Does the Réti opening continuing to evolve? "How to win in the chess openings" by I.A. Horowitz states, regarding the Réti opening, that "there is no known way which leads to an advantage for white" which leads to the conclusion that it should not be used. However, the book is quite old (written in 1951), and I am wondering whether or not there are any new ways of playing the opening that result in more opportunities.

 [FEN ""]

 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 {The Reti.}

I do not think that white has any advantage in the Reti, especially after 2...d4.

AlphaZero taught us that space is very important, probably even more important than we previously thought, and with 2...d4, black gains space. Stockfish 11 says that black has a -.38 advantage at a depth of 32, which needs to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably will dissipate as they get further into the opening, but it probably does indicate that black is absolutely equal.

In addition, in practical play, according to the Mega 2020 database, after 2...d4, white has a miserable winning percentage of only 46.9%.

That last statistic probably indicates that Horowitz was correct in that it is not the best opening (it is also not horrible), but you also need to keep in mind that unless you play very strong masters, you are probably fine to play it, although if you think you might get to that level in the future, then you also do not want to have to rework your openings totally when you get there.


What are good Android apps to learn chess from scratch? Knowing nothing but the rules of chess, I'd like to start learning a bit more. Some kind of tutorial app for my Android smartphone would be perfect as I can use it anywhere. The app should give theoretical explanations of basic concepts and thinking patterns (like controlling the center, pawn structure etc.) and preferably mix in a lot of example positions to solve. Free would be great, but I also would't have a problem with paying up to 10€ if it's worth it. Any suggestions?

I would suggest LiChess. It is free (of charge and ads) and it has a website + android app. You can practice vs other opponents, solve tactic puzzles. They also have a learning section, where you can learn about simple strategic concepts.


Funny games for 1 player with chess theme I'm looking for some ideas on good games for one player (to create) that would be enjoyable, fun and with at least a little chess logic.

I already created one that I very like. Searching for pairs of white and black piece of same value in symetric material positions from real games (P:P, B:B, N:N, R:R, Q:Q, K:K). Looks like the picture. One must be very careful to reveal all pairs without single error, pawns help a lot but by far not easy. Understanding pawn structures, typical openings very helps here so this is the chess part for this game.

Similarly I made also one where you are looking for pawns knowing count of pawns and knowing where pieces stand. Clicking empty square is error obviously in this game. Not bad but the first is better :)

Any ideas for not very hard games that would be funny on touch screen devices are welcome. Preferably games that will be funny to play repeatedly. It is no problem to search for whatever type of positions necessary in game database, but I don't like creating random positions that aren't real as the chess value of such games would probably be very low...

Edit: Does not neceassarily have to be logical but can be memory game or ever some quiz or game for fast decison making.

find the most/least attacked square (or some other special square) on the board quickly
arranging pieces on the board with a certain condition (this can be the classic 8 queens problem, but also other pieces with other condition); perhaps not realistic enough for you, though IMO this can teach you a lot about how the pieces move
guess the opening based on some position
guess the move in a famous game; perhaps too close to chess for your purpose
some retrograde problems


Endgame study - how much time per exercise I've decided to give endgame study high priority, and I'm studying Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, though also glancing around in other books. The issue is, that I'm finding Dvoretsky's exercises really, really difficult, and I can easily spend an hour or so on a single exercise and still miss something. This goes even relatively simple looking pawn endings.

I would like to know, from players who consider themselves as strong endgame players, if it sounds reasonable to indeed spend so much time per exercise? Or maybe, a more recommended course of action would be to spend 10-15 min on each exercises, look at the solution and try to internalize what the thought process should have been to get it right?

If you're an expert player (>2000 Elo) there is nothing wrong with taking your time on each exercise; you will get most of them eventually if you put in some serious effort.

However, if you're rated 1700-1900 Elo (or even lower) you will most likely fail on most exercises in the Dvoretsky book, even if you spend lots of time on them. In this case you could spend 10-15 minutes on an exercise, and if you feel like you haven't found the solution you can setup the position on a chess board and start moving the pieces around to see whether you can find the solution this way.

Dvoretsky's endgame manual is an excellent endgame book (arguably the best general endgame book out there), but it's aimed at players who are already quite strong. There are other great endgame books on the market that are accessible to players at a lower level; I'd recommend Silman's complete endgame course by IM Jeremy Silman, and 100 endgames you must know by GM Jesus de la Villa. Both of these are structured in a radically different way from Dvoretsky's book, but they are easier to follow and will give you more bang for your buck as a lower rated player. Dvoretsky's book can wait; it will still be there when you've gotten strong enough to take full advantage of it.


Is there chess software that allows storage and replay of media annotations? I would like to annotate my game not only with textual comments like 6. Be5 "This move brings the bishop to a long diagonal", but also record such comments with voice. Is there any software package that supports this? I can't find this feature in SCID.

I haven't worked with it in a while, but I remember Fritz letting you do that.


N vs. B ending, pawns on both sides I had this position today, with White to play:

    [FEN "8/1p3kpp/p1n1p3/3p4/3P4/1P2B3/P2K1PPP/8 w - - 0 25"]

What should White's plan be to try and win, and are there any particular pawn structures White should aim for? Does White actually have any advantage?

In the game I got to the following position:

[FEN "8/2B5/2n1pk2/p2p2p1/Pp1P2P1/1P2KP2/8/8 w - - 1 35"]

and there seems to be nothing (the computer doesn't find any way to make progress either).

I was hoping to use the fact that I have a tempo available (Bc7-b6) to force my king through the kingside after something like f4 gxf4; Kxf4 Kg6; g5 , and move my king around Kh5-h6, however Black always has ...e5! to break out once my bishop is on b6 and my king is not covering e5 or d3.  The actual game followed my idea but it ended up in a wrong-colour rook pawn situation.

While this position is probably a dead draw, there is no way white could claim even the slightest advantage here.

Sure, there are pawns on both sides of the board, but the d4-pawn closes the juiciest diagonals for the bishop and is an eternal target for the black knight.

Even more important is the fact, that after black plays b5 the queenside is completely sealed. The white king cannot intrude and the bishop cannot attack anything. The same isn't true for the black knight … if white walks his king to the kingside he has to take possible counter play on the queenside into account.

Just playing g6 and putting the king on f7 should be enough to defend the kingside for black. But if ever black really starts to march on the kingside with king and pawns, this frees up the black knight not only for queenside counterplay but also for kingside defence. I don't see how that would ever result in a white breakthrough.

So to sum up: This just isn't a position where white can put any pressure on black. Of course in the game apparently black put a lot of pawns on black squares, turning them into targets for the white bishop, but even that wasn't enough to tip the scales.


What is the best Black reply to 1. d4 in regards to getting an open game? What is a good reply to 1.d4 that will give me an open game?

1...d5. Tarrasch defense and, in general, c5 ideas practically always give an open game. As long as you can get in the move c5 with Black, you have excellent practical chances of achieving an open game.

Some sample variations -

  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 (2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 (3. Bf4 e6 4. Nf3 c5) 3... c5)
 (2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 (3. e3 c5) 3... c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. O-O Nf6 6. c4 dxc4
  7. Qa4 Bd7 8. Qxc4 b5 9. Qd3 Rc8) 2... e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5
 (4. Nf3 Nf6 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 a6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. b4 Bd6) 4... exd5
  5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 cxd4 10. Nxd4 h6 11. Be3 Re8


Are there any grandmasters who always play until checkmate? Are there any high-level players who are either known for playing games out until the bitter end or have done so in famous circumstances? Is this considered poor etiquette (I'd imagine it would be rude to force a master to play out a simple king+queen vs. king checkmate)?

To become Grandmaster, you must win many tournament games. They take many hours, sometimes multiple games per day, or many days in a row. Tournaments are exhausting. If you are tired then you make mistakes, and making mistakes means you don't play at the required level to become Grandmaster.

Players who always waste a lot of time by playing on until checkmate instead of resting aren't very likely to become Grandmaster.


Knight vs bishop endgame in Fabiano Caruana vs Hou Yifan 2018 I am currently studying the classical game of Fabiano Caruana vs Hou Yifan played in 2018. The game ended in a fighting draw, but for the most part of the ending, starting from move 55 onward (see diagram), black was a pawn up, in a knight vs bishop and 4 vs 3 pawn structure.

 [title "Fabiano Caruana vs Hou Yifan 2018"]
 [fen ""]
 [startply "110"]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7. Be3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nd7 9. O-O-O Nf6 10. h3 c5 11. Bf4 Be6 12. a3 d5 13. Ng5 Bd7 14. g4 Bc6 15. Bg2 Re8 16. Qd3 Bd6 17. Qg3 Bxf4+ 18. Qxf4 h6 19. Nf3 Qb8 20. Qxb8 Raxb8 21. Nd2 Re2 22. Rhf1 b6 23. Rde1 Rbe8 24. Rxe2 Rxe2 25. Kd1 Re6 26. f4 Kf8 27. Re1 Ke7 28. Rxe6+ Kxe6 29. Ke2 g5 30. fxg5 hxg5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Ke3 f6 33. Bf1 Nd6 34. Nd2 f5 35. gxf5+ Nxf5+ 36. Kf2 Ke5 37. Nf3+ Kf4 38. Ne1 c4 39. Ng2+ Ke5 40. Be2 Ba4 41. Bd1 Be8 42. Bg4 Bg6 43. Be2 Nd6 44. Ne3 Ne4+ 45. Kf3 Nf6 46. Kf2 Bf7 47. Ng2 Be6 48. h4 Ne4+ 49. Kf3 Bh3 50. hxg5 Nxg5+ 51. Kg3 Bxg2 52. Kxg2 Ne6 53. Kf2 Nc5 54. Bh5 Na4 55. Be8 Nxb2 56. Ke2 a6 57. Kd2 b5 58. Bh5 Na4 59. Bf7 Nc5 60. Kc1 Ne6 61. Kb2 Nf4 62. Be8 Ke4 63. Bc6 Ke3 64. Bb7 a5 65. Kc1 Ne2+ 66. Kb2 Kd2 67. Bxd5 Nxc3 68. Bc6 Nd1+ 69. Kb1 Ne3 70. Be4 c3 71. Bh7 Nc4 72. Ka2 Ne5 73. Be4 Ke3 74. Bh7 Nc6 75. Bg6 Kd2 76. Be4 Nd4 77. Kb1 Kd1 78. Bd5 Nf5 79. Be4 Ne3 80. Bg6 Kd2 81. Bd3 Nc4 82. Ka2 Nb6 83. Kb1 Nc4 84. Ka2 a4 85. Bg6 Kc1 86. Bd3 Nd6 87. Ka1 Nb7 88. Ka2 Nc5 89. Bf5 Na6 90. Bg6 Kd2 91. Bh7 Nb8 92. Bd3 Nc6 93. Bxb5 Nd4 94. Bxa4 Nxc2 95. Kb3 Nd4+ 96. Kc4 Nc2 97. Kb3 Ne3 98. Kb4 c2 1/2-1/2

However, at a first glance, I can see that other than being a pawn up, black is also positionally better, since:

The white king stands defensively throughout the game, the black king is well active and centralised.
the white pawns are two isolated islands, and doubled on the c-file.
there are only pawns on one side of the board (queenside), which makes the bishop's long-ranged scope less effective.
Black has a healthy pawn chain, with remaining flexibility in how they want to fix the pawn structure.
And once the pawn structure fixed, the knight can be a threat to pawns on both colours, while the bishop's limited to light-squares.

