Database of every possible move in chess Imagine that there is a chess database of every possible move and position. This database contains all possible moves from opening to end game.

If I played using my intuition against a chess engine, it can predict which move will make me lose and win.

So this means there is no need for a "chess engine" because all of the possible moves are already recorded.

If such a database exists it would have the following advantages:

In fast blitz games, chess engine will definitely lose against chess possibility move database.
We can exactly know which opening will have more opportunity to win against the others.

Or if such a database didn't already exist we could have a mathematical calculation of all possible moves from opening till end game.

Would it be possible for such a database to exist?

I believe your question essentially boils down to the topic of whether it is possible to completely "solve" chess.  Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic which should give you a good overview.

To summarise, the number of possible game variations in chess is estimated to be 10^120.  This is a staggeringly huge number, for comparison, consider that the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be around 10^80.  In other words, if you were using the entire observable universe as your hard drive, you'd still need to store 10^40 combinations of chess games on each atom, in order to simply store it all.  Needless to say, this is so far beyond our current and forseeable technologies that most people consider it to be completely impossible.

Chess endgames are considerably less complex, and we've got to a point where it's possible to calculate all possible combinations for five-piece and six-piece endgames.  These are typically huge undertakings done by reasearchers with access to supercomputers, and the resulting endgame databases are huge (on the order of hundreds of terabytes).  Each time a new piece is added, the size and complexity of the calculations goes up exponentially, which means that in the forseeable future, we can expect these results to expand by only a few pieces.


How can I add the Komodo chess engine to ChessBase 9? I bought the Komodo 10 chess engine.

Nowhere in the instructions that I could find does it explain how to add it as an engine, nor can I find any "komodo.eng" file in the Komodo directories.

What happens when try to add Komodo as a UCI engine. First this screen appears as I open "ChessEngine15.exe" in the Komodo directory:

Notice how the "OK" button is grayed out. Then after I click "Open" this happens:

The screen stays like this for about 20 seconds, then the Komodo front page disappears and the "Loading ChessProgram15.exe" box disappears as well, but the "Set up UCI Engine" dialog remains the same with the OK button grayed out, so there is no way to proceed other than Cancel. Clicking the "Parameters" button results in a "Loading" box, followed by a dialog box "Doesn't have parameters":

The problem is that the main exe is not the engine. The engine EXE is kind of hidden.

I was able to find the engine by using the SysInternals tool "Process Explorer". By starting Komodo and running Process Explorer I found that the main Komodo program launches the engine EXE as a child process.

The location of this child process on my Windows XP machine was the following:

C:\Program Files\Common Files\ChessBase\Engines.uci\Komodo 10\

By browsing to the exe in this folder in the UCI engine selection shown in the question, it worked.


Why do Chess GMs need coaches? Today chess.com did an interview with Carlsen's coach.

Someone like Carlen or Anand, why do they still need coaches? Their Elo is higher than their coaches, they can use engines to analyze the games, and they can beat their coaches in practically every game, obviously they know more openings than anyone in their room.

I understand that someone hires a coach to get better, or in other sports you do that to stay in shape, but this is chess and there are computers if you need help, i guess all the coaches use them, so why hiring them? What is their major role? Do all GM's have coaches? (including the ones who died, Fischer, Capablanca etc).

I don't know which person you are referring to, or if the exact word "coach" was used, but GMs like Carlsen don't really have coaches in the sense you are probably thinking of; they have seconds, who have the following functions:

Opening research. This might mean performing general research, or looking for particular weapons that are likely to be useful against the upcoming opponent, in this case Anand. Doing quality opening research takes a lot of time, and the player is better off paying strong GMs to do some of it for him them spending all the time on it himself. Also, they can spend time during the match doing further research based on the games already played, which the player doesn't have time to do.
Adjournment analysis. This is not really relevant anymore, but in the old days many games would be adjourned overnight, and the players' seconds would analyze the adjourned position all night and present him with their analysis the next day before the game resumed.
Training games. If a player has an opening idea, he can try it out against other players and see what sort of situations result from it before using it in a live game. This is often more relevant than playing games against a computer.
Moral support. Don't underestimate how much nicer it is to have a team of compatriots that can cheer you on when you do well or pick you up when you do badly. They probably also do other things together like exercise.


Systematic approach to learning opening/endgame theory? Some relevant information: I've been playing chess for 4 years, and for 3 in tournaments, although I've only played in about 10 tournaments so far (3 big ones, like the Pan Ams and Chicago Open). My current rating is 1650 UCSF, and my chesstempo rating is 2100, if that is relevant. I'm fairly strong at tactics (and getting away with unsound sacrifices), and decent at positional play (I can recognize the value of controlling dark/light squares, using/creating outposts, securing open files, removing defenders, playing with a space advantage etc).

The Problem: Theory. Although I play the King's Gambit as white, and the Alekhine's Defence/Grunfeld as black, all highly theoretical openings, I don't actually know theory beyond, say 5-8 moves at best. I'm a highly tactical player, so I just seek to create complications from the opening, and end up having a decisive game in the middlegame due to the ensuing fireworks. I've reached the endgame exactly twice so far (out of ~70 games, in tournaments), and hence have very little experience in them. But recently, I've been getting outplayed in the openings, and have decided that its time to man up and learn opening/endgame theory. Since its an arduous task, I request to you, wiser, more experienced players to give me advice on how to fight this monster. Where should I start? Is learning theory just rote memorization? How much is enough (certainly, 8 moves of theory won't do in the King's Gambit or Grunfeld, but may suffice in the Alekhine)?

I've tried to read two books on chess so far: Silman's "Reassess Your Chess", and Taylor's "Alekhine Alert!". While both are highly interesting, I lose patience when they spit out a 50-move continuation after showing an interesting position, and due to not having a board around, I slam the book shut. Do you guys know of any books that don't do that/other resources to help learn theory in an entertaining way?

P.S. I'm very scared of the French and the English because they are highly theoretical, and score very badly against them because I keep trying odd responses (I play the KIA against the French to avoid having my d4 pawn targeted, but get crushed on the queenside anyway, and try the Dutch defence against the English to not lose due to boredom, but lose due to inferior pawn structure (mainly) anyway).

I will preface this by saying that I'm a 2150 USCF player who has had the same issues that you are struggling with in the past. What I'm about to tell you comes straight from my own experiences playing chess all these years.

Don't study or memorize any theory straight up. I find it difficult to retain information like that and the potential for it to be used is minimal. The best way to learn theory is to first forget about it, and instead play games with that opening. Then after the game, when you are at home look up the theory for whatever variation you are playing and learn the theory AFTER you've played a tournament game with it. This usually consists of finding books related to the opening you've played, poring quickly through some GM games in the same line, and annotating the game you just played.

The amount of theory you need to know is enough that you
1) won't fall into any opening traps and
2) that you have a general sense of how to play your position once you are out of book.

There isn't a set number of moves you need to memorize, but these two criteria are questions you should ask yourself if you think the amount of theory you know in the opening is insufficient.

You might say that you are scared that if you don't know the theory, you might lose straight out of the opening. From my experience, you will win if you are the better player no matter what opening you play, and you will lose if you are the worse player even if you are armed with loads of theory. You say yourself that you feel that these other players outplay you out of the opening, but honestly, I have a feeling that they would've outplayed you no matter what the opening choice. Upping your entire game, and analyzing what you could have done better in the resultant opening and middlegame positions is far more important than a few temporary setbacks in tournament play.


Fritz for Fun 13: how do I add positions to a new database? My aim is to create a database of endgame positions taken from Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics in Fritz for Fun 13.

