted here.

What do you mean by depth seems rather low? What depth would you consider be normal? We need a position to continue the discussion.
I don't think Shredder uses syzygy tablebase at all, that is you aren't using any tablebase. You'll need to set it up yourself.
Which parameters you're unsure? There're not many in SF6. The most important is contempt factor, which means how likely the engine takes a draw. By default, a draw is zero. If you give the contempt factor like a negative value, the engine will prefer another line that is closer to zero. Thus, the engine will take extra risks than necessary.


Which top player risks complicated positions? Which current top player (at least 2600 ELO) does not avoid complicated positions
 in important classic tournament games, even if they are risky ?

This is closely related to the question which player is most aggressive and
 compromiseless.

As wrote in my answer to your other question: Jobava and Mamedyarov play very aggressively.

Ding Liren and Arkadij Naiditsch are another two top players who regularly risk absolute chaos on the board.


How do I register for a tournament that appears in the FIDE website but not on chess-results? Here is this tournament on the FIDE website. However, there are no contact details, no venue mentioned and the tournament does not appear in the chess-results database. How do I register for such a tournament?

FIDE used to publish contact details for arbiters but they no longer do so. However if you can look up any of the three mentioned arbiters and find contact details locally that would be your quickest route.

Failing that your next best bet would be to contact the Sudan Chess Federation. There the email address is given as sudanchessfed@yahoo.com and the phone number as +249916177000. Additional (different) phone numbers are given for the president and two vice presidents. You could also try these.


Live viewers for top chess events What is the average number of live viewers (online and TV) for top chess events like the world championship match and the candidates tournament? Are there some statistics publicly available?

http://web.archive.org/web/20100605121529/http://www.dnevnik.bg/sport/2010/05/31/909514_organizatorite_na_macha_topalov_-_anand_ochakvat_pone/

It says (in Bulgarian):
"The match Topalov - Anand (2010) made an absolute record on the Internet. For all 12 games together recorded 2 million links to the live broadcast of individual computers, but for just the last party - 300 000. Usually it is assumed that three people on average watched on a computer..."

For Anand - Carlsen 2014: https://www.chess.com/news/an-interview-with-ilya-merenzon-organizer-of-anand-carlsen-4530

"The total number of unique visitors was 10.5 million with the highest traffic on the last day of the match: 2 million visitors."

I make no warranty as to the validity of the accounting of these numbers.


Electronic gadget chess opponent for children I am looking for an electronic gadget that is a chess opponent, designed specially for children. I want to it be touch screen, where the pieces are large enough so you don't need to use a special pen to move the pieces. I also want the gadget to talk often, so the child feels interaction. It could say things like "Good move!", "Great Idea!", and so on.

The closest thing that I've seen is this. That thing does not look right, plus 1/5 review, so I was hoping for something better.

Anybody come across anything?

Feel free to edit the tags for my post. I really wasn't sure what to use.

This iPad/iPhone app looks promising based on the reviews. I haven't tried it personally though, so I can't attest to its worth.

Here is the website of the developers. You can contact them to find out more about the features that they have. For instance, I couldn't find anything about whether it would speak to your child.


Engine that likes to draw Is there a world-class chess engine that can be configured so that it equally likes to draw and win?

I imagine the engine would really like making exchanges, for example.

What would happen if you placed the engine against top-of-the-line Stockfish? If it would basically never lose, it would be strong evidence (but obviously, not a proof) that chess is a draw with perfect play.

Stockfish, Houdini and Komodo (many other engines too) can all be configured like what you said. This is known as Contempt. In Komodo, the name is Drawscore (same thing). If you give enough negative value to the option, the engine will not push for a win even it sees it.

http://support.stockfishchess.org/kb/advanced-topics/engine-parameters


Is there a proper way to indicate "stalemate" on your scoresheet? Yesterday, after squandering a win, I played on until stalemate (actually, I offered a draw, but my opponent isn't a native English speaker, so I don't think she understood; in a few more plies we hit stalemate).

I realized I didn't know how to indicate this on my scoresheet and I just wrote "stalemate" in English.

Question: Is there a proper way to indicate "stalemate" on your scoresheet?