With all these in mind, my question is:

Was this endgame really a drawn one, or did Hou Yifan miss a win?

This was a great game! Hou Yifan brilliantly outplayed her opponent  Fabiano Caruana in a very positional middle game, and mind you using the Petroff's defence in the opening, which is Caruana's specialty by any stretch of the word! The endgame was very tricky, and Caruana proved his resilience and held the game to a draw in a very resourceful way, despite there having been missed chances for black.

The short answer is: yes there was at least one key moment where black had a forced win in the N+4p vs B+3p. Having traded into a better endgame, pawn up and knight vs bishop, one of the critical moments of the game was after white's 64.Bb7 move, harassing black's pawn backbone which all lie on light-squares, at this moment black had in fact the possibility of achieving a pawn breakthrough, and create a passer!

 [title "Position after white's inaccurate 64.Bb7"]
 [fen "8/1B6/p7/1p1p4/2p2n2/P1P1k3/1KP5/8 b - - 13 64"]
 [startflipped "0"]

To see the pawn breakthrough, the idea to spot is: noting that white's bishop is locked out of play by black's pawns on light-squares, once the black king gets to d2, the two kings on b2 and d2 are in opposition, and had there been no white blockaders on c2-c3, black would just advance their own c pawn and promote (diagram):

So the question is: how could we create this desired pawn breakthrough, or in other words,

Can white's c2-c3 pawns be removed after Kd2?

First key move is Nd3+!! The knight sacrifice removes the c2 blockader, and if white were to accept the sacrifice, then d4
removes the 2nd blockader (c3) and black's c pawn advance with check and promotes since the bishop is too slow in reaching the a4-d1 diagonal to eye c2. Summary in diagrams:

But does white have to take the knight on d3?

Well, let's consider the only reasonable king move: Kb1, as anything else just leaves both c pawns hanging to black's king. Then, the same pawn breakthrough on the c-file can be achieved, with the difference now that we first win the c2 pawn with Ne1-Nxc2 and then play d4. Let's see in diagrams:

and black again promotes a pawn on the c-file, as in the rightmost diagram:

if white takes on c4 then dxc3+ Ka2 and Nd4 wins by preventing Bb3 and the c pawn runs.
instead, if white plays Ba4 immediately to cover c2, then dxc3+ Ka2 and Nd4 wins again since now black has two c pawns and white's bishop can only be sacrificed for one of them.

And here's a summary of all the discussed variations:

 [title "Pawn breakthrough for black"]
 [fen "8/1B6/p7/1p1p4/2p2n2/P1P1k3/1KP5/8 b - - 1 1"]
 [startflipped "0"]

 1... Kd2 {key starting move of the winning line, attacking both white pawns and covering the path for a pawn to promote along the c file.} 2. Bxa6 (2. Bc8 {an attempt to immediately re-route towards the defense of c2, but it is too slow and irrelevant as Nd3 still works} Nd3+ 3. Kb1 {cxd3 loses similarly to d4} Ne1 4. Bf5 Nxc2 5. Bxc2 Kxc3 {and black's connected passers win easily.}) Nd3+ 3. cxd3 (3. Kb1 Ne1 4. Bxb5 Nxc2 {Nxa3+ fork threatened} 5. Kb2 d4 6. Bxc4 (6. cxd4 c3+ 7. Ka2 Nb4+ 8. axb4 c2) (6. Ba4 dxc3+ 7. Ka2 Nd4 {and one of the c pawns promotes}) dxc3+ 7. Ka2 Nd4 {preventing Bb3 and c-pawn runs}) d4 4. cxd4 c3+ 5. Ka2 c2 {and black promotes}

So it's safe to say, Kd2 followed by Nd3+ was winning by force. What a beautiful pattern!

Note that, at the stage of the game that we are talking about here (around move 64), the players were playing by rote as they were relatively low on time, so Hou Yifan played the very natural a5 in reply to Bb7 (which in hindsight now we know to have been a blunder) and the winning pawn breakthrough was missed. She might have considered it but maybe couldn't work out all the details, e.g. the lines where white doesn't accept the sacrifice. Therefore, they played pragmatically considering their energy and remaining time on the clocks. Admittedly, even with more time, these strange pawn breakthroughs are never easy to spot, and tend to require a more relaxed mindset (like when one solves studies, and thus knows there's something to be found), and are often times missed/dismissed in practical play.

Reminds me of Kramnik vs Anand (world championship 2008), where Anand found a beautiful breakthrough in this position:

 [title "black to play and win"]
 [fen "8/1R3p1p/4pk2/8/PP3pn1/8/5PPP/2r2BK1 b - - 0 1"]
 [startflipped "0"]

The analysis is left to the reader ;)


Is it bad etiquette to keep playing in a clearly hopeless position? Recently I played a blitz game (5m+5s) with an opponent with rating 1500+. I had a clearly losing endgame (K vs KQ). My opponent was not under any time pressure but he made a blunder and the game ended as a stalemate.

I know this does not happen every day; it is extremely rare that I can draw a clearly losing game, but it may happen say once out of 100 games. If I resign whenever I feel hopeless, my record for these games will be 100 losses; on the other hand, if I keep playing, it could be 1 draw and 99 losses. So my overall record will be slightly better if I never resign; instead, I keep playing until I am checkmated or rarely, the game ends as a draw.

So continuing to play in a clearly losing game seems a reasonable strategy. But it is considered as bad etiquette not to resign when the game is clearly hopeless?

As a general rule, if something is not done out of malice then it's not bad etiquette in my book (especially if it's allowed in the rules). So if all you do is play on in a lost position, then I don't see how anyone could complain; for instance, should a novice not be allowed to play on until checkmate? That would be absurd, no matter who said novice were facing!

The only unsportsmanlike behaviour I've witnessed in this regard was a player in an OTB tournament just sitting and waiting for his clock to run out when the position became hopeless, since his intent was obviously to spite his opponent and waste their time. If he had been making moves I wouldn't even have reacted, but since he was just doing it to annoy his opponent it was a clear act of malice and therefore bad etiquette.


Why does Fishtesting test Stockfish against itself, not other engines? As I understand the so-called Fishtesting, people write patches, then try the patches against the current version of Stockfish. If the new version performs better, it's promoted to be the main version; otherwise it's rejected.

Question: why test against the current version of Stockfish? It's worked in the past, and current Stockfish is a lot stronger than two-year old Stockfish. However, we can also see limitations to this approach. Although Stockfish is now capable of utterly destroying other traditional engines, it also recently lost the TCEC S15 superfinal against Leela. Therefore, why not test each new version against Leela?

The obvious answer is that Fishtesting's resources come from CPUs, and Leela is awful on CPU. However that shouldn't be fatal: one could just give Leela more time, e.g. with Stockfish running on 10s per game, give Leela 100s per game or whatever time odds are necessary to get the Leela ratio to the ratio in the superfinal. This will certainly slow down Fishtesting, but if it leads to an engine that can beat Leela in a match, that might still be worth it.

The point of fishtesting is to test if a newer version of Stockfish has become stronger. The definition of stronger is it beating its previous version.

I'm not sure how testing each new version against an engine like Leela would help. Your idea might be only accepting a new version of Stockfish if it performs better against Leela than the previous version of Stockfish did. So now each version of Stockfish is guaranteed to play better against Leela, but not guaranteed to be a better chess player overall. The reason is that Stockfish could rely on certain characteristics in Leela's play to win more games.

EDIT - I thought of an example that might help here. Suppose you were rated 1500 a few years ago, and now you're 1800. If you played your past self in a match it's clear you would win. But for the sake of argument it's possible your 1500-self would perform better against Kasparov than your current 1800 self. Maybe the 1500-self was less conservative and took way more risks. This manages to beat Kasparov in a rare game, while your current 1800 self would lose every time (yet the games would be slightly closer on average).


Why do chess tournaments award so many points for a draw? Nobody likes a draw. Why then do chess tournaments provide incentives for players to go for a draw by awarding significant points for a draw? Typically, a win is 1 point, a draw is 0.5 points for each player, and a loss is 0 points. So a draw is half of a win.

This is comparatively to other sports quite a large amount of points to get for a draw and essentially ends up encouraging players to play for a draw more often. Imagine you are rated 2500 and you are going up against a monster like Carlsen. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to just go for a draw and get a whole 0.5 points from that?

In comparison, take other sports, like football, where a draw is 1 point and a win is 3 points. So the point system encourages one to go for a win. Similarly, many other sports simply don't allow draws and if a game ends in a draw, some sort of extra-time is played so that a winner is found (in Chess, I guess this could be arranged by having a quick blitz match best of 3 after a drawn game to decide a winner).

So why do chess tournaments give so many points for a draw? Wouldn't it be better to follow a different point system, like 3/1/0 as in football, to encourage players to go for a win?

I don't see how tournaments incentivize people to go for a draw. You literally cannot win any tournaments by drawing every game.
Yes sometimes there are draws that are clearly prearranged but other than that only bad players say draws are bad for chess. The funny thing is that these low rated players are usually not getting draws even against similar strength opposition. They also can't figure out what's going on in high rated games without an engine.
The issue being your football system is it would change the elo system and encourage win trading. The best way to gain elo would be win farming against much weaker opponents, as you would lose elo drawing against people of similar elo. The players with the highest elo would not be participating in these super tournaments to maintain their elo. Also colluding draws is nowhere near as damaging as win trading in this system, as the tournament winner cannot really win by drawing every game, but can easily win winning 50% and losing 50% of his games. Also it is freelo due to 1 win and 1 loss against a similar rated opponent being a net gain in elo.


What is the most suitable position for a bishop here? Recently I played a game with White whose link is:
https://lichess.org/pAoAUp4O/white#42
and reached this position:

I am having a hard time finding why the moves I played next (22. Rxe8+? Rxe8 23. Bb2? ) are mistakes.