I've created a new database, but I do not know how to add games or positions. How do I add content to my empty database?

I'm not familiar with Fritz for Fun 13, but I have information about Fritz 13, which I will assume is the basis for your variant.

I'll also assume that you want to add a game / position manually, rather than import one (or a collection) from, say, a PGN file.

New Game: You can enter the moves for a new game by simply setting the players to 2-player mode, instead of player vs Fritz.  If you can't figure out how to do that, turn on "Infinite Analysis" mode with Alt-F2. That will prevent Fritz from entering an engine move. Then, just enter the moves.

New Position: Choose the menu option "Insert, Position Setup". Then, clear the board (in Fritz 13, it is pre-populated with the start position), and drag-and-drop or click-click your way to populating the position. Hint: In Fritz 13, if you click the white piece in the legend, and then left click on a square, you get a white piece. If you right-click on a square, you get a black piece. So, you can save yourself about 30-40% of your setup clicks by just selecting white pieces.

Finally, specify the side to move, using the appropriate checkbox. If one of the kings is in check, of course, you cannot save the position until that side is specified as having the move.

You may have to specify castling rights (kingside and/or queenside) for either white or black or both, if the kings and rooks are in their original positions, but the setup wizard (dis-)allows that side's castling erroneously. However, the wizard settings are generally correct, in my experience.  Only when either the king or the rook have moved from their home squares and then returned to them will the wizard's settings be wrong.  Don't worry about the king being in check or any of the relevant castling squares being under attack; the move entry function will prevent an immediate castling attempt in that situation.

Then, confirm that you're done with the position setup using the Ok button. You will then have an open game window (but not a saved game).

Saving Games and Positions: The last step is simply to save the game/position. In Fritz 13, if you had clicked on a database (or had a list open) before you started the game/position entry process, that database would be where the game/position is saved by default if you use the "Save" menu item.  Otherwise, you have to navigate to the appropriate database using the "Save As..." menu option. So, I generally select my database first.

Tip: You can actually use a copy/paste operation to save the game from an open game window into a database. There are tons of ways to specify "copy", including right-clicking in the Notation pane, or by typing [Ctrl][C]. Once you've put the game in the clipboard (the results of this copy action are invisible, but trust me, it's there), you can paste it (any way you like) into a selected or open database, a Notepad window or other text editor, or an email as a text attachment.  But watch out; if you paste it into a database window, different versions of Fritz are inconsistent about whether a subsequent Replace operation will affect the pasted game.  To be safe, I close the open game window, and then open the game from the database list.  That ensures that a later Replace will put the game back in that slot.


How to play against the Polish opening? 1. b4 It seems like that black can some how equalize. Despite this, I somehow get tricked and lose my games against this opening.

I have played against this opening a lot, sometimes in bullet sometimes in blitz games, and even in casual ones without the clock. some of the opponents were strong candidate masters and sometimes a FIDE master would use it.

The easiest defense for me is 1...e5 and on 2.Bb2 to simply take on b4. This has several benefits:

White is behind in development ( plays twice with the bishop );
Black hinders White's fight for the center by keeping bishop on a5-e1 diagonal. This is very effective method that simply squelches any initiative White has. He may be equal in the resulting tabya but that is all he gets, and frankly, I believe Black has an easier game;
Black gets half-open e-file which is very useful, since he will play ...d5 and ...Re8 at some point, so he can count on ...d4 push to generate initiative;
Being behind in development and restrained in center, White can't really use b-file;
Since Black has development advantage, the opening of the game benefits him ( ...d4 push mentioned above is useful for this );
All of the Black pieces can acquire best squares ( knights on c6 and f6, bishops on b4 and g4 );
Black has no pawn weaknesses, nor weak pieces, while White has weak pawn at a2;

That is why I would advise you the above approach when battling the Sokolsky attack ( known also as Polish opening or Orangutan ). I have looked into Fritz opening database and found the lines I think give good game for Black in the easiest way ( I have added multiple hoices for Black so you can have a wider choice ). I am going to present them in the below diagram and will explain typical positions and plans afterwards.

[Title "Recommended theory for Sokolsky attack"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 ( 2.a3 d5 3.Bb2 ( 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Bd6 5.Nf3 ( 5.c4 c6 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Nc3 a6 ) 5...Qe7 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 a6 ) 3...Bd6 4.e3 ( 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.e3 Nf6 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 a6 ) ( 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 Nf6 9.Nf3 ( 9.Bxh8 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4 ) 9...Qg3 10.Bxf6 ( 10.Bxh8 Bh3 ) 10...Rg8 11.Rxh2 Qg6 12.Be5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Qxe5 ) 4...Nf6 5.Nf3 ( 5.c4 c6 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Nc3 a6 ) 5...Qe7 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 a6 ) ( 2.b5 d5 3.Bb2 Bd6 4.e3 ( 4.Nf3 Qe7 ) ( 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 Nf6 9.Nf3 ( 9.Bxh8 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4 ) 9...Qg3 10.Bxf6 ( 10.Bxh8 Bh3 ) 10...Rg8 11.Rxh2 Qg6 12.Be5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Qxe5 ) 4...Nf6 ) 2...Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.c4 ( 4.c3 Be7 ) ( 4.Nf3 O-O 5.e3 d5 ) 4...O-O 5.Nf3 ( 5.e3 d5 6.cxd5 ( 6.Nf3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Be2 Nc6 9.Bb2 Bf5 ) ( 6.Qb3 c5 7.a3 Ba5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bc4 Nb6 10.Be2 Nc6 11.Bb2 Be6 ) ( 6.a3 Ba5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 ) 6...Nxd5 7.Nf3 Re8 ( 7...Be7 8.a3 c5 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Bb2 b6 11.O-O Bb7 ) 8.Bb2 ( 8.Be2 Rxe5 9.Nxe5 Qf6 10.f4 Nxe3 11.Qb3 Nxg2+ 12.Kd1 Nxf4 13.Nxf7 Qxf7 14.Bc4 Be6 15.Bxe6 Nxe6 ) 8...Be7 ) 5...Nc6 6. Bb2 d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5

OK, now you have thorough coverage of your repertoire with Black. I have tried to keep the number of lines to minimum, but all relevant White replies had to be covered. It is time to explain the ideas and plans in each separate position for Black:

[Title "White takes pawn at e5, Black takes pawn on b4"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/3n4/1b6/5N2/PB1PPPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQ - 0 8"]

In the above position Black has no weak pieces, he is not cramped and has development advantage. White on the other hand does have central pawn majority but he can't utilize it to gain initiative. The best he can do is e3 so he can safely finish development. Notice the tremendous pressure Bb4+ Nd5 exert on the White position by pressuring the dark squares ( c3 and the entire a5-e1 diagonal! ). This is the key idea of Black's defense in this, and similar positions -> to control a5-e1 diagonal and the dark squares. Black is more than fine here and simply playing natural moves should give you satisfactory position. It is White who fights for equality here.

[Title "Tremendous exchange sacrifice for Black"]
[fen "rn4k1/ppp2qpp/4n3/8/1b6/1Q6/P2P3P/RN1K3R w - - 0 16"]

This is one of the variations from the above diagram that is most complex but is easy to play with Black. Black has sacrificed the rook for a knight, bishop, two pawns and exposed White king. The compensation is more than enough and Black has a winning position in my opinion. Just develop Nb8 and do not be afraid of d4, threatening to fork the knights with d5, because you have ...Rd8! which pins the pawn and gives decisive initiative. White can't survive because of his exposed king and lag in development. Again, you are fine.