For checkmate, I believe it's usual to write #, but I'm not sure for stalemate.

On your scoresheet you are required to record the result which 99.99% of the time will be one of 1-0, 0-1, ½-½. In the very rare cases when it is not one of those somebody will almost certainly be appealing the arbiter's / organizer's decision ;-).

You are not required to put how that result was achieved, e.g. flag dropped, resigned, defaulted, draw by 3-fold repetition, draw by 5-fold repetition, draw by 50 move rule, draw by 75 move rule (I actually got to rule that in a junior competition a few weeks ago - a real pain in the backside having to count up to 75 ;-) ), successful draw claim under appendix G in a quickplay finish that my opponent wasn't trying to win, successful draw claim under appendix G in a quickplay finish that my opponent couldn't win by normal means, checkmate, stalemate, etc. Note that I believe some national federations still allow adjudication but FIDE does not.

You get the picture! It would get a bit silly. Of course you are free to record that if you want. Just that not being a requirement there is no "approved" way for doing this.


Are chess engines detrimental for lower-rated players? To give some context, I just started playing OTB and am only 1225 USCF.  My online chess rating isn't much stronger though, it's about 1650 with standard time controls.

Chess engines are a great tool, but can they be detrimental to the growth of lower-rated players?  Sure, it's true that lower-rated players can use engines to spot an overlooked tactic, or to find a not-so-obvious blunder, but what about the subtle moves that chess engines suggest in positional games?

After using Stockfish to analyze a few of my games, I noticed that from time-to-time the engine would suggest moves that didn't make much sense to me.  It's hard to give a concrete example from off the top of my head, but I think a lot of lower-rated players can relate.  Engines are obviously very strong and it's easy for any player to follow along with an engine's analysis, observe it's suggestions, and think, "oh yeah, I can implement that in my own games."  But then when it comes down to crunch time, the player didn't really learn anything at all, and just deceived themselves into thinking they learned something from the engine.

What do you think?  Are engines great learning tools for lower-rated players, or does it require a higher level of chess knowledge to truly take advantage of an engine's power?

I don't think they are detrimental if they are used properly.

There is nothing you're going to learn from Stockfish that's going to make an immediate difference. By studying the analysis you'll start to learn, however.
Stockfish plays at GM strength. It's going to suggest moves you'll never find until you're a 2200+ player.  Unfortunately I am unaware of a chess engine that plays like a sensible USCF 1650, which is what you need.
Stockfish will show you where you could have made better moves. Something that is important to note is that winning moves are there, if you are clever enough to find them.  Until the game is hopeless, Stockfish can beat a USCF 1250 regardless of which side of the board it is playing.  The moves are there.

Now, while I am a fan of engines, if you want to improve, get an instructor. You don't need a GM - an "A" or "B" player will do. Also, after playing with "A" and "B" players, ask them to help you analyze the game. This gives you reasons, not just answers. And further it will help you learn how to analyze.  This is what you'll miss if you rely upon the engine too much - it will give you the answers without helping you understand the answers.


Is there a set of general rules of material sacrifice? I happen to be playing a game where I am up in material, but my position is weak (several pieces are trapped and cannot be developed).

I have some lines of very slow development I can play where I can't see far enough to know the outcome. I see a line where I can make a substantial material sacrifice but still be up in material, and end in a much better position.

I don't recall seeing any general rules of thumb that could help me determine if this type of sacrifice would be worth it.

Are there general rules or a resource that could help me understand scenarios like this?

I have to be honest: Your question is very strange for a few reasons.

First, if your development is that retarded, it is not very likely that you would have such a sacrifice in the first place. In addition, in your hypothetical, you calculate that you would end up in material and position, so of course, you would play it, especially if everything else was as bad as it sounds.

It might be more interesting if you were judging it because it was unsound, but just gives you a shot at fighting back.

There are no hard-and-fast rules, but basically, it comes down to pure calculation, especially if you have to sacrifice multiple pieces.

The only rule of thumb I can give you is that, assuming you are attacking the opposing king, you count the pieces that are defending, including the king, and count the attackers, or pieces that can be brought into the attack quickly (like a rook lift). You need more attackers than defenders.