In particular, I am interested in knowing why on move 22, it is advisable to play Bb2 (something I find reasonable) and why on the next move, it is a mistake. Why the exchange of rooks makes such a move unsound? I brought the bishop to b2 because it occupies a nice diagonal and it defends my rook on a1 in case of an eventual check on h1 or g1 by the Black queen.

I can only come up with the fact that that with the Bishop on e3 (on move 23), I would be threatening the a7 pawn. However, I am not convinced that is the reason because such a threat can be easily dealt with by playing a6 or simply Bb6.

Besides, is the exchange of rooks (on move 22) wrong because there exists a stronger move or is it just a bad move in itself?

In the diagrammed position you have a material advantage but Black's position is a little bit better because his rooks are connected and he has a safer king position. His immediate threat is RxR, when you have to retake with the king followed by Qg1+ and after you move Kd2 he will play Bb6 and the pressure around your king will become intense. You are paying for your backward development with you queenside rook and bishop playing no part.

  Is the exchange of rooks (on move 22) wrong because there exists a
  stronger move or is it just a bad move in itself?

It is a bad move in itself because when you play RxR you immediately give control of the e file to your opponent. While you have a rook on e1 you are contesting the open e file.

If instead you play Bb2 you connect the rooks, complete your development and threaten Nxg7 which looks winning. It is a very hard threat to meet. You can meet Re6 with RxR and then carry out your threat. Probably Black has to play Be5. Then you swap bishops and play Ne7+ followed by Nxd5 and Black is just going downhill.

This course of action is much less effective if you start by exchanging rooks and ceding the e file to black. If you try the same tactic with your rook on a1 then black can comfortably play Be5 and retake with the queen after a pretty much forced BxB. With your material advantage you should still win but only after a grovelling defence as it is Black with the initiative making the threats. One of which is just to rush the h pawn down the board.


Are computers playing good chess beyond what humans can see? It is more than a decade now that no human has beaten a top chess program, and now there are computer vs computer matches continuously running and getting results. Those results are used by programmers to improve the algorithms. The improvement is not merely a result of the increasing CPU speed, but also the result of theory research and improvement in the algorithms that prune and evaluate the game tree. This process was driven in the 80s and partly in the 90s by the desire to make the programs stronger against humans, but beyond a certain point the programs became so strong that now they are only tested against each other (and even against themselves) and I wonder if that is causing a deviation from chess into... another thing.

Hence my question. When top chess programs fight against each other at a level that no human could withstand, evaluating branches of the game tree up to an insane depth, how do we know that, beyond a certain depth, the moves make sense?

Let me explain my question with a simplified example. I bought recently a table chess computer in a toy shop chain, and it plays really bad. Even set at 3 minutes per move, I honestly doubt it is reaching farther than 1 or 2 plies at most and I am sure it is without any check extensions. It is really easy to beat, it goes out of the opening book at the 2nd or 3rd move, and it blunders miserably all the time. However, if you force it to play against itself, it stays within the opening book quite long, you don't see obvious blunders and the resulting game does not look bad. The algorithm playing against the same algorithm produces something that seems like decent chess, but I know it is fake, because if I interrupt it at any point and play against the machine I will beat it in no time. Hence my doubt when this example is translated to a much higher level... Do the strongest human see any value on those Stockfish-Houdini matches, do they give credibility to what those machines play, or it is simply crap nobody understands?

Do the strongest human see any value on those Stockfish-Houdini matches, do they give credibility to what those machines play, or it is simply crap nobody understands?

In many positions, computers play strange moves that no human would ever consider. People refer to moves like that as "computer moves." Some insanely deep tactic to reach a risky position that scores every so slightly higher than an obvious, safe move.

But, it's not crap. These computers playing these moves beat all human grandmasters. That's how we know the moves make sense, the computers would lose if their moves didn't make sense.

It's just that our human way of understanding the game is ultimately limited. Some moves just look like they go against all our understanding of positional play -- but they work. So it's our understanding that is wrong.


Is there a Kriegspiel android app? I'm looking for an android app for a variant of chess which is called Kriegspiel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_(chess))

I don't expect any PvP app but I'd satisfied with PvC app. (OK; I know it's harder to make PvC)

And if somebody knows fairly good computer software for Kriegspiel please recommend it to me. I know one software, http://www.kriegspiel.co.uk/ but just in case if there is a better software.

There is an app called Dark Chess:
Dark Chess for Android

I know it's not exactly the variation you asked for, but I thought it could be useful in some way.


Potential Rating Gain if Only 20 OTB Games Per Year Context:  I'm returning to the game after more than 25 years away!  I only got back into it because my 8-year old son joined his elementary school chess club.  They all got accounts to chesskid.com.  Which in turn is parented by chess.com.  I clicked on chess.com to see what that was about, and blam!  I was swallowed up into the matrix again!

Anyways, there's not a lot of tournaments where I live, and I went to the Senior Open and talked to the TD.  (To show how out of touch I was and still am, I asked him what that electronic device was that some of the players had.  He said it was a play counter.  I said, "What?"  And "how much?"

So I said that I used to play, and do I have to come back as an Unrated since I haven't played since the late 80's?  He said no, you always have your rating.  He looked me up, and said that I have a 1762 rating!!!  I was astonished.  All these years I thought I was at best a Class C patzer.

I was astonished, and now I want to make Expert before I die.  (I'm in my mid 50's).  But as mentioned, there's not a lot of OTB games where I live PLUS I work and have kids and I do a lot of stuff with my 8-year old.

So I anticipate at best 20 tournament games a year.  If I finish +4 against all rating classes that I get paired up against (Assuming an effective study plan), how many rating points can I gain, roughly in a year by playing 20 tournament games?

I went to the FIDE rating calculator and inputted:

Your ELO of 1762
An estimate of your opponent's ELO of 1750 (assuming you play roughly equal opposition)
The development coefficient of 20 (representing that you have an established rating)

Per game you get a rounded rating change of:

+10 for a win
0 for a draw
-10 for a loss

At +4 in 20 games, your rating will change by +40 (4 wins to 16 draws) to -120 (4 wins, 16 losses).


What are the possibilities for checkmating with two bishops here? Consider the following position:

What are the possibilities for checkmating the white king within 16 moves?

This likely is not the answer you are looking for, but Jerry (A 2200+ USCF National Master) from the Chess Network has a nice video explaining the algorithmic approach to checkmate with two bishops.   I think it solves your problem in less than 25 moves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uimbIq9h_7A


Drawn R+2P vs R endgame I remember a recent(1-2 years) drawn (super)grandmaster game in which white had 2 connected pawns and a rook, while black had a rook. I later learned that it was a theoretical draw, which quite surprised me, since I had always though that two connected pawns should win.
Does anyone remember this game? Are their similar positions?

I don't know the game you have in mind, but the following is one example of such a drawn position in this ending (as can be verified with a tablebase query):

[fen "8/8/1r4kP/6P1/2R2K2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

White has no winning way to break the blockade and make progress. If the blockade is one rank further up the board, though, it can be broken straightforwardly:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/1r4kP/6P1/2R2K2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Kg5 Ra7 2.Rf5 Rb7 3.Rf7+ Rxf7 4.gxf7 *


Why is the f7-g6-h5 pawn complex so important for black in rook endgames? I was watching the chess24.com video on endgames with Mark Dvoretsky, and the video “Plus-equal mode | Part 1” covered the game Tony Miles-Simon Webb, Birmingham 1975, and we quickly get to the double-rook endgame.

 [Event "Birmingham Zetters"]
 [Site "Birmingham"]
 [Date "1975.04.08"]
 [Round "11"]
 [White "Miles, Anthony John"]
 [Black "Webb, Simon"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "A05"]
 [SetUp "1"]
 [FEN "2r5/p4rkp/5pp1/5q2/3Q4/6P1/P4PKP/1R1R4 b - - 0 23"]
 [PlyCount "82"]
 [EventDate "1975.03.27"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "15"]
 [EventCountry "ENG"]
 [EventCategory "6"]

 1... Rc2 2. a3 Qc5 3. Rb3 Qxd4 4. Rxd4 Re7 5. Ra4 Kf7 6. Ra6 Rce2 7. Rb4 Rd7 8. Rba4 Ree7 9. g4 h5 10. gxh5 gxh5 11. R4a5 Kg6 12. h4 Rc7 13. Rg5+ Kf7 14. Rxh5 Kg7 15. Rf5 Rf7 16. Kg3 Rc3+ 17. f3 Rc1 18. Rfa5 Rcc7 19. Kg4 Rc4+ 20. f4 Rcc7 21. Kf5 Rb7 22. a4 Rbc7 23. h5 Rb7 24. h6+ Kxh6 25. Rxf6+ Kg7 26. Rxf7+ Kxf7 27. Ra6 Rc7 28. Kg5 Kg7 29. f5 Rd7 30. a5 Rc7 31. Rd6 Kf8 32. Rd8+ Ke7 33. Rh8 Kd6 34. Kg6 Rc1 35. Ra8 Ke5 36. Re8+ Kf4 37. f6 Rg1+ 38. Kf7 Ra1 39. Kg7 Kf5 40. f7 Rg1+ 41. Kf8 Kg6 42. Re6+ 1-0

Although Webb had the pawn on f6 already, GM Jan Gustafsson mentioned at one point that he wanted to play h5 several times, somewhat setting up the desirable formation. Black hesitated, and white played the common stopping move to that setup, g4! This led to black getting impatient, and playing h5 himself, which led to creating another weakness.

So just why is that f7-g6-h5 setup so important?

P.S. I should have added that the point of this question is "how to draw the 4-3 rook endgame on the kingside, and how that pawn setup is so important." It is also important that it is before the pawns have net and passed each other, as this is very typical in OTB play.

So just why is that f7-g6-h5 setup so important?

Compare the two pawn structures below, one on the kingside where Black has achieved the f7-g6-h5 structure and one on the queenside where White has achieved an advanced equivalent pawn structure.

[FEN "8/p4p2/Pp3Pp1/1Pp3Pp/2P4P/8/8/8 b - - 0 23"]

Now imagine kings on the board and one minor piece, say a knight for each side. White has more space, Black less so White is attacking. How could White win? How could Black defend?

Well, on the queenside Black has to guard against a sacrifice on b6. If White sacrifices on b6 then Black needs to be in the square of the White pawn on a6. That means no closer to the center than c7 or c8. Otherwise the piece capturing on b6 can't be taken.