[Title "White plays the weak f4 attack"]
[fen ""]

1.b4 e5 2.a3 d5 3.Bb2 Bd6 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 Nf6 9.Nf3 ( 9.Bxh8 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4-+ ) 9...Qg3 10.Bxf6 ( 10.Bxh8 Bh3-+ 11.Rxh2 $8 Ng4 ) 10...Rg8 11.Rxh2 Qg6 12.Be5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6+ 14.Kg1 Qxe5

The whole point of f4 lines is to accept the pawn, gambit the rook on h8 and smash White in the coming attack. These lines can be tricky so you could additionally analyze them with an engine, just to see how exactly can you capitalize on your advantage the easiest. Again, nothing to worry here, Black has a winning attack.

[Title "White doesn't take the Black's pawn at e5"]
[fen "rnb1k2r/1p2qppp/p1pb1n2/3pp3/1PP5/P1N1PN2/1B1P1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQ - 0 14"]

Here, White is smart and doesn't wish to make early trouble. He will finish development first, and then will try to capitalize on his queenside space advantage. The most typical plan in similar pawn structures is minority attack. That is why Black played ...a6 at some point, to hinder this plan.

Black will maintain his advantage in center, and will refute any type of wing play White bases. Remember the golden rules:

Attack in the center refutes the wing attack;
Who controls the center, controls the wings too;

I would recommend you to study Orthodox defense of the QGD, and the Exchange variation of the QGD as positional transformations of the above position will have very similar plans like in the mentioned lines. M.Sadler-Queen's Gambit Declined ( 2000 ) is dated but excellent starting point. The book is clearly written and explains all the plans that might crop up here. You might need to learn about Isolated Queen's Pawn, and my answer to this question might be helpful as a starting point. For further reading I highly recommend A.Soltis-Pawn Structure Chess ( 1995 ) as it is simply awesome.

If you have further questions leave me a comment. Hopefully this helps.


The earliest possible knight fork I hope it's OK with a question on the fringes of existing opening theory.

If white wants to combine pawn moves f4 and b4 early in the opening, he has to be aware of  the possibility of black snatching a pawn. One example is Larsen-Raizman from the 1958 Olympiad 1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.b4, where black could have gone 3...Nd5!? with complicated play.

Even earlier possible pawn losses are 1.f4 d5 2.b4 Qd6 and 1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5. I want to focus on this last variation.

    [FEN ""]
1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5

Before I thought this was good for black, but now I'm not so sure anymore.
3.e4 Nxf4 4.d4 looks like great compensation, although ironically I would prefer the b4 pawn back on b2. Black is better advised to play 3...Nxb4, for instance 4.d4 d5. A possible improvement for white is 3.d4 and after 3...Nxb4 start chasing the knight around.

Questions:

Is 2...Nd5 advisable for black?

How should white react?

This question led me to spend two hours of my life looking at a line that I most likely never will get to play.  I went into it being quite confident that Nd5 was a bad move simply because White would get too much development for the cost of a simple pawn.  Analysing back and forth with Houdini has nevertheless convinced me that Nd5 is perfectly playable.

The similarities to the Sokolsky Opening

To get a feel for the b4 pawn it helps to understand a variation from the Sokolsky Opening.  It goes like this:

[FEN ""]

1. b4 e6  2. Bb2 Nf6  3.b5

Here the pawn on b5 is slightly annoying.  It cannot be easily removed as a6 can be answered by a4 (it does not matter if the rooks are swapped off as White intends to castle short anyway) and c6 can be answered by e3 when Black must take away from the centre to remove the pawn.

In the game, however, Black can simply play a6 in the similar position as White can't answer with a4:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6  2. b4 e6  3.b5 a6

So after 2...e6 White is only left with 3 a3, which, although reasonable, is another pawn move on the wing.  Black will be very solid after playing simple development like d5, Bd6 and 0-0.  This is slightly better than one of the main lines of the Sokolsky Opening, which is not that good to start with (but where White often ends up playing f4 later).

Houdini 3 on 2...Nd5

The currently strongest engine on the planet is Houdini 3.  When you let it analyse the position before 2...Nd5 to a depth of 25 it likes 2...d6 (claiming a small advantage for Black) the best (with 2...d5 as a strong second).  2...Nd5 does not come up as a top five alternative.  Houdini is initially not impressed by grabbing the pawn.

White plays 3 e4

Nevertheless, 2...Nd5 is still an interesting alternative and certainly gives more entertaining variations to look at.  First let us take a look at what happens if White plays 3 e4 after 2...Nd5 and then Black takes the pawn at b4:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6  2.b4 Nd5  3.e4 Nxb4  4.c3 N4c6  5.d4 d5  6.Nd2 dxe4  7.Nxe4

To explain this variation it is important to know that Black's hope and main idea against a setup with f4-e4-d4 is to play d5 and develop Bc8 to f5or g4.  In the variation above it turns out Black can't play either.  Bg4 simply hangs the bishop and Bf5 runs into Ng3 chasing it back.  Here I (and Houdini) believe White has compensation for the pawn (although perhaps nothing more).

So, let us look at the alternative.  Initially I was sure that 3...Nxf4 must be horrible for Black, but it turns out it is good after 4. d4 e5!:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5 3.e4 Nxf4 4.d4 e5 5.dxe5 Ne6

As seen above, if White makes the natural capture on e5, Black just retreats the knight.  Material is now even, but Black has two threats; The killing Qh4+ and just grabbing the b4 pawn.  So Black will end up a pawn up with a much better pawn structure and no imminent attack from White.

Instead White must play:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5 3.e4 Nxf4 4.d4 e5 5.Nf3 Ne6 6.d5 Nd4 7.c3 (7.Ng5) Nxf3+ 8.Qxf3 a5

In the above variation please note that 6 Nxe5 runs into 6...Qxh4+.  The same idea works against 7 Nxd4.  And despite all the knight moves Black is left clearly better in this variation too.  If you want to play this variation with White you need to try the chaotic 7.Ng5!?, hoping to trap the knight at d4.  Have fun analysing that.

White plays 3 d4

I believe 3 d4 is a strong alternative for White.  If Black takes the pawn on b4 it transposes to a variation we have already looked at:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5 3.d4 Nxb4 4.c3 N4c6 5.e4 d5 6.Nd2 dxe4 7.Nxe4

So, as I mentioned in a comment to the question, perhaps Black can try the amazing 3...Nf6 with the simple plan of d5 and Bf5.  In this variation White will have more space, but also more weaknesses (and, no, Black is not behind in development):

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5 3.d4 Nf6

White plays 3 Bb2

Seeing that White will lose one pawn anyway, why not play a development move like  and see which pawn Black decides to take?  It seems that Black can just grab the f4 pawn and get away with it.  Let us see what happens if White tries to push Black off the board:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5 3.Bb2 Nxf4 4.e3 Ng6 5.h4 h5 6.Be2 d5 7.Bxh5 Qd6

White won the h5 pawn, but now the threat of Qg3+ is just killing White.  Instead, if White tried some quiet development moves:

[FEN ""]

1.f4 Nf6 2.b4 Nd5 3.Bb2 Nxf4 4.e3 Ng6 5.Nf3 e5 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Bxe5 Nc6

Black gets a small advantage by the precise 5...e5 which trades the not so optimally placed Ng6 (Black is still a pawn up).  Note that the alternative 3 Nf3 could easily transpose as it does not seem that White can improve much

Conclusion

The fork 2...Nd5 works out well for Black, despite Houdini's initial reluctance towards it.  It seems White should play 3 d4 to equalise.  I would certainly try 2...Nd5 should 1 f4 Nf6  2 b4 be played against me.