Blitz games managment Here is the problem : when I have the time, i usually find the right move.
Meaning, in a longer time frame games (more than 10min) I'm doing better.
I feel like struggling with 5 min. games and I don't know how to improve.
I review my games usually using the computer but I haven't seen a big improvement, just a very small one.
To me it feels like I'm missing something that would elevate my level.
Any suggestions will be welcomed.
Thank you.

Tactics play the most important part of winning blitz games. The tactical player has a better chance of winning a blitz game rather than a quiet, positional player (it is the other way round for classical chess). Next is intuition. To succeed as a blitz player, you must be able to figure out the next move without going into deep calculations (i.e. 'feel' the next move). For example, here is a game from your Chess.com account I analysed with a computer:

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2018.12.09"]
[Round "-"]
[White "quizhead (1238)"]
[Black "redhatkillers (1208)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "-"]
[ECO "A02"]
[Opening "Bird Opening"]

1. f4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. e4 e6 4. Be2 a6 5. d4 b5 6. O-O Ne7 7. c3 f5 8. e5 Bb7 9. Be3 Bh6 10. Nbd2 Nd5 11. Bf2 Bxf4 12. Bh4 Qc8 13. Bf2 Be3 14. Kh1 Bxf2 15. Rxf2 Qd8 16. Qc2 g5 17. Raf1 g4 18. Ne1 Ne3 19. Qd3 Nxf1 20. Bxf1 Qh4 21. Qe3 Nc6 22. Nd3 Na5 23. Nf4 Rg8 24. b4 Nc4 25. Nxc4 bxc4 26. Qg3 Qxg3 27. hxg3 h6 28. Bxc4 c6 29. Bb3 a5 30. a3 axb4 31. axb4 Ba6 32. c4 Ke7 33. Rf1 Rg5 34. Rd1 Rh8 35. d5 h5 36. dxc6 dxc6 37. Nd3 h4 38. Nc5 hxg3+ 39. Kg1 Bc8 40. b5 cxb5 41. cxb5 Rgh5 { Black wins. } 0-1

10. Nbd2 is a normal move in an opening, but unfortunately not here. Your opponent has the massive d5 square for their knight. You should have paid attention to Nd5. It forks the bishop and the pawn, and you are forced to give up the pawn. 10. g3 would've saved the pawn, though that knight is still annoying.

17. Raf1 allows a fork too. From the d5 square the knight is a serious threat. Usually when a knight is about to enter your territory, you must give it adequate attention.

25. Nxc4 looks like it wins a pawm worsens your position. Your opponent didn't notice that 25... g3 wins your rook, and fortunately you had a chance to correct that by playing Qg3.

These are just some remarks. There is still much to learn, by playing more and more games and highlighting the positions where you blunder such tactics. It happens to us all. As it is said, the player to make the next to last mistake usually wins. We all do fall for such tactics, but one needs to minimize this to have a good chance at blitz.


How can I concentrate during training? During an actual over the board game, I can be very concentrated. It's almost as if I feel things like the danger an uncastled king is in, and it matters that I find the very best move.

But when I try to improve my chess at home alone with the board and the pieces, and do some exercise positions from a book, the feeling just isn't there. I look very superficially, my mind wanders, I have tunnel vision, and taking more time doesn't lead to more ideas.

What's a good way to improve my concentration level during training?

If you have a demanding job, studying in the evenings can be difficult. You can even have the feeling that your brain simply says, "No".

Personal Productivity Stack Exchange has many questions related to concentration, and many of the answers there should be relevant to chess training:

Using the pomodoro technique: divide tasks or study session into sequences of intervals of roughly 25 minutes. Take a break after each 25-minute interval. This is one "pomodoro". Take a longer break after four pomodoros. (I'm just covering the basics of the technique here, obviously. One of the questions that mentions the pomodoro technique is My thoughts distract me, how do I keep my focus?.)
If your mind still keeps wandering in spite of this technique, there are two things you can consider:

Meditation. (I haven't tried it myself, but it is often mentioned on Personal Productivity SE.)
Some vigorous exercise before a study session or during a longer break. (See also How to quickly restore concentration?, which is actually about restoring concentration after an interruption, but the answers are more generally applicable.)