Now look on the kingside and ask the same question. This time the equivalent sacrifice is on g6 and the Black king has to be no further away from the action than e6 or d6. Note that f5, taking the sacrificed piece with the king, is also possible.

e6, d6 and f5 are much closer to the center of the board than c7 and c8. Clearly if Black faces a situation on one side of the board like that on the kingside with pawns and rooks elsewhere on the board his king will be able to both defend and be much better placed for action, much more active, than if he faces the same situation but with pawns arranged as on the queenside.


How to reduce the number of playouts on LeelaChessZero? So after checking the wiki it seems the parameter "--playouts" allows to chose the number of playouts.

But when I try it on my laptop it just fails:

$ ./lc0 -w meangirl-7.pb.gz --playouts 5

 v0.23.0-dev+git.f600c66 built Nov 10 2019
Unknown command line flag: --playouts.

So maybe it's an outdated option and/or there's a different way to change this parameter?

I think that you need to add an equals sign(or something) to the parameter, so that it says
--playouts=5.
Anyway, 'Unknown command line' means that you have probably mistyped that command.
I've read the wiki as well, and it didn't specify anything.


Games with consecutive en passants Games with consecutive en passants, that is one side makes two en passats captures in a row, are few and far between to my knowlegde. I only know of one example thanks to Tim Krabbe.
Kudrin-R Douven, 1989
Can anyone find more games that have this unique feature?

I searched through all of the 1 317 676 games in The Week in Chess found two that fit the criteria.

H Dang vs D H Nguyen, 2015
P Ponkratov vs V Fedoseev, 2016


Resource for Chess Problems about particular topics Most puzzles I find are where payout is relatively high. e.g mate in 2-3 moves, play right and get a piece etc. However, I needed a resource which gives me some puzzles/exercises about particular topics in chess where payout is not that high. For example puzzles focussing solely on whether to exchange a piece in a given situation or not. Or whether to be aggressive or defensive in a given scenario. Chesstemp does have tactics tags in its puzzles but I was not able to work out how to get puzzles solely with a few selected tags. Thank you for your kind help

Dvoretsky's books are full of what you seek.  Just search him on amazon.


How the engine can detect the 3-fold repetition using FEN input? When I run the engine (UCI interface), I usually feed the last position from the game using position fen ... command and get the best move back. The FEN encodes the possibility of the castlings, en passant moves and keeps the move count since the last piece capture or pawn move to enforce to 50-move draw rule.

How can the engine detect the 3-fold repetition and avoid it while playing the game? I've seen a few occasions when the engine is about 5-6 pawns ahead (a clear victory), but draws because it keeps repeating giving check to the opponent's king again and again.

Clarification: I DON'T program my own engine (well, I do, but this is totally unrelated to this question). In this question I use existing engine, think StockFish or Fruit or anything else you like. This existing engine is given the FEN and returns the "best" move it can think of. Sometimes this leads to a 3-fold repetition in a clearly won positions. How can I tell the StockFish, that it has already made this move before and should do better?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth%E2%80%93Edwards_Notation

"FEN does not represent sufficient information to decide whether a draw by threefold repetition may be legally claimed or a draw offer may be accepted; for that, a different format such as Extended Position Description is needed."

QED.


When to (and when not to) play Bxc6 (i.e. BxN) as White in Ruy Lopez? Inspired by this question: when should one play Bxc6, capturing the Knight, in Ruy Lopez?
Related, but hopefully not a duplicate: this question, but it focusses on why Bxc6 isn't a popular move, while I ask what factors and ideas to consider while making the move.
To elaborate
In the early stages of Ruy Lopez, Black's Knight is en prise for several moves and White's Bishop can capture it. However, this capture sometimes occurs and sometimes doesn't.
I haven't found a clear reason why White sometimes makes the capture and sometimes doesn't. It would help to know the what factors to consider before making the move.
In short
I'd like to know the general ideas and motivating factors behind the capture (Bxc6), and when to, as well as when not to, make the capture (as White).

It is just a matter of taste.  There are pluses and minuses to the move, but the strategic idea is gaining a better pawn structure.
I have played the Exchange 4.Bxc6; the Deferred Exchange 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6; and the Double-Deferred Exchange 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bxc6.  All have unique flavors and Black has to know the ideas in each or risks a very bad game.
The Exchange variation was used with success by Fischer.


How do top players move so fast? I've seen 3 minute and 1 minute matches on Chess.com where the players move at insane speeds during the last few remaining seconds of the match.

I'm talking in milliseconds, I'd at least take that much of time to only recognize an event happening. So how do they even respond with a correct move?

How do they move so fast? Do they use some kind of special software or what?

You're likely looking at premoves; the players know (or at least have a good guess at) what their opponent's move is going to be, so they can already 'ready' their own move by taking the piece and dropping or just moving it to the destination square. Of course, if the opponent makes another move, they have to cancel their move (if it's still possible; that depends on the client, and whether they're dropping or just moving) or they might make a huge blunder.

Premoving can lead to funny things like the following:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Bg5 e6 3. Bxd8

Here, Black expects White to play a Queens Gambit with 2. c4, which is the normal move. If Black premoves 2... e6 and notices the 2. Bg5 too late, they will lose their queen.


Ideas in Sicilian Defense: Staunton-Cochrane Variation I am a Scotch player and don't like playing against the Sicilian and have very bad record against it (5.5/24), my best only wins are when I played 2.b4 ( Wing Gambit) or 2.c4 (Staunton-Cochrane Variation). In the Staunton-Cochrane Variation I have a mixed record (4/11), so I have decided to make it my standard reply to c5. I have success especially in this line :

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4

But I not not sure of the ideas if black chooses not to play the above lines. What are the overall ideas and theory associated with this system ?

When you push d4 early on, the general plan is to protect the d4-square and e4-pawn, while developing quickly. With your king out of the centre things tend to become easier, and you can focus on more long-term plans. Meanwhile, if Black clamps down on the d4-square with ...e5, then they have also weakened their d5-square. Here the plan is to capitalize on the d5-square (not necessarily with an immediate Nd5), and to play on the flanks (for example, with a3, Rb1, b4).

I'll outline some theory for the lines you mentioned in your comment. At the end of my answer I'll give what I think is a better way to play the e4+c4 system.

1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 e6 4.d4 (delaying d4 with 4.Nc3 and 5.Be2 is also possible) 4...cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6. After 6.Nc3 Bb4, your e4-pawn is under attack. It is best to defend it with your light-squared bishop, but right now Bd3 loses to ...Nxd4. So you should play 7.Nxc6, and now there are two main responses:

7...bxc6 8.Bd3. Now Black may strike in the centre with ...e5 or ...d5 (before or after castling). For example, 8...e5 (8...d5 is met with 9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0) 9.0-0 0-0 doesn't give White any advantage, but the position is playable. A possible continuation is 10.Be3 Bxc3 (10...d6 could be met with 11.Qc1 followed by a3, since ...Bxc3 no longer gives you doubled pawns) 11.bxc3 d6 12.c5!?.
7...dxc6 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.e5! Ne4 (or 9...Nd7 10.Bf4, followed soon by 0-0-0) 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 may give White a pull. He has the two bishops, while Black's minor pieces aren't that good (for different reasons). Note that 11...Nxc3?! should be met with 12.a4, when White may meet ...b6 with Be3 and a5. He has enough compensation for the pawn to claim an edge.

1.e4 c5 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 g6 (4...e5 looks good for Black). Here White should play 5.d4 cxd4 (or 5...Bg4 6.d5 Nd4 7.Be2) 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.Be3, but now this transposes to a line in the accelerated dragon. The theory here is well developed, and I'm not sure if this is what you're interested in, considering with 2.c4 I assume you're trying to avoid Open Sicilian lines.
1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 4.Nc3 d6. Here I don't like the immediate 5.Nd5, and instead 5.d3 looks better (followed by Be2, 0-0, etc). The problem though is that Black can push ...f5, whereas you can't push f4 since the knight is already committed to f3. This gives Black at least equality, and while the line is playable, it would be better if your knight was on e2. After castling you could try playing on the queenside with a3, Rb1, b4 (and Nd5 if the position calls for it), but Black's kingside play looks easier.

In my opinion, due to the possibility of Black playing ...e5, I think it's best not to play Nf3. Instead, a setup with Nc3, g3, Bg2, Nge2 looks stronger. Then, you may continue developing with 0-0, d3, Be3, Qd2, f4, etc. The d4-square will remain a hole for now, but in general your setup is pretty harmonious. In addition, you can play it against a variety of different systems Black has.

A good introduction for this opening on YouTube is a video on the Botvinnik-English system by the Melbourne Chess Club channel.


Can a pawn that performed an en passant capture promote at all? So let's say I capture en passant with a pawn. Using the same pawn, I get to the 8th rank. Can I promote that pawn into anything else? I've heard of this restriction in various ways. Some say it can become a rook at best, and some say it just stays as a pawn, but it moves backwards.

Please let me know if this is a classic case of "I'm losing better make some stuff," or an actual rule.

From FIDE rules (3.7 e):

  When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

There is no restrictions whatsoever about capturing en passant.


Recent full-point-blunder in a pawn-endgame? Does anyone know a game since 2014 with both players at least ELO 2400 containing
 at least one move losing a full point in a pawn endgame ?

In the encyclpopedia for chess endgames, I remember only two examples :
 Eduard Lasker - Moll , Berlin 1904 and Stahlberg - Tartakower , Paris 1934

Here's an example between players rated 2565 and 2498.  I haven't checked this against a tablebase due to the number of pawns, but the move Kb5 changes the Stockfish 6 evaluation from below -100 (at depth 60) to above +11 (at depth 43), which is pretty convincing.

Black has a straightforward win here by first pushing his a-pawn to distract the White king, then capturing White's queenside pawns, then driving his own b-pawn forward to push the White king back, and finally capturing White's kingside pawns and queening one of his own.

But instead Black played Kb5, and White responded by sacrificing a pawn to get his king to d5 to help queen a pawn.  At first sight White's sacrifice may not look too promising, as Black queens first and still has an extra pawn.  But in fact Black is lost due to the advanced position of White's pawns.

[Site "Prague"]
[Date "2014.11.29"]
[Round "3.3"]
[White "B. Heberla"]
[Black "Z. Pakleza"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "8/1p3p2/pPk1pPp1/2P3P1/3K1P2/8/8/8 b - - 4 54"]

1...Kb5 2.f5 exf5 3.Kd5 f4 4.Kd6 f3 5.c6 f2 6.c7 f1=Q 7.c8=Q Qd3+ 8.Ke7 Qd5 9.Qe8+ Kxb6 10.Kf8 Qxg5 11.Kxf7 Qh6 12.Kg8 g5 13.Qe3+ Kc6 14.Qe4+ 1-0


Plan from the position I am not asking for analysis, just want to know what are the plans to continue for black .(white to move)

A plan without (extensive) analysis can only be given in very stable structures. Here, the position is pretty tactical and volatile. White might be able to round up the e3-pawn with Nd1 and h3. Then black has to calculate hard to not wind up in a very bad endgame.