Cyclic attack puzzle I saw this puzzle and a solution sometime in the previous century, I don't remember where, and I don't remember the solution.
Place the 16 white men on an otherwise empty chessboard so that the following conditions are satisfied.

Each man attacks one and only one other man.
Each man is attacked by one and only one other man.
The bishops are on opposite colors.
One pawn on each file, no pawns on the first or last rank.
There is one continuous cycle of attack, meaning that the men can be numbered from 1 to 16 so that #1 attacks #2, which attacks #3, which attacks #4, . . ., which attacks #15, which attacks #16, which attacks #1.

What's the solution?
Partial solutions (satisfying the first three conditions, but with doubled pawns or with two or more cycles of attack), will be appreciated and upvoted, but I'm hoping to accept an answer satisfying all five conditions.

Best solution
If there is nothing wrong with my rather spaghettoid script (admittedly, a big if) then there is no complete solution. The best my computer finds is two cycles.
It finds essentially three such solutions plus a few minor variations. Interestingly, the split is always 3-13.
[FEN "1Q6/3R4/NB2P3/1P3P2/2P3P1/1N1P3P/P4KB1/R7 w - - 0 1"]

.
[FEN "R7/BP6/2PK4/6R1/2N3BP/1N1P2P1/P3PP2/Q7 w - - 0 1"]

.
[FEN "6R1/6BP/1N4P1/P4P2/BP2P1NK/2PP4/7Q/3R4 w - - 0 1"]

Strategy / computer implementation
From the assumptions follow a handful of constraints that enable an exhaustive search.

There are no more than 4 chains of Ps. That is because Ps can only attack other Ps or Rs or Ns and each separate chain has a P at the base that is not available to be attacked by another P. Each chain is capped by a R or N.
The major pieces each have a rank to themselves. That is because there is at least a P on their file, so they must spend their attack on that file. The Q, in particular, must also have her diagonals to herself.
The Q must be attacked by a N.
At least 1 chain of Ps must be capped off by a N. There are at least two Ps on the same rank and their respective chains cannot be both capped by Rs because then 1 chain would have to cross the private rank of the other chains R.

Using these constraints makes the code rather verbose and ugly but keeps the number of candidates below a million or so.
Relaxing the rules
If we lift the one pawn per file rule it becomes untractable for my computer program, but we can solve manually
[FEN "6R1/1R6/1BP3BN/3P2P1/2P2P2/1P4P1/P1N2K/Q7 w - - 0 1"]

Last word: The i files
We can actually achieve a full solution with no doubled pawns by ever so slightly bending the rules. All we need to do is rip out the f file but relax we are putting it right back: as the new i file. Job done:


Let's face it (and this is not being mean), both players are beginner chess players and are naturally making lots of mistakes. For instance 7....Qa5+ would win the knight on e5. Also black had a forced mate starting with 14. ... Rxf2+ (with the idea to remove the pawn first which could intercept bishop checks) but chose to win the queen instead.

Of course 12. Qxg7 was a losing mistake because after 12 ... Rg8 you will lose the queen (or the game if you let black take on g2). You could call this a mini-trap, but more typically you would call the pawn on g7 poisoned pawn, because it kind of obviously should not be captured because of the resulting attack on g2.

It is well worth memorizing the pattern of Nf6, Qg7, Rg8 as you will encounter it in many games, in all four corners of the board (i.e. also with queens on b7, b2, g2). Also note, that in this setup the square/pawn h7 is protected, leaving the queen only one square to escape. So, if you memorize this pattern  you should memorize it together with two ideas: i) the rook might attack something along the g-file (or b-file if in other corners) and ii) the queen has little space (and in other situations that one escape square might not be available; e.g. occupied or under attack).

I don't think this pattern/"trap" has any specific name. After 13. Qh6 Rxg2+ 14. Kh1, white runs into a discovered check which is very often deadly.

Apart from the forced check mate after 14...Rxf2+, you could also consider this as a mini windmill, i.e. you could win an extra pawn (on f2) in addition to the queen. But note that black cannot continue with the windmill (winning pawns on c2, b2, a2) because white can cover the bishop check with Rf3 and escape with the king to f1.


Did Anand have a forced win at any point in Game 9 of the 2013 Anand-Carlsen world champhionship match? For much of today's Anand-Carlsen game, white seemed to have a powerful mating attack. But from the analyses I've seen, there was never a point where it was clear that black would not be able to defend against best play. Was there any point in the game at which, with best play on white's part, all lines lead to a win?

[FEN ""]
[Event "WCh 2013"]
[Site "Chennai IND"]
[Date "2013.11.21"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E25"]
[WhiteElo "2775"]
[BlackElo "2870"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "2013.11.09"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 exd5 8.
e3 c4 9. Ne2 Nc6 10. g4 O-O 11. Bg2 Na5 12. O-O Nb3 13. Ra2 b5 14. Ng3 a5 15.
g5 Ne8 16. e4 Nxc1 17. Qxc1 Ra6 18. e5 Nc7 19. f4 b4 20. axb4 axb4 21. Rxa6
Nxa6 22. f5 b3 23. Qf4 Nc7 24. f6 g6 25. Qh4 Ne8 26. Qh6 b2 27. Rf4 b1=Q+ 28.
Nf1 Qe1 0-1

The game was ambiguous until move 28, there is no clear way to win but as you mentioned white has the attacking form.

Let see the game from move 18.e5

2bqnrk1/5ppp/r7/pp1p2P1/2pPP3/P1P2PN1/R5BP/2Q2RK1 w - - 1 18

White is attacking on king's side as Kasparov mentioned he could play 18.Rb2 to avoid black to make a passed pawn and keep pressure in both king and queen sides. But white decided to complicate the game.

Another move which leads many people criticize Anand was move 20.axb4

2bq1rk1/2n2ppp/r7/p2pP1P1/1ppP1P2/P1P3N1/R5BP/2Q2RK1 w - - 0 20

1.f5 b3 2.Raf2

Some GMs and also engines prefer to push the pawn to f5 and continue attacking just in king's side. White's 20.axb4 made a passed pawn for black on square b3 (two moves to promote) and black got counter play.

Before move 28 white had attacking chances and a draw at least. But white made a blunder 28.Nf1??, if 28.Bf1 was played, then the game can continue in this way:

2bqnrk1/5p1p/5PpQ/3pP1P1/2pP1R2/2P3N1/6BP/1q4K1 w - - 1 28

1. Bf1 Qd1 2. Rh4 Qh5 3. Nxh5 gxh5 4. Rxh5 Bf5

The game is almost a draw with some minor advantages for black. It's ambiguous.

But white played 28.Nf1?? and black put his queen on e1 to capture the white's rook on h4 -- a big material advantage for black.


Pawn confrontations: capture, push past, or leave the tension? When your opponent moves a pawn to a position where it can be captured by one of your pawns, how should you determine whether to capture it, push past it or leave the tension on the board and make a different move?

I appreciate that the answer may vary with pawn structure, game phase, and style of play (e.g. a preference for open or closed games), and I know that pushing past is not always an option (break moves, pushing to unsafe squares). But are there any guiding principles to make the decision easier? Are there any books or videos that cover this subject?

Ideally I'd like an answer involving general principles but – in case it helps to illustrate them – here are some sample positions you can refer to if you'd like. (Using your own positions instead is fine too, though!)

Game 1: Black plays d5, White to move

r1bqk2r/pp2npbp/2n1p1p1/2pp4/4PP2/1PN2N2/P1PPB1PP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 14 8

Should White capture on d5, push past to e5, or leave the tension?