Make sure that you get enough sleep. In addition, you can also take a nap before a study session.
Some people find it helpful to visualize goals to maintain motivation. Alexander Heyne (on YouTube) proposes a different approach to goals; see his videos on goal setting & outcome goals versus habit tracking (and process goals): Why goal setting DOESN'T WORK (and what does) and Stop Setting Goals - Stack Your Habits. He does not talk about chess study, but his ideas should also work for this.
If concentration is still difficult in spite of all of the above, don't keep "banging your head against the wall". If you repeatedly force yourself to keep on studying in spite of being tired, you can create negative associations with studying chess.


What’s the point of early ...a6 move in Queen’s Gambit Declined? As title above, what is the point or the main idea of a very early ...a6 Pawn move in Queen’s Gambit Declined? I see that the move is fairly popular at GM and even top level.

It is hard to tell exactly without an exact line, but normally it has the idea of following with ...dxc4 (putting the enemy bishop on the c4 square), ...b5 (now kicking it away) and ...Bb7.

This solves the annoying problem of placing the c8 bishop on a decent square


Chess GUI showing variations with arrows except SCID? Is there anything else except Scid / Scid vs PC that shows variations with arrows and also allows you to chose any variation simply by dragging the piece on the board?

You can add a new variation by entering any legal move.  If the variation is not already listed, both will add it for you, Chessbase does ask beforehand.

The arrows are drawn by holding down the "alt" key and dragging the mouse between squares.  The colored squares are made by holding down the "alt" key and clicking a square.  The default color is green, holding down the "ctrl" key changes it to yellow, and the "shift" key for red. All require the "alt" key to be held down.  To remove the markings, repeat the procedure.

Winboard has a feature that automatically draws an arrow indicating the last move made.

All markings remain.  If you return to any move, any markings you made are still present.

Although you can chose a variation by moving the piece, these programs allow you to use the cursor keys to obtain the same thing.


How does the move order 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 "rule out Philidor's Defence 2...d6"? So I was reading "An Opening Repertoire for the Positional Player", by Gufeld and Kalinich, and found the title's assertion. And I just can't think why after "1. e4 e5 2. Nc3", d6 would be bad for black.

Also, I find it as a playable option in the Lichess Master database, https://lichess.org/analysis"

While d6 is passive, it is probably not the end of the world there at levels below Master. After Nc3, it is not so much that it "rules out Philidor's Defense" as when white played 2.Nc3, it became a Vienna opening proper.

More typically, when white plays the Vienna, he is looking to attack, and often plays an early f4. With f4 played, you can see how you might want your Bf8 on c5, and after d6, you already ruled that out.


Endgames: How was "maximum moves required" determined before tablebases? To use a simple example, tablebases show that KQ vs. K is won in at most ten moves. But chess books going back many decades, well before tablebases, say the same thing. How was this calculated?

Nothing was calculated. They arrived at their results by trial and error.

Some guy would start with a seemingly disadvantageous position and tried to find the shortest mate. His result remained valid until the next guy found a more disadvantageous position or a quicker mate.

A long time later, engines became powerful enough to calculate simple endgames like K+Q v K simply by exhausting all possibilities, but by that time technology was also advanced enough to create the first tablebases.


Where exactly in the Fide handbook can you find the hand shaking rule? So I was wondering where is it located, in the fide handbook, the rule that you have to shake hands with your opponent. I know it exists, especially since the Cheparinov-Short case some time ago, I was just wondering if anyone knew the exact place of it in the Handbook?

I'm not sure there was ever more than this press release.
It should have been expounded upon and turned into some rules of conduct, but it seems to me this never happened.

They do put the following rule in tournament regulations from time to time:

"13.3 The players shall shake hands (or shall greet each other in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the start and after the end of each game. If a player fails to meet these requirements and after being asked to do so by the Chief Arbiter, then the player will lose the game immediately."

Which they really wouldn't have to do, if this rule was a part of the official laws of chess.