So here my "plan" during a game would look like this: Use any tactical trick you can find to not lose the e3-pawn, and if you cannot avoid losing it, grab as much material for it as you can.

Concretely, after 1.Nd1 Bf4 looks like a decent move. Then one "tricky" line would be: 1.Nd1 Bf4 2.g3 {2.h3 Bg3} Bb8 3.Kg2 {3.Nxe3 Ba7} Ba7 4.h3 Nf2 5.Nxe3 Nd3 6.Rd2 Nc1 hitting both rooks.

All this depends on white playing the most obvious move, Nd1, but she might try to strengthen her position in any other way and then you have to come up with different tricks. What you might want to keep in mind is:

The bishop is happier on the a7-g1 diagonal.
The rook might want to invade the second rank or hit the a4-pawn.
The knight wants to jump around and fork things up.
All considered: Active play is necessary.


Why different openings are used by computer players? If few best computer players would be playing against themselves, chances of white winning would depend on the opening used. That way after simulating thousands of games the best opening would be found that is strictly better than the others.
Is there a flaw in this procedure? Has this ever been done before?

You may underestimate the number of games you need to determine the "best" opening by simulation. The differences between different openings are very small and to get a solid statistical judgment a few thousand games for each opening may be insufficient.

Then comes the question of the best response: There is an opponent, after all, and to build an opening book you must test for the strongest responses.

Still, this is all statistical and we know that it is not possible to solve chess computationally at the time being. A deep analysis may find a flaw in the "best" opening that is out of sight for current chess engines.

To your last question: For the chess variant "Schoolbook" (a variant of the Carrera-Capablanca type with rook-knight and bishop-knight compounds) its author Sam Trenholme has started to build an opening book using the method you propose, see http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSschoolbook (comment at the bottom of the page).


How to exploit an opponent's time trouble? (no increment) Supposing my opponent has little time left and I have much more than him (e.g. 10 minutes to 50, or 1 to 5, or 20 seconds to 1 minute).
What are good strategies that take advantage of my rival's time situation?

I read this article, and I will quote this part which I liked:

  When the opponent is in time trouble, Webb advocated the barrage technique which involves planning two or more moves ahead, and then playing them in rapid succession. The idea is to give the opponent little time to prepare for the second move, increasing the probability of that move being a mistake. Playing a barrage of moves does increase the chance of a blunder from the barrager as well, and the technique is inadvisable in a winning position where a player should focus on winning on the board.[2]

I agree that you should focus on your own game, but taking into account the opponent's time may help you. One idea could be to delay exchanges to make the game longer and make complicated positions on the board.

Edit: I'm playing blitz/rapid chess with times between 3 and 30 minutes, without any increment, and online.

Don't try to blitz him by playing fast; now you both are playing without thinking much and you've lost the point of the time advantage.

In general, you should still just try to play the best moves. But if there is any general strategy, it is to avoid forced moves on both sides, so that he has more to consider on every move. Unless it is advantageous, don't start some sequence of captures or checks or an otherwise forced sequence, as he will be able to play a few moves in a row very fast. Keep your threats active and play quiet moves.

If he is really really low on time (like, under a minute), then while your clock is ticking he will probably be looking at a few of your possible moves and trying to come up with a response to each of them that he can play instantly. If you play a different, quiet, move instead, he is likely to waste a few seconds just trying to make sense of it before he can even formulate a good response.


Is tactics training just a waste of time when you cannot play long games? I have been doing tactics training quite regularly since the beginning of the year. However, I haven't really been playing a lot (for obvious reasons). On average, I would say that I spent 10 hours per month on tactics since January (except for June, as I was really busy with other things). I also did some additional training in other areas of the game, but that was limited to mainly 2 months. Now, despite my efforts, I don't think I have improved. Chesstempo estimates my rating between 2150 and 2250 Fide (for context: my current rating is about 2100), but I don't see that in my Blitz games (I have been rated between 2200 and 2300 on lichess since January with almost no change. If anything, I got slightly worse). I find that pretty discouraging, and I'm wondering if all that training has just been a waste of time because I didn't play OTB games. There a lot of other things I could do with my time and I'm honestly thinking of dropping chess completely if all my efforts are in vain. Any help is appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your very discouraging story. I've been an IM for years and recently I've tried to become a grandmaster, did a lot of tactics but: I failed, and now with corona and 0 OTB games it feels a bit silly anyway. So I started to learn code, which is fun haha and very off topic here.
The biggest difference you can make to get from 2200 to 2400 is understanding of pawn structures and having a coherent repertoire. Especially facing 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 becomes more important. But apart from a broad coherent repertoire I would say start learning openings 20 moves deep, and in case you have some forced line, start memorizing 30 moves, take research seriously, try to get some great books to guide you. And then in the main lines, try improving on the book.
Another great help is to take Dvoretsky's endgame manual and go through it a lot. That book is pure gold. Especially online a lot of games end in some kind of endgame. And making rabbits appear out of hats is great.
The reason for focusing so much on openings is because that's probably your bottleneck right now. You don't have the strategic insight to make your tactics work. e.g. different players need different things. Try to identify where you're weakest.
One trick to do that is to study the topics you most dislike in chess. For me that was opposite coloured bishops, and that has helped me a lot getting better at positional play.
You can still do the tactics, but I am 100% sure you would regain your motivation when you would work on something you need more!
Last but not least: chess progress is a bitch! The rating always comes too late, when you lost motivation and think about quitting.
Cheers!


Psychological training I'm currently training a student (rating: ~1350 ELO, Age: 16) in my local chess club, who has been making quite some progress in his rating and playing style lately. Nevertheless, when he is playing against me or another much higher rated opponent (1700+ ELO), he always plays quite cowardly and defensively and isn't going for an attack even if it is objectively good for him. Therefore, he is quite happy when he draws a game against a higher rated player instead of taking a little risk to win a game.

How can I access this psychological problem in my training sessions and teach him some courage?

Possible reasons

Strictly speaking to content oneself drawing a much higher ranked player in tournaments, when not having a clear understanding of what the exact counterpart for aggression might be, is not a bad idea at all. This said, I would look at two main sources for this to happen:

Playing style: not all chess players encourage attack: there are many examples of ultimate GM who are notorious for their positional solid play who dismantle the opponent only one bit at a time, very often just going into endgames where they convert tiny positional advantages into wins (promoting that f pawn after 30 moves preparation). Above all I would mention Karpov and Kramnik, not ultimately known for their attacking fantasies but for sure almost impossible to win against exactly due to the hard discipline and strong knowledge of theoretical positions.
Knowledge of enough lines, variations and continuations: it is by all means true that one is more comfortable attacking in positions where one knows already many (if not all) the standard outcomes, because "well, the worst that can happen is that I will be left with a doubled pawn on the g file..."

Possible exercises

I myself am part of the above category and generally dislike attacking only for the sake of it; since it is however true though that this characteristic has sometimes held me back from better results, I tried to address the problem in two ways, so far:

chess puzzles: looking and solving chess puzzles helps giving you the "feel" of a given position, showing how tactics can help winning a piece on the short run or combining together bishop and knight for a vortex attack (or the like).
better preparation of openings and position: preparing all (well, not all, but many) possible outcomes of a given opening helps minimising the "risk" of a blunder attack; it can be helpful to practice only one-two openings and defenses to be more secure about the continuations.


How to get static evaluation from Stockfish in case that a king is in check? I am working on a program that should recognize the difference between human and computer players. For this purpose, I need some parameters. A part of them would be the individual values of the static position evaluations.
In Stockfish you can get these values with the command EVAL. However, if I call EVAL while one of the kings is in check, I don't get a rating. Instead, I only get the info "none (in check)"

Does somebody know why this is the case? In my opinion, that doesn't make sense as long as it's not a checkmate or stalemate. How can you get around this?

If a king is in check, that's a major thing. There are likely to be few legal replies for the engine to consider. It's also unlikely (although possible) that there would be a large chain of checks from both sides. And it's very unlikely that you'd want to immediately prune the check; they're almost always worth at least considering.
When the engine is evaluating lots of positions, it therefore makes sense for it to not waste time evaluating the check position itself. Instead it's quicker to look ahead to how the check is resolved.


Why do people even play chess? Why do some of the world's best intellectuals spend their whole lives just on a wooden board, rather than working on the betterment of society ?

Where am I wrong?

None of "the world's best intellectuals" spend much time playing chess. The only strong (GM strength) chess player who qualifies as an intellectual is Dr John Nunn GM who graduated with a first in mathematics from Oxford University at the age of 18.

  Why do people even play chess?

The best answer to this was given by Siegbert Tarrasch who famously said:

  Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy


Pirc Defence, Kholmov System literature I am looking for some references where this variation is analysed. I have found some YouTube videos where engines play out this position, but they do not explain alternative moves which also lead to extremely complex games. It is called Kholmov System and arises from the Pirc Defence, but is also reachable from the Modern and Alekhine Defence (I almost always get it from the Alekhine).
[fen ""]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Qe2 Nc6 6. e5! Nxd4 (6...Nfd7 7. e6!? (7. Nf3)) (6...Ng4 7. Bb5) 7. exf6 Nxe2 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. Ngxe2

The engines claim Black is better, but in human practice White wins by a huge margin. Perhaps some book has good analysis of this variation?

"The Pirc Defence" by Mihail Marin (see e.g. https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/305/the_pirc_defence_by_mihail_marin/), part of the Grandmaster Repertoire series, covers this line from Black's perspective


Open Sicilian Defense Has the dragon variation of the Sicilian defense lost favor to the Najdorf variation since I rarely see a fianchettoed bishop in the Najdorf defense

The Dragon Variation of Sicilian is complex and difficult to defend sometimes against White's ferocious King side attack. I will recommend Dragon to those Players only who are not timid enough to sacrifice material against activity. Since in Dragon normal theory Black does a Castling with his fianchettoed Bishop & the g6 pawn is hooked to White's h5 pawn sacrifice.

Unlike Najdorf where White also attacks mostly on K-side but Black has equally good chances to attack White on the Q-side since with a6 on move 5th b5 from Black comes faster and dislodges the Knight on c3. In Dragon the attack from Black is somewhat slow compared to Najdorf.

In Najdorf there is one variation where Black does a Fianchetto also. Below is the variation:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 g6

and with any other move from White like Qf3 or Be2 Black puts his Bishop on g7 .