Game 2: Black plays d5, White to move

rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3p4/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 4 3

Capturing (exchange), pushing past (advance), and leaving the tension (Nc3/Nd2 etc.) are all popular lines against the French. Are there any common principles that can be applied to help determine the most favourable line? (Nc3 is most common, but what principles explain why that's favourable to capturing or pushing?)

Game 3: Black plays d5, White to move

rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/2PP4/5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 6 4

Should White capture on d5, push past to c5, or leave the tension?

Game 4: White plays e4, Black to move

r1bbr1k1/pppn2pp/3ppn2/5p1q/2PPP3/BPN2NP1/P1Q2PBP/3R1RK1 b - - 23 12

Pushing the pawn to f4 gives up the pawn with no compensation, so should Black capture on e4 or play another move?

This is too complex to have straight principles. Of course there are some patterns that you are going to recognize during your improvement and there are also easy things. I'm going to mention a few at the end of this post. First of all, let me refer to positions cited by you.

Position #1
Key is calculating, always, and this is great example. First thing you should do is asking yourself: what can I do? Can I not react, keep the tension? The answer is 'No.'. Your e4 pawn is hanging. You can't play d3 because you'd lose your knight then. Bd3? Too facticious obviously. So now comes the question: e5 or exd5? Well, after exd5 - Nxd5 c3 is hanging, f4 is hanging, I don't really like it. There are moves like Ba3 but somehow I don't like playing such moves. To sum up, after a moment of fast calculation, I'd choose e5.

Position #2
You mentioned all the possibilities. Why do people choose 3. Nc3 frequently? It's most aggressive, probably giving best chances. But it's also most complicated, definitely. Nd2 is also quite nice, if I recall correctly it's Micheal Adams' favourite choice. If you want a draw just exchange and develop your pieces. Positions after 3. exd5 are mostly drawish. e5 are for closed-positions-lovers. You should know what fits your play-style. If you are willing to be better at french, I suggest you nice video series on this topic by Rustam Kasimdzhanov, I think it's chessbases' stuff.

Position #3
It's also all theory. You can play exchange variation or keep tension. That's also something you should fit to your play-style. One thing is for sure, never play 4. c5 here. That's losing advantage on the spot. Simple 4. ... - b6 and you are not white anymore after few moves.

Position #4
It's calculation...again. As you correctly mentioned: playing f4 is pointless. It's giving up a pawn for literally free. So again, two choices here. If we don't take, what do we play? f5 is hanging, so let's defend it. We can play g6 and create additional holes or move our Nd7 to f8 or b6 to discover your Bc8. Once we jump anywhere (same after g6) white is going to play e5. Black is too squeezed. His pieces are passive, his Queen is on h5 doing nothing. It's hard to find a continuation. And again, after few moments we are sure we should capture on e4. So ... - fxe4 is a move here, then best to exchange Knights since when you are the passive one, you should look for exchanges.

Now few easy positions with patterns or principles.

[fen "4k3/pp3ppp/3p4/4p3/3PP3/8/PP3PPP/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

You rather don't want to exd4 because your d6 pawn is weak then. (assuming there are more pieces of course.

[fen "8/1p6/2p5/1PPp4/3P4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

You rather don't cxb5 because then your d5-pawn and b7-pawn are weak. (assumption like above)

Those 2 above were pretty easy, now something more difficult (but not too difficult) and illustrative.

[fen "8/p5pp/1p1bk3/PPp4P/2P1K1P1/8/4N3/8 w - - 0 1"]

As white you should play a6 here. Whole point is in the future your plan will be something like that: Nc1-b3-a5-c6. Taking advantage of impossible bxa5 because of b6. Of course this must be calculated (again!) and well prepared. This is just and example of pattern. Unfortunately, this is probably impossible to paste you 1000 examples here. This comes along with experience and you will notice that for yourself. Those were just few examples, hope you get my point. Good luck!


Are Elo Ratings Zero-Sum? Are Elo ratings a zero-sum system in chess? In other words, if I gain +9 points from a game, does my opponent necessarily take a -9 point loss? If so, would it make sense to say that Elo points are a kind of "currency" which gets traded around the pool of chess players? Would players that are overrated because of playing in a weaker pool have less "purchasing power"?

Between most players, Elo ratings are zero-sum.
The formula for updating an Elo rating looks like this. Suppose player 1 and player 2 are playing a game. First, their ratings are used to generate a prediction: an expected score W that player 1 will get against player 2. Then, we compare this to the actual score, X. player 1 will get K*(X-W) points, where K is a "development factor" - more on this later on.
From player 2's point of view, the expected score is 1-W and the actual score is 1-X (a score of 1 for player 1 means a score of 0 for player 2, and vice versa). So player 2's rating changes by K*((1-X)-(1-W)) or K*(W-X) points, which is the negative of player 1's change. Zero-sum!
The development factor K is the only thing that can break this. In the FIDE version of the Elo rating system, this value is 20 for most players, but it's 40 for new players (to represent the uncertainty in their rating) and 10 for players that have ever had a rating over 2400 (for the opposite effect). If two players from different categories play, then the result will not be zero-sum.
Also, globally, the sum of ratings does change, because players are leaving and entering the pool. A new player starts with an Elo rating determined by their first few games, adding to the supply. That rating may become larger or smaller by the time they stop playing chess for whatever reason - removing another number from the supply.


How to craft a chess set? I'm thinking to have fun this summer, trying to craft my own wooden chess set. Has anyone tried doing so? How should I proceed? What materials to buy? what guides to follow?

I have not tried to do exactly chess set but I have some experience (really basic) with doing things from wood. I will tell what I learned from my experience, and may be someone more experienced can refine it.

Crafting from wood is not really that hard (on amateur level). You need:

material (basically wood and in the beginning almost any wood is acceptable, but not the wood you can buy for setting the fire. Also do not listen to people who will suggest you to buy most expensive/cool wood, because if you are doing it for the first time, you will most probably fail a few times before you can do something. When you see that you are ok, you can buy better materiel)
Lathe (it quickly rotates your piece, allowing you to create axis of rotation elements)
chisel (to make small holes inside)
file (to refine your piece and to add some details)
hammer (everyone needs hammer. You might need it to protect your pieces from other people)
varnish (when you finish your thing, you have to cover it look better or not to get a thorn)

Not all of the things are needed. Also do not be intimidated when you see that this things are so big and your pieces should be really small: there are small equivalents of all the tools.

Tools like lathe are expensive, but a lot of schools and may be some repair shops can have it. So it is a good idea to go and ask them for permission to use it (you also should be careful to read how to use it, because it can damage you).

So, you have the tools. First of all try to create bigger things. From my experience, the smaller the thing you want to do - the more careful/skilled you have to be. So try to create big pawn/rook in the beginning. Like 20-40 centimeters high. Not 2-4 cm. When you feel that you are good with big things, you can go smaller.

Having a lathe it will be pretty easy, because as you noticed - all the pieces (except of the knight) are symmetrical along the Z-axis. To carve the wood, you use lathe with chisel (it is hard for me to explain how it work: all you do is to move chisel to the spinning wood and it cuts away part of it). This way you can do everything except of a knight. For knight you have to use only chisel and it is really complicated (for people like me).

Mark the wood with pen/pencil/marker to know where you have to cut it and always compare the piece you do with the same one you already done (unless you want all your bishops to be a different diameter/size).

Than you refine your pieces with file, paint them and later varnish. Do not be disappointed if you will fail at the first time and do not try to use complicated designs in the beginning.

This is some old school techniques, for a new generation - take a look at 3d printer which can carve from wood.


What is this formation called? I recently came across this formation at random. I vaguely remember reading about it around a decade ago. I want to know if this is a known play.
[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/2NPPN2/PPPBBPPP/2RQKR2 w - - 0 1"]

Even though pieces are White, I'm not claiming that it's a White/Black only formation. It's just to give you an idea.
I had a chat with a friend. It certainly had a slow play, the b and g are, pawns at risk, and there is no clear indication as to how to move forward once this is achieved. However, for the sake of knowing what it is, it'd be great if you could help.

In this question the formation is referred to as a "turtle formation", although that's in the context of Bughouse. I've also personally heard it referred to that way in the context of Bughouse when playing over the board (although not with the rooks moved to those squares.)

Bughouse aside, there's a lot wrong with doing things this way. The bishops are blocked in. The queen is blocked in. The rooks are not connected and are stuck behind pawns that can't even move because the knights are there. The king is stuck in the middle; he can't ever castle because both rooks moved. Almost no space has been gained. It takes 8 moves to obtain this position, giving the opponent lots of time to complete their development while putting no pressure at all on them. On the plus side, your opponent might not know how to deal with such an unfamiliar formation.


Time control notation explained? Can someone explain this time control notation to me?

  6SS, 40/120 sd30 d5

That indicates slightly more than just the time control:

6SS indicates a 6-round Swiss system tournament.
40/120 indicates that each side will have 120 minutes to make the first 40 moves of the game.
sd30 indicates that after the first 40-move time control is met, each side will have an additional 30 minutes for the remainder of the game ("sd" = sudden death).
d5 indicates that there will be a 5-second delay on each move, during which one's clock will not yet have started to tick.


Opening books, theory on Maroczy Bind I am just asking if there is any book that cover specifically on the Maroczy Bind structure, which can arise from Sicilian Accelerated Dragon

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

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.f3 O-O 9.Be2 Bd7 10.O-O Rc8 11.Qd2

By the way, any suggestions on the way of playing this position onwards is most welcomed. Because for me, I am lost after reaching this position and I just play for developing. Are there any plans or guidelines for white for playing for a win?

The comment doesn't have to be based on the position above. Any suggestion regarding the Maroczy Bind structure is welcomed.

The Maroczy System is covered from white's point of view in Opening for White according to Kramnik, Vol 3 (2001) by Khalifman. This book contains around 70 pages about the Maroczy. In the new edition (2011), the Maroczy System is moved to Volume 4 for some reason.

There is also a small chapter about the Maroczy in Wojo's Weapons, Volume 3 by Hilton and Ippolito. Here the focus is more on ideas for white than on concrete lines.


I'm confused about the 50-move rule A player may claim a draw after 50 moves-does this mean 25 moves by each player, which results 50, or 50 moves by each player, which results 100?

From the FIDE rules (emphasis added):

9.3
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

So it's 100 total plies, or "half-moves."


Can my pc calculate to depth 125 in 15 seconds, if a chess engine is programmed well? I have a PC, an AMD RYZEN 7 2700 with minimal graphic card and 8 GB RAM. It has 8 cores and 16 threads.

If a chess engine is programmed well will it be able to calculate to a depth of 125  in 15 seconds? My question to the forum is is it scientifically possible? Please share your thoughts.

Sure it could, if you do a lot of pruning and consider only one or few branches. However it would likely not be a very strong engine, because it would miss lots of relevant sidelines/variations.

Longer answer:

The "depth" you see in engines does not mean, that the engine calculates all variations to that depth. This would be practically impossible because of the huge number of variations: After just 1 white and 1 black move you  already have 20*20=400 different games. With every move that you look ahead this number increases by a factor that is on average around 35.

Because of that, engines are (just like humans) only considering what they think are the relevant lines, by ignoring all other moves. This is called "pruning".

If you do this pruning very heavily you can end up with an engine that can look very deep. However it would look in a very narrow range, considering only one line or so.

It would miss lots of moves/lines and be very weak.  Roughly speaking you could say that engines are doing a compromise between depth, width (number of variations) and allocated time in order to optimize for playing strength.


2 rooks vs 2 minor pieces in a pawnless endgame I know that 2 rooks vs 2 minor pieces is a win for the rooks (at least from the endgame tablebases), but I found nothing about the winning strategy.
For example, consider a KRR-KBB endgame with opposite colored bishops. It seems to me that the natural way for the rooks to win is to drive the enemy king to a corner, and then exchange the rook for the "good" bishop, which has the color opposite to the corne. This transforms it into to a KR-KB endgame with the opposing king is trapped in the "bad" corner so the side with rook wins.
How good good or bad is this strategy?

First of all I believe that this endgame must be really rare in practical games.

Playing around with the tablebase of rook+rook vs bishop+bishop, I noticed the following:

the weaker side quickly runs out of checks
the rooks cover quite some squares, leaving little space for the bishops
it is not difficult for the rook side to avoid getting pinned
with the help of all three pieces (two rooks + king) it is easy to drive the enemy king to the border
once the king is at the edge of the board, you just threaten the typical mate with two rooks, to which there is no defense really (if a bishop is placed to protect against a check from the side, you can easily win this bishop using the other rook
in many cases it also happens that you can win a bishop through a pin before the king is pushed to the side of the board

I suggest that you play this endgame against an engine to see for yourself. It does not seem particularly difficult that you would need any method. Just checking the king and pushing him to the border in the usual way is winning.

I'd expect that playing against two knights or bishop+knight should be even easier because of the shorter range of the knights.


What are some good quality magnetic chess sets? I'm looking for an attractive (probably all-wood external) magnetic chess set that has reasonably strong magnets and pieces of relatively normal size; I've had enough of the chintzy plastic ones with 1/2" kings.  I'd also prefer it to be a one-piece board, not a folding one (though that's not important). I was thinking of purchasing one of these:

Link

Link

I was just wondering whether anyone has had experience with these or other similar sets and would like to recommend them for their strong magnets.  Again, I'd like its squares no smaller than, say, 3/4".  And a folding board is fine, though I'd prefer one with a drawer.

Edit: I'm looking for a set that wouldn't cost much over $50, but if there isn't really a good set available for such a price, I'd be willing to look into higher-priced sets (as in Ed Dean's answer)

I know you'd prefer a non-folding board, but since you say that's not a deal-breaker, I'll point you to the ChessMate TravelMate Deluxe set. It has nice wooden pieces and quite strong magnets. If you watch the video available at that link, at about 40 seconds in the board is turned upside down and shaken pretty vigorously, and the pieces all stay in place; it's no trick. The downside for the set is that it's pretty pricey, but I do own this one (like in Wes' comment, I received this set as a nice gift) and I can say first-hand that it's a pleasure to use. They also have some other more and less expensive travel sets that I'd guess are of similar quality.

In fact, I see that they have a non-folding set as well: TravelMate Box. It's just as pricey as the one I mentioned unfortunately, and I can't vouch for this one myself, but from their description at least it seems that its pieces have the same material and magnets as the one above.


Which side has the advantage in an Armageddon tiebreak game? It is generally considered that white has better chances of winning in chess. This is due to white's initiative, since white gets to move first. The difference in chances seems to get more significant, as the level of play gets higher.

So, I suppose most grandmasters will choose to play white, whenever they are given the choice (especially in crucial games).

(1) What is the general view on the Armageddon tiebreak in that respect? Is there a clear preference in tournament play, or are white and black equally liked in Armageddon? What are opinions on this at the top level?

(2) Take the extreme example. In case of a tie after all classical, rapid and blitz games in a WCh match, there would be a drawing of lots, and the player who wins, gets to choose the colour in the Armageddon game. Which colour would be the choice of most GMs?