How can a drawish opening be fashionable? dfan's answer to this question suggested the following. Why would a specific opening become popular as the method of choice to play for a draw? Wouldn't it be better to select an obscure out-of-fashion variation that leads to a draw? That way you always have the chance to catch your opponent unprepared and score an extra 1/2 point.

If I choose a well known drawish opening, it sends two messages to my opponent:

Offer me a draw and I'll accept it
If you play for a win, you'll just smash against my rocks.  If you try too hard, you'll lose.  If you don't, you'll probably just get a draw anyway.

Of course, some opponents won't care and will fight for the win while others will be more than ready to throw in the towel, especially if there's a rating difference in the opponent's favor.

This really only applies to master play.  Amateurs make enough mistakes that nothing is drawish, nothing is safe.


How to balance the game for uneven players I want to play chess with my wife, but we have different ranks (I am approximately 1900, and she is ~1500 (probably less based on comments)). Normally, our games are boring for me.
I tried to balance the game by playing without the queen, but I still win the game. I am looking for some tactics to balance the game based on ranking difference?

(Disclaimer: this is my first post on this network, and in all honesty both you and your wife could probably beat me at a game. But I do have years of experience of finding handicaps to make chess games more even and enjoyable.)

Time advantage: this probably depends on your situation. Some people are great at untimed and terrible at rapid, but tinkering about with time differences until you find a healthy compromise has the positive of being very flexible as it can be fine-tuned very precisely. I find the pressure is greatest on the stronger player when you use a time per move system rather than a time per game - and the weaker player can play untimed.
Further piece advantages: I've never needed to go much beyond a queen handicap, but I imagine two rooks or a queen and minor piece would be the next step.
Blindfold chess: you could try playing without being able to look at the board (while your wife can), if you've ever done blindfold chess before or feel you have enough experience/memory to try. A somewhat easier version might be to only allow you to look at the board while it's your turn, which only makes sense if you're using time controls.
Help her to improve: it may be that the two of you playing against each other doesn't make sense with such a large difference in skill. How about you play practice matches where you offer her tips and guidance, allow her to undo any blunders and teach her until she is at a similar skill level?


Opening theory versus strong AI suggestions I have realised that Opening theory usually contains the highest quality chess, they have been pruned and honed. However sometimes when I am going through an opening with say Stockfish, I find that at times Stockfish has different recommendations than the opening has.  So I have been wondering how does the quality of play in an opening compare with the abilities of a 3300 elo chess program?

There are at least four possibilities, all of which are pretty normal.

One, the opening theory is from a good, recent book. The author will have used the strongest engines himself, and also applied his own chess knowledge, and spent enough time to find better moves than the engine did.

Two, the author did see the computer move, but thought it was not practical for a human to play like that, and that his move was almost as good but much easier to understand, explain and play.

Three, the position is drawn (as most opening theory positions are) and in the final analysis both moves will turn out to be good enough.

Four, you've found a mistake in the book.

All of those happen all the time.

If you have a concrete example, you'll get much more concrete responses.


Static null move CPW engine I have two questions about a code implementing a static null move. The questions are in the code.

The code is extracted from here: CPW engine search code

 if (depth < 3
            && !is_pv
            && !flagInCheck
            &&  abs(beta - 1) > -INF + 100) // 1. Why this condition?
        {
            int static_eval = eval(alpha, beta, 1);

            int eval_margin = 120 * depth; // 2. Why 120? What does it mean?
            if (static_eval - eval_margin >= beta)
                return static_eval - eval_margin;
        }

Just guessing without reading all of the code to understand completely.

1) The third condition to not preform a Null Move is zugswang.  Another hint is that INF is used to report a mate-in-x.

2)  The purpose of a Null Move is to determine if we could do nothing and still be better so to cause an early cutoff.  I assume that they represent a pawn value as 100, so they want a slightly higher favorable eval before it causes a cutoff.


Should a beginner try to learn 1 specific opening in depth or is not the best use of time? Or will it be better to learn 5 different openings at a lower detail level?

And what 1 or 5 openings would you then suggest?

What is your level?

For an absolute beginner learning general opening principles (fight for the centre, develop minor pieces, castle for king safety...), tactic training and paying attention not to blunder pieces in one move, will be much more useful than learning an opening.

Also if you play mostly low rated opponents there is not much point studying a specific line in the Sicilian to move 30 if all your opponents know is the first 4 moves of the Italian game.

If you study an opening make sure to not only study the move but also the typical plans which can be for instance typical pawn breaks, exchanging bad bishops and keeping the good one, typical regrouping manoeuvres, etc

Opening theory can be very complex. For a beginner I recommend to start with the main line and not too deep (how deep will depend on the opening). As you encounter side lines in your games or feel that you lose because you are on your own after your main line theory ends, you can always learn more.

Getting away with one opening will not be possible as with black you will have to prepare for at least d4 and e4. And if you are white and start with e4 you need to be prepared for at least e5, c5, e6, c6...
As above I recommend to start studying what you encounter most often first and play the other opening s on general principles until you learn them.


Minimum moves to checkmate? What is the minimum number of moves, counting both sides, in which a checkmate can be made?

The precise answer to your question is four half-moves. The only checkmate possible in two moves is by Black - 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4# (This mate is known as Fool's Mate). Slight variations may occur (in White's move order or in the distance Black's e-pawn or White's f-pawn is advanced):

1.g4 e5 2.f3 Qh4#
1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#
1.g4 e6 2.f3 Qh4#
1.g4 e5 2.f4 Qh4#
1.f4 e5 2.g4 Qh4#
1.g4 e6 2.f4 Qh4#
1.f4 e6 2.g4 Qh4#

If White is to mate, a minimum of five half-moves (three moves) is required, for example 1.e4 f6 2.d4 g5 3.Qh5# (with similar variations possible).


What happened in this game between Hong Li and Sandor Farago in the FSIM November 2018? I downloaded a bunch of games from Kingbase which included the below game.

[Event "FSIM November 2018"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2018.11.06"]
[Round "4.4"]
[White "Farago, Sandor"]
[Black "Li, Hong"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2216"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[ECO "B80"]
[EventDate "2018.11.03"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 b5 8.a3 Bb7
9.g4 h6 10.h4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Rg1 Nd7 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 Be7 15.Qd2
Rh7 16.O-O-O Nf8 17.f4 Qa5 18.f5 e5 19. null Nd7 20.Kb1 Rb8 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.
Rxd2 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rh4 24.Bd3 Rh3 25.Ba7 Rb7 26.Bf2 Rh2 27.Be3 Rh3 28.Re1
Nb8 29.f6 gxf6 30.gxf6 Bxf6 31.Rxd6 Bg7 32.Rd5 Nc6 33.Bd2 f6 34.Rg1 1-0

I'm confused about the notation in move 19 . I couldn't find any reference on how to interpret it. According to another source the tournament ended after move 18.

At first I thought maybe the time ran out and they decided to finish the game just for fun, But then why didn't White make the next move, and not black?

Different PGN replayers display this game differently. Gnome-chess refuses to display the game with move 19, while chess.com analysis interprets it as an empty move.

Best guess: the mistake occured before, on move 15

Entry errors are frequent when games are entered into a software, especially if they are not entered by one of the players.

Here the operator must have made an error before move 19, reached an anomaly, and couldn't solve the mystery (or didn't have time to try, there are other games to be saved). In such occurence, entering a null move solves the issue, even if it makes some future users wonder what exactly happened during the game.

Only one of the players, or someone with access to the handwritten gamescore, could answer with 100% certainty, so I cannot be totally affirmative, but I am pretty sure the error occured on move 15. This must be how the game went:

[Event "FSIM November 2018"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2018.11.06"]
[Round "4.4"]
[White "Farago, Sandor"]
[Black "Li, Hong"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2216"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[ECO "B80"]
[EventDate "2018.11.03"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 b5 8.a3 Bb7
9.g4 h6 10.h4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Rg1 Nd7 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 Be7 15.Qd4
Rh7 16.O-O-O Nf8 17.f4 Qa5 18.f5 e5 19. Qd2 Nd7 20.Kb1 Rb8 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.
Rxd2 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rh4 24.Bd3 Rh3 25.Ba7 Rb7 26.Bf2 Rh2 27.Be3 Rh3 28.Re1
Nb8 29.f6 gxf6 30.gxf6 Bxf6 31.Rxd6 Bg7 32.Rd5 Nc6 33.Bd2 f6 34.Rg1 1-0

15.Qd4, instead of 15.Qd2, is a very logical move, centralizing the queen and hitting the Pg7 left unprotected by Black's last move, 14...Bf8-e7. It is also a typical move when a Nd4-Nc6 exchange occurs in the Najdorf with the wQ still on d1.
It doesn't take a lot of stretch for an handwritten "Qd4" to be mistaken for "Qd2" (another plausible move) by the operator.
Then the operator won't meet any incoherence before move 19, when he finds 19.Qd2 written on the scoresheet but, puzzlingly, the queen already stands on d2. If the explanation doesn't jump to his eyes, using the null move feature of the software (most probably Chessbase) is the simplest way to deal with it. I have done that often myself when entering kids' games whose scoresheets I couldn't decipher.
By the way, 19.Qd2 is the obvious choice if the queen comes from d4, attacked by Black last move, 18...e6-e5. The whole game looks very coherent in this version (but that Black is positionnally outplayed pretty fast, with 22...Bxd5? a very suspect choice).
The most important argument in favor of 15.Qd4, in my opinion, is that it gives an explanation for the otherwise mysterious move 15...Rh7 played by Black: he simply protected his pawn. If 15.Qd2 had been played, 15...Rh7 would be a very, very weird decision (instead of any of the logical developing moves 15...Qc7, 15...Nf8, 15...Rc8, 15...Nb6, 15...g6 or 15....Qa5).


Why is 5.c4 playable vs. Sicilian Kan, but hardly seen vs. Sicilian Taimanov? Why is 5.c4 considered playable against the Sicilian Kan,

i.e. after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.c4,

but hardly seen against the Sicilian Taimanov?

i.e. after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.c4?!

As the knight is already developed on c6, black can immediately create counterplay in the center: 4....Nc6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4.

Clearly, 7.Bd3 (the mainline after 4....a6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4) is not possible now, as black wins a piece by 7....Nxd4.
Instead, white has to defend the pawn on e4 in another way. Both after 7.f3 and 7.Qd3, black has the strong reply 7....d5, after which white has to be careful to maintain equality.

The best move is probably 7.Nxc6, which has been played by several grandmasters. However, this is already a slight concession by white and black should be fine after both 7....bxc6 (e.g. Kramnik-Kasparov, Karjakin-Grischuk) or 7....dxc6 (e.g. Dubov-Radjabov).

Note that the position often arises via the English opening: 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.e4.