Remark. There are many variants of the Armageddon tiebreak. To avoid ambiguity, let us fix the time control used in the rules for the Anand-Carlsen WCh match 2014:

  The player with the white pieces shall receive 5 minutes, the player with the black
  pieces shall receive 4 minutes whereupon, after the 60th move, both players shall receive an
  increment of 3 seconds starting from move 61. In case of a draw the player with the black
  pieces is declared the winner.

Armageddon Chess is a fair tie-break system only if the two players bid for how much time Black should have.

Foolishly most times I see Armageddon specified there is no bidding. Instead the Tournament Organizer gazes into his magic oracle which tells him the exactly correct fair amount of time to give to Black (the T.O. is careful to never let us see the oracle for ourselves). This no-bid foolishness amazes me.


Software suggestions to make printed chess exercises for kids I'm planning to create a bunch of printed exercises for kids of different levels. I am still searching online for ideas and software suggestion. I wonder how other coaches here have solved this problem. Which software did you use to make pages and pages of chess diagrams, say with little boxes below it for kids to enter the answer? Thanks!

ps: I have ChessBase. Researching about Latex, found something called Sribus (Although I'm yet to fully understand what it does). oh, and I don't code.

Possible ideas I found when I asked the question on Reddit r/chess

Chessbase + Wordprocessing tool
Lichess + Evernote clipper (or snagit, etc) + Word (Add +blog if you want the answers to be public)

Other useful links that were suggested as comments

Apronus Pgn viewer/editer
Free chess diagrams list


How to sort a chess PGN game by date Is there a way to sort a PGN chess game by date and export the sorted games as a new PGN file?

I have not tried this myself, but there is a forum post on chess.com that has instructions on how to do this in SCID (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/sorting-a-pgn)

Make an empty scid database
Import your games
Do database maintenance - Sort by date
Export your databse to PGN


Unknown Women International Masters I am interested in the history of chess and, looking at the old FIDE rankings, I am a little puzzled by the lack of information about some strong Women International Masters, with a FIDE rating above 2200.

For instance,

Lazic, Marina
Tazhieva, Lyazzat
Sergeeva, Tatyana
Update: Kogan, T, she is probably not titled but over 2200 in the late '80s.

Does anyone know them?
How old are they?  Are they still alive?

N.B. I couldn't find them and they may have been married and changed their names.

Tatyana Sergeeva (Татьяна Сергеева) and Lyazzat Tazhieva (Ляззат Тажиева) are representatives of Soviet/Kazakhstan school of chess.

According to this article from sports.kz, GM Bolat Asanov says:

  В 1996 году в мировом рейтинге женская сборная Казахстана занимала 8-9-е места. К сожалению, победная цепь разорвалась. Резервы «не поспели» и не смогли заполнить образовавшиеся пустоты: ушли из жизни Татьяна Сергеева, Ляззат Тажиева. ...

My translation:

  In 1996, in the world rating, Kazakhstan women national team was around the 8-9th place. Unfortunately, the winning streak was broken. The young blood was not ready fast enough and they were not able to fill the emerging gaps: Tatiana Sergeeva and Lyazzat Tazhieva passed away. ...

Therefore, sadly, these high-rated FIDE players of the 90s are not alive, unless there is some error in the report of "PROSPORT Kazakhstan" Talap Koybagarov or information given by Bolat Asanov.

Lyazzat Tazhieva:

July 2013, Shymkent Chess Tournament in memory of Lyazzat Tazhieva
In Shymkent, there seems to be a sports school named after Lyazzat

Tatyana Sergeeva (this is harder, as the last name is so much more common):

Wiki page in Kazakh lists Tatyana Sergeeva (Zhivaeva) to pass away in 2000. Also, it mentions her participating in the final of World Chess Olympiad in 1996 and 1998.:

  Татьяна Ильиничина Сергеева (Живаева) (1.01.1957 - 15.09.2000 Алм. қ-сы.), ХДСШ-і (1981). Респ-ның 4 дүркін (1977, 1980, 1991, 1996) ч-ны. 2 Рет КСРО ч-тының (1977-т.б., 1981- Алм.) финалында ойнады, Бүкілдүниежүзілік ш-т олимпиадасына (1996 - Ереван, 1998 - Элиста) қатысты.

  Қазақстан - спортшылар елі. Энциклопедиялық анықтамалық. - Алматы: "Сөздік-Словарь". ISBN 9965-822-57-3

with an apparent source of "Kazakhstan — Sportsmen Country. Encyclopedia."


When is the right time to offer a draw according to the FIDE OTB rules Is there any FIDE rule to say when is the right time to offer a draw?
To be more clear, shall I offer a draw when my clock is going or I should offer if my opponent's clock is running? In this situation if I offer a draw in my opponent move and he play a bad move, can he claim anything?

P.S: This happened to me, my opponent offered me a draw few seconds after he pressed the clock. Both position and time situation was in such a way that draw offer was already ridiculous, so to humiliate him, instantly after his offer I played a stupid move to say even if I do nonsense you will lose, but just after I moved I saw that this was one of the most stupid moves possible to play which cost me a rook and the game. Even that this was my mistake to get upset but my opponent in some sense played the man not the game and I think it was not fair.

9.1.b.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at
  any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be
  considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases
  the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent
  accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the
  intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some
  other way.

  11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of
  a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.


How often does each side win in Rook, Bishop and Knight versus Queen? How often does each side win in Rook, Bishop and Knight versus Queen endings?  It is a 6-piece endgame so the evaluation of each position is known but I could not find statistics on this endgame after searching for a while.

[FEN "8/8/8/3k4/3N4/2q5/5K2/R5B1 w - - 0 46"]

The best resource I know for endgame statistics is the ICGA spreadsheet at https://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/games/chess/endgames.php. The spreadsheet posted there contains pretty much all 6-man endgames. So for example KRBNKQ is found in row 277 (assuming White has RBN), with the following percentages:

       wtm    btm
W win 51.35  9.45
 draw 45.13 49.27
B win  3.52 41.28

So the result is highly dependent on who has the move.

EDIT: Clarifications (1) This is a tablebase based on computer analysis of all possible positions with these 6 pieces. It does not refer to actual games played over the board. (2) The spreadsheet refers to "non-broken positions" which approximates to "legal positions".


Getting the most out of chess books I have a bunch of chess books that have been given to me on my favorite openings. I usually try to do a few games from them after I play my daily games and go over how I could improve with a chess engine.

However I feel like I am not getting the most from the books, and my coach hasn't really helped me yet understand how best to use them. Keep in mind I'm still a beginner, I'm hovering in the 800-900 range.

It comes down to I think a few things I don't get:

Many books I have just jump straight into games and talk about this or that variation, or another game, or their thoughts on the move. None of them discuss the ideas behind why those moves are good ideas, which I think is key in helping me understand. For example I watched a video of Karpov explaining some stuff on the Queens gambit that fundamentally improved my play because I was told the motivation behind the ideas.
I only have one program or chessboard available to me at any given time. Most books talk about variations in the middle of discussing a mainline. This is hard for me because I follow that line, then have to reset my board to follow the mainline until the next variation.

How do you guys handle these two problems? I feel like it's just like math. Once I learned to read a math text I got so much more out of it and became better. I think I can greatly improve my performance by understanding how to study a chess book effectively.

None of them discuss the ideas behind why those moves are good ideas,
  which I think is key in helping me understand

That's correct, the explanations are key. Opening books that don't give the ideas behind the moves along with typical middlegame plans are almost worthless. You might as well throw them away. If they don't give much more than just the moves and evaluations then you would be better off with one of the many databases.

  Most books talk about variations in the middle of discussing a
  mainline. This is hard for me because I follow that line, then have to
  reset my board to follow the mainline until the next variation.