      [StartPly "7"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 (1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.e4) c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 (4...a6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Bd3) 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Nxc6 (7.Bd3 Nxd4)(7.f3 d5)(7.Qd3 d5) bxc6 (7...dxc6)


What are the ideas behind the Blackmar-Diemer gambit? I have a new chess student who likes risky openings. We conducted an exercise where we played the first 4 or 5 moves to see which openings come naturally to him. He chose the Scandinavian Defence and Queen's Gambit Accepted as Black, and the Blackmar-Diemer gambit as White.

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. e4

My problem is that I have only come across this opening once, and it does not appear in any of the books I have. It also is that my style of play is very different from my student's. I have a much more cautious style.

So, my question is, to help my student, I would like to know what are the main ideas and variations in the Blackmar-Diemer gambit?

I've used BDG countless number of times and won virtually everytime over weaker players. This is a dangerous opening if Black simply plays normal development moves, quite tricky to play in a 5-minute blitz game.

White has to attack because he is a pawn down. The most direct and surprisingly effective setup is:

Position the light bishop on the d3-h7 diagonal
Move the white queen d1-e1-h4
Prepare for an exchange sacrifice on the f-file
Prepare for bishop sacrifices on the h6 and h7 squares

Why is this effective in a blitz game? An unprepared Black player might just simply make normal development moves, as if there was no gambit. By the time Black sees the checkmate, it'd be too late. If Black plays h7-h6 or g7-g6, White has the the two bishops and f1-rook to do further damage, for example sacrificing by Bxh6.

This gambit can be refuted, possible ideas:

Castle to the queen-side
Delay castling and strike on the weak d-pawn. If white plays c3, Black has ...c5 to challenge the pawn and try to open the weak g1-a7 diagonal.

I've personally found very difficult to deal with Black castle queen-side, because it is harder to exploit the space advantage in the king-side while the Black king is on the other side of the board.

Here, I give a sample game that I've used many times.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 exf3 4.Nxf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 e6 6.O-O Bd6 7.Bg5 O-O 8.Qe1 Nbd7  9.Qh4 c5 10.Ne5 cxd4 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.Rxf6
*


When exactly does a checkmate or stalemate take effect? I'm not enthusiastic about chess in particular, so if I use terminology incorrectly please correct me. I use "phase 1 & phase 2" for each player's move, and "turn n" for each pair of phases.

I'm a novice programmer writing a chess program as a personal challenge, and  would like to know exactly when checkmates and stalemates take effect.

Specifically:

If a player 1's move causes checkmate or stalemate, does the game end during phase 1, or at the beginning of phase 2?

Edit:

It seems I wasn't clear enough that I wasn't looking for a programming answer, I wanted to know about chess standards. Even if my program can work without detecting the exact final phase, I would like that information to be available.

I looked at the FIDE rules as mentioned in Laska
's answer [link], and Section 5 points out what I was looking for:

5.1 a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate
position was a legal move.
5.2 a. The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal.

From these rules I gather that if I cause a checkmate, the game ends before my opponent's next phase, and if I cause a stalemate, the game ends during my opponent's next phase.

Please correct me if you think I'm not understanding something correctly. Also, I know I've seen the term FIDE before but I'm not sure if their chess laws would generally be considered a widely accepted and robust standard. I figure a chess community is the right place to ask about whether or not I should be using their standards.

Take your pick.

Conventionally in computer chess, we express your idea of phases as "plies", or half-moves, where 2 plies is one "turn".

You can detect checkmate in the ply where the checkmating move is made, but it is more common for checkmate to be detected in the following ply, where your program generates legal moves for the mated player, only to find that there are 0 available.

It is often more convenient and efficient that way, as the work to generate moves would have been done anyway had the position not been mate, so no extra work is done to determine whether a position is checkmate.


There are three checks in this position? I found this position in the Chess Programming Wiki. It's a perft calculation. In the depth 2 the results informs that there are 3 checks. But I just able to find 2 checks:

Kf1 hxg2+

Kf1 Bxe2+

.

[FEN "r3k2r/p1ppqpb1/bn2pnp1/3PN3/1p2P3/2N2Q1p/PPPBBPPP/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

Where is the third check?

May look stupid, but I really can't find it.

Kd1 Bxe2+ looks like it is another depth 2 check


FIDE rating: how games are rated if a new list is published while playing a tournament Does anybody knows how games are rated (FIDE rating) when a new list is published while playing a tournament?

Let's say I'm playing a tournament starting at April and ending at June. Starting ratings are those listed in April list, but before the tournament ends there will be new lists at May and June, and tournament results will be reported at June.

There are several options:

A) All games are rated as players rating were those in April list (the starting ones).

B) All games are rated as players rating were those in June list (when the tournament is reported to FIDE).

C) April games are rated with April ratings, May ones with May ratings, and June ones with June ratings (it seems strange, but it is how it works for Catalan ratings).

I could find no response to this question at FIDE handbook. The only clue could be article 8.4:

8.4
If an unrated player receives a published rating before a particular
tournament in which he has played is rated, then he is rated as a
rated player with his current rating, but in the rating of his
opponents he is counted as an unrated player.

which makes me think that all games are rated with the starting ratings (option A).

Option A is correct, option C applies to some tournaments, see below.
It is not explicitly stated in the FIDE Rating Regulations but the practice has always been that for rating purposes the rating valid at the starting date of the tournament is used. The only exception are tournaments that last longer then 90 days which have to be reported for rating every month

4.1 For tournaments, a period not greater than 90 days, except:
4.11 Leagues may be rated which last for a period greater than 90 days.
4.12 The QC may approve the rating of tournaments lasting more than 90 days.
4.13 For tournaments lasting more than 90 days, interim results must be reported on a monthly basis.

This is made more explicit in the International Title Regulations

1.46 Rating of Opponents
1.46a The Rating List in effect at the start of the tournament shall be used, see exception 1.15. ...

1.15 In tournaments which last longer than 90 days, the opponents’ ratings and titles used shall be those applying when the games were played.

Similar wording as in 1.46a would probably be helpful in the FIDE Rating Regulations.
Here are two examples:

Sallskapets Jubileums-KM 2016 lasted for exactly 90 days by a rough calculation and you can see that each player's rating is the same in all rounds (click on any player and you can see all their opponents have them with the same rating, the January rating in fact).
1. Bundesliga rounds 10-11 and 1. Bundesliga rounds 14-15 lasts for six months, it is reported every month and each month the current ratings are used.


Creating program for finding top players with respect to elo and age I want to create a program for personal use but also maybe for publishing it on the web, in order to detect the top players with respect to elo and age. There will be two cases:

A) In this case, someone will choose one of top players. There will be an output - answer: What was the first elo rating that he passed by being the youngest player ever to reach that rating or maybe a list of all these numbers, because there may be many and on which date and at which age age.

Example: Magnus Carlsen.

Output (not real-true): At the age of 8 years and 3 months old, in February 2002, he was the youngest player ever that passed the elo 2098. At the age of 11 years and 7 months old in June 2005, he was the youngest player ever that passed the elo 2202. Etc... (maybe in that case there will also be a choice to show the dates and elo numbers in which he was the second youngest or third etc.. .).

B) In this case, someone will choose an elo number, for example 2804. There will be an output - answer: Who was the youngest player who passed this number and on which date - age. Or maybe a list with all the players who passed this number sorted from youngest to oldest.

Example: 2804

Output (not real - true):

1) Magnus Carlsen, 21 years and 2 months old, in August 2012.
2) Garry Kasparov, 27 years and 5 months old, in January 1990.
etc..

Can you give me some guidelines and advice how to go on? Maybe there is already something like that? Are there some resources I can take some historical databases from? I think it needs (relatively) easy programming or not so much? Also is it possible to use the live numbers from live 2700, including decimal digits and dates (for example, 2758.7 in 9 October 2015), or it should be better to start with the official fide round ratings per month?

In any case, if I create this program do you think it will be good to publish it on a website? Nonprofit or there can be a respectful low income from ads on it?

Tia.

Are there some resources I can take some historical databases from?

You need two sets of data:

Rating data for the players going back as far as possible in time
Date of birth data for the players

There are two very good sources which will help a lot with ratings and help a little with dates of birth. The bad news regarding dates of birth is that in the modern age full dates of birth are generally not published because of security risks. If you are going to try and steal somebody's identity with a view to stealing their money then full date of birth is one of the key components.

FIDE published about 19 years of rating data which is available for download. Olimpbase have data available for download going back another 30 years.

The Olimpbase data has both ratings and full date of birth data but is very "dirty". You will need to "clean" it before you can use it to remove duplicate data and resolve players with the same name, the same player with different names (women players who got married, perhaps more than once, and changed their names and also just typos in the data).

The FIDE data is also a bit "dirty" in the early years but gets cleaner in later years. You will have much less data to "clean". It has year of birth only so getting the full date of birth for players will involve a lot more work digging through resources like Wikipedia.

  I think it needs (relatively) easy programming or not so much?

A major task will be extracting the data you need from your data sources. This will be a massive task. I would suggest you design a relational database for your needs and populate it from your data sources after first cleaning the data. Once this is done answering the questions you want is a relatively straightforward matter of writing some simple database queries and running them.


What makes a move “weird”? I am not sure if this question has been asked before, but I recently had a friend, who is a NM, play a blitz match against stockfish (level 12 I believe) and commentate its playing style. What struck me was the fact that he kept mentioning that it was making “weird moves”; moves that a human player would likely never play. I asked him to explain further, and as an example he mentioned the fact about pushing pawns only one square instead of two when it could have clearly pushed two (maybe losing tempo on purpose?). I have played against it many times, and the fact that I have an ELO of about 1750, does not really help me in finding these “weird moves”. I would probably categorize them as “very strong moves” that have some deeper/intricate scope that I would probably not be able to grasp in a blitz match. My question is, how can higher rated players notice this non-human playing style? What makes a move weird? I am not sure if “weird move” is subjective to the player (here of course I am referring primarily to +2300 ELO) or if it’s something more on the objective side? Meaning that it is agreed amongst most that a certain move is weird.

Spotting "weird" computer moves is not difficult. Let me give you an example which you will agree is very clear. It is taken from the last round of the Boeblingen open in December 1999. The white player, Allwermann, was a 55 year-old German player who had been about 1900 strength (according to his German rating. FIDE ratings didn't go that low in 1999) for the previous 20 years. Going into the last round he was on 6.5/8 with the prospect of a first prize of DM 1,660 if he beat his grandmaster opponent. After 30 moves Allwermann was already winning and was to move in this position. See if you can guess his next move. Here are some candidates: Rd7, Rxb7, Rxf6, Qa7. Which one would you choose? Which one would be the last one you would choose?