That's very conscientious of you. Most of us would follow the variation in our heads partly because we can but mostly because we are lazy. Once you get good you will be able to do this too. If you become very good indeed then you will be able to play the whole game in your head.


Why doesn't Promotion restrict choices to Queen and Knight only? Queen, in a sense, is equivalent to Bishop and Rook. What is the logic behind "putting Rook and Bishop" in the promotion move's options? Why doesn't it (Promotion move) provide the choice between Queen and Knight only? Why would one promote his Pawn to Rook or Bishop other than Queen? Promoting to Rook/Bishop instead of Queen may provide smaller advantage than promoting to Queen, and it may even provide a disadvantage to the mover.

Sometimes, choosing a bishop or a rook is the best move, because of stalemate possibilities. This happens most often with rooks, and very rarely with bishops.

For instance, in this famous position from the Saavedra problem:

[FEN "8/2P5/8/8/3r4/8/2K5/k7 w - - 0 1"]

If white plays 1.c8Q, then black plays 1...Rc4+. White needs to take it or lose his queen but after 2.Qxc4 it is stalemate.

If instead white plays 1.c8R, the stalemate trick doesn't work and 2.Ra8+ with checkmate next move is threatened. So black must play 2...Ra4, but white plays 3.Kb3 attacking the rook and also threatening 4.Rc1 checkmate; black can't deal with both threats.

On Tim Krabbe's page on practical minor promotions I found this example from Kholmov-Ehlvest 1983:

[FEN "2k5/2P5/1K2p3/7r/8/8/7p/R7 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

(black to move)

White threatens to play Ra8+ and c8Q+. If black promotes to a queen with 1...h1Q, then that isn't enough for black to win: 2.Ra8+ Qxa8 is stalemate.
Promoting to a rook or knight clearly doesn't help black.

But after 1...h1B, the check doesn't work, black is simply a piece up and has a winning position.


How does White justify giving up the bishop in ECO C36 - King's gambit declined What are the strategic benefits to compensate for the fact that White's giving up the bishop voluntarily and so early in the game in the below variation? What does White hope to get back out of the opening?

[fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6. Bxd5

I think Jonathan Garber's comment about trying to gain time against the Black queen after 6...Qxd5 7.Nc3 accurately describes what one motivation for 6.Bxd5 can be, though I also think that Black happens to have nothing to worry about in that regard. While she is temporarily behind in development, she shouldn't have any troubles completing her development, while letting the extra pawn on f4 go and simply enjoying her bishop pair on an open board. Being fuzzy about it, I'd say that all in all, everything evens out here, and we have a quite level game on our hands after 6.Bxd5.

I think another way to look at the reasons for 6.Bxd5 is in "what else?" terms. According to my database, the only more popular move in this position (though it is about 3 times more popular) is the sensible 6.O-O, but after the most popular response 6...c6, Black will be happy to camp out with a nice healthy piece on d5, until White sees fit to exchange it somehow. (This could be the same response to other moves as well, e.g. 6.Nc3 c6 and sit tight.) Perusing through some high-level games, it seems that White not infrequently ends up playing a later Bxd5 anyway (though certainly not all the time).

So, one possible takeaway: the position is already quite level after 5...Nxd5, and the immediate 6.Bxd5 is as good an option as White really has to try and create a favorable dynamic imbalance (of the sort Jonathan Garber mentions), even though IMHO Black has nothing to fear in this instance. One reason the King's Gambit isn't terribly popular at the highest levels - the occasional Nakamura game notwithstanding - is that Black does have some fairly reliable methods of defusing White's more ambitious prospects if she knows what she's doing, and this line for Black seems like an instance of that.

As an example of how things can go well for White, here's Magnus Carlsen using this line (by transposition) against Wang Yue. Around the time of 11.Qe2, we have the sort of balance described above, where White has a lead in development and more central space and control, but Black has safely castled and has nice bishops in an open setting. Then Wang Yue somewhat perplexingly engineers a bishop trade himself, and plays rather passively the rest of the way, letting Carlsen do what he does and make maximum use of the remaining White pluses:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Bazna Kings 4th"]
[Site "Medias"]
[Date "2010.06.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Black "Wang Yue"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2813"]
[BlackElo "2752"]
[ECO "C36"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nxd5 6.O-O Be7 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qd8
9.d4 O-O
10.Bxf4 Bf5 11.Qe2 $10 Bd6 $6
12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Nb5 Qd8 14.c4 a6 15.Nc3 Nd7 16.Rad1 Bg6 17.Qf2 Re8 18.h3 Rc8
19.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 c6 21.d5 Nf6 22.Qd4 cxd5 23.Nxd5 Nxd5 24.cxd5 Qd6 25.Ne5 Re8
26.Re3 Rd8 27.Nc4 Qf6 28.Re5 h6 29.d6 Bf5 30.Nb6 Be6
31.d7 Kh8 32.a4 g6 33.Qc3 Kg7 34.a5 h5 35.h4 Rxd7
36.Nxd7 Bxd7 37.Qd4 Bc6 38.b4 Bb5 39.Kh2 Ba4 40.Rd5 Bc6 41.Qxf6+ Kxf6
42. Rc5 Ke6 43.Kg3 f6 44.Kf2 Bd5 45.g3 g5 46.g4 hxg4 47.h5 Be4
48.Rc7 f5 49.h6 f4 50.h7 g3+ 51.Ke1 f3 52.h8=Q f2+ 53.Ke2 Bd3+ 54.Ke3 1-0


Glicko 2- Calculating match-by-match or batch of matches? I'm looking to implement a Glicko 2 library in my application, however the two libraries I'm considering are different. Firstly, they produce slightly different results for the same dataset (the default one given in the Glicko paper).

Second, and what I'm interested in, is how they calculate the results. Library 1 calculates each match one-by-one. That is, n-function calls to calculateMatch(). Library 2 takes the entire set of data (all matches and players) and seemingly calculates it in one batch (although I'm not 100% on this).

What I wanted to know was does it make a difference if you calculate the results one by one or as one batch? Maybe I'm misunderstanding how the Glicko calculations actually work, but some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

What I wanted to know was does it make a difference if you calculate
  the results one by one or as one batch?

According to Professor Mark E. Glickman -

  The Glicko-2 system works best when the number of games in a rating
  period is moderate to large, say an average of at least 10-15 games
  per player in a rating period.

Note the above link also gives Glickman's algorithms for Glicko 2


Improving the observation skill & making less blunders I've noticed that the most common reason for me to lose a game is not lack of knowledge but failure to observe whats happening on the board. This is specially true for rapid games but it happens in slow chess as well. In a recent game i moved a rook to a square where it was captured on the next move for free, although i spent several minutes before making that move! It also happens that i "forget" that a piece is defending something and move it away, or i don't see my opponents threat, even if it is straight forward. When doing tactics puzzles it happens sometimes that i look at it for several minutes and then suddenly realize something like "oh, i have a passed pawn in the top left corner on the board!"

If i could observe more quickly & accurately and reduce the amount of gross blunders i would win a lot more games, specially rapid games. What do you do to improve your observation skill and blunder less?

I will go back to what Artur Yusupov, three-time World Championship Candidate, former top-10 player,  and one of the greatest living trainers recommends in the first book of his 10-volume series. In volume one, "Boost Your Chess - Build Up Your Chess", chapter 9, which is two-move mates, including composed problems:

  The aim of this lesson is to improve your calculation of short
  variations. It is more important to find a lot of options in the
  first few moves than to calculate moves long variations. Most mistakes occur in the early moves in variations. What
  is the use of calculating a long and correct variation if your
  opponent has a much better reply on