[title "Allwermann,Clemens - Kalinitschev,Sergey (2505)"]
[fen "r6k/1p3Rpp/p2p1bq1/3N4/2P5/1P6/P1b2QPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxf6 (1. Qa7 Rg8 2. Qxb7 Be4) gxf6 2. Qxf6 Qxf6 3. Rxf6

In the Qa7 line Black's last move, Be4, threatens mate. The only move to stop it is Nf4.

Allwermann played the Qa7 line.

Fritz 5.32 evaluated Rd7 as +2.78 and Qa7 as +2.88.

This was written up in a Chessbase article in 2011. This is what the article said of this move:

  If you switch on multiple-variation mode you will see that Fritz
  thinks 31.Qa7 is a tenth of a pawn better than the other alternatives.
  A computer program simply doesn't understand the difference between
  cast-iron moves that cannot fail, and a tight-rope walk on the edge of
  the precipice. I venture no human would undertake the latter course in
  the given tournament situation.

That sums up the difference between normal human moves and weird computer moves. At least it did up until AlphaZero came along.

Here is the full game. See how many obvious computer moves you can spot.

[title "Allwermann,Clemens - Kalinitschev,Sergey (2505)"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Be7 7.Be2 a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 9.O-O Be6 10.Be3 O-O 11.Na3 Nd7 12.Qd2 Nc5 13.Nc2 f5 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Bf3 Kh8 16.Bd5 Qe8 17.Rad1 Qg6 18.Na3 e4 19.f3 exf3 20.Bxf3 Ne5 21.Nd5 Bh4 22.Nf4 Nxf3+ 23.Rxf3 Qe8 24.Nd5 Ne6 25.Rdf1 Qg6 26.b3 Rf7 27.Nc2 Ng5 28.Bxg5 Bxg5 29.Qf2 Bxc2 30.Rxf7 Bf6 31.Qa7 Rg8 32.Qxb7 Be4 33.Nf4 Qf5 34.Qd7 Qe5 35.Kh1 g5 36.Nh3 g4 37.Nf2 Bf5 38.Nxg4 Be4 39.R7xf6 Bxg2+ 40.Kxg2 Qe4+ 41.Kh3

In the final position after his GM opponent had resigned Allwermann couldn't resist telling his opponent that it was mate in 8. Of course he was right.


List of how AlphaZero evaluates openings In his process of learning Chess and getting stronger and stronger each second AlphaZero learned openings. Some were played often at the beginning, but lost in AlphaZero's popularity over the time (e.g. French Defence). You can find four examples here: The future is here – AlphaZero learns chess

I read somewhere that AlphaZero played (and so: evaluated) 12 openings. I would like to see a list of them, perhaps with the graphs (not only the 4 mentioned above).

Thanks in advance.

You can find the complete table in their paper. See table 2 in the arXiv version linked below:

Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf

How to read them:

The plots show the proportion of times alphazero played a given opening during its self-training games as a function of training time. So e.g., you can see that its interest in employing the French defense peaked after 2 hours, but past that, it abruptly drops to near 0, indicating that after 2 hours+ training it realised the emergent lines from that opening are non-optimal compared to other choices, such as the Caro-Kann defense (which had a promising plateau after 2 hours but eventually dropped too, plot shown below).
Then below the diagrams, you see how it fared against Stockfish in 100 game matches for each line. Finally, alphazero's principal variation for each opening is also indicated below the plots. Please see the table's caption in the paper for any other details.

Overall, the English opening stands out: it kept employing it consistently throughout its training. Ultimately, the pattern suggests a tendency towards more versatile openings.
Caro-Kann diagram from table 2: [Ref]

[Ref]: Silver, David, et al. "Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm." arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815 (2017)


Is there research on how successfully chess can discipline children? According to the article Armenia makes chess compulsory in schools, Armenia made chess mandatory in school for the sake of discipline. A lot of people in the real world don't work together to organize plans properly and really suffer the consequences later so I suspect Armenia figured that kids need to get disciplined in order to grow up as a person who works harder to organize plans. Maybe the Carnegie foundation did some research on it.

As an extra note, I found out about the Carnegie foundation from the question What does math education research know about difficulty vs. effectiveness? Maybe some day, there will be some Stack Exchange users who will be very willing and able to adopt an advanced research technique with one another. Then through that technique, they might eventually eventually find a connection between this question and the question What does math education research know about difficulty vs. effectiveness? through my reference to it in this question and then help direct Stack Exchange users to many very similar questions.

There's a lot, but it's probably hogowash


Using Tarrasch Chess GUI to annotate I just started using Tarrasch so I am learning how it works.

I usually play on chess.com and after the game I ask for the computer analysis which usually when an annotation is added it first adds the variation that should have been played and then the best variation after the actual move something like the following:

12.Ng5 Ng4??  ( 12... Qe7 13. Nb1 h6 14. Nf3 b6 15. Nc3 Ba6 16. Nb5 )  ( 12... Ng4 13. Nxe6 Qe7 14. Nxf8 Kxf8 15. Bxd5 Ndf6 16. Bc4 )

So I am adding it exactly like this on Tarrasch but when I select only the first variation and do a "Promote comment to moves" it seems to change all the comment but only the first variation is playable, the second one remains as just text and is not considered as moves.

I tried to select the second variation and do a "Promote variation" but it changed all of the rest of the game.

Just to make sure I am being clear I want to add at least two variations for a specific move in my annotations and I haven't been able to figure out how to do it with Tarrasch.

Thanks.

I got in touch with Bill Forster, the developer who created the software, and this is what he replied. It worked for me so I hope it will be useful for somebody else:

  I did some experiments with your use case and I admit it is hardly
  obvious how Tarrasch is handling your quite reasonable attempts - in
  fact what you are doing should really work, so sadly I must admit a
  bug.

  However there is a workaround - Start with the second variation first.
  Position the cursor just before the open parenthesis that introduces
  the second variation [so before "( 12...Ng4 etc"]. Then promote that
  with "Promote rest of comment to moves". Hopefully that will work.
  Then promote the 12...Qe7 variation. I think this method can be
  extended to any number of these kind of "peer" variations (by this I
  mean variations that are not subvariations). Promote the last one
  first and work backwards.

I tried this with more than two variations and going from the last to the first now as I go through the moves in all the variations the board gets updated accordingly.


What does "TPR" mean in chess tournament reports? I usually find in reports like this (and many others) something like:

  ... with a TPR of 2551 ...

I would like to know its meaning, and also what it stands for.

It means Tournament Performance Rating.

Very roughly a TPR of 2551 means that the results this player has achieved in this tournament would have been expected of a player rated 2551.

That's always a bit problematic. Say you scored 100% against a group of 1500 players, what kind of player would have expected to score that? Well, a 1900 player probably, but also a 2800 player. And many methods make your TPR go down if you win against a much lower rated player, because they are based on the average rating of your opponents. But it's a rough measure of how well a player did.

There exist various methods to calculate it that I don't have time now to go into now.


At what point is sacrificing a queen a bad move? Obviously if you get checkmate from it it's fine, but at what point does it become unacceptable?

If you can't calculate a clear win after sacrificing your queen, do not do it.


What is the origin of Tal's expression "They can only take one at a time"? The expression refers to aggressive attacking style where one side leaves multiple pieces attacked, but the opponent cannot take full advantage of it since "they can only take one at a time". Was this said by Tal in an interview or in a book (assuming he was actually the one who said it)? Did he say it originally in Russian? If so - what is the exact Russian expression he used?

I have seen this referred to/attributed to a couple of Tal's games. It is quite likely that he used the saying more than once. If you study enough of Tal's games, you'll see that he developed a technique of not retracting his (minor) pieces when they were en prise.

The first reference that I was able to find was in his Havana-1966 game against Bjorn Brinck-Claussen. (Quite likely this position, where he's just moved Ra8!

[Title "Tal v Brinck-Claussen, Havana 1966 "]
[fen "R2r2k1/6pp/1p3pn1/3b2q1/3P4/P4QP1/BP3P2/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

The saying is also often  attributed to his 1968 game against Chikovani, where Tal plays 19 Bxe6 instead of retracting his dark-squared Bishop.

[Title "Tal v Chikovani, 1968"]
[fen "1qrr2k1/p3bp2/bpn1Bnpp/6B1/3P4/P1N2N2/1PQ2PPP/3RR1K1 w - - 0 1"]

As you can see, in both cases Tal leaves multiple pieces hanging, a psychological strategy that he's used to his advantage.

Hope that helps.


Complete game Ojanen - Ridala , Helsinki 1959 Entry 117 in Tim Krabbe’s Diary shows a case of fatal automatism.

[Title "Ojanen - Ridala, Helsinki 1959 "]
[FEN "R7/P4k2/8/8/7K/8/r7/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rh8 Rh2+

In the game Ojanen-Ridala, Helsinki 1959, White saw a routine win, which was a loss in the concrete case.

Does anyone know of the complete game?

I am unable to find the complete game, therefore must conclude that it is no longer available. These are the methods I used:

Searching the Chessmaster and Fritz for Fun databases yields no results. Referencing the comments  by @dfan and @Iodebari, the complete game is not in Chessbase's Mega Database or in MillionBase
Google doesn't return it
I've emailed Tim Krabbe, the author of the site linked to in the question, but have received no response
The game is not in any books that I have in my (admittedly limited) chess library. E.g. the game does not feature in Mastering Chess Strategy by Johan Hellsten

PS. A note about topicality:

On meta I've asked a question about how to answer questions where I don't believe there is an answer. If you feel that this should have been a comment instead of an answer, please feed back on the meta question What do we do with questions that I don't think there is an answer to?

Additionally, if you have an answer to the question, I would love to see it. My own research methods are limited and I don't mind being proven wrong if someone can find the complete game.


How to learn chess if you're still a 3-digit rating after a few years I know how all the pieces move and I've learned about castling and en passant. But all I do is play online against other people and get wrecked because I don't know how to "play."
I make moves like Knight to h3 on my first move because I have no idea what I'm doing (I only learned this move is bad because a nice person pointed it out to me while I was playing against them).
I also manage to mess up situations where the opponent only has like two pieces left and I have like five but I still lose or draw the game. Sometimes I make bad decisions or miss checkmates in one move.
But most of the time, I have the majority of my peices taken from me so the opponent has an overwhelming number of pieces more than me (this happens like 80% of the time unless I get lucky). I have been playing on and off leisurely for a few years now, but I still don't know how to "play" properly.
What am I supposed to do at this point if playing more games does not improve my gameplay?

Very simple.
Join a chess club and play people face-to-face. You'll improve rapidly after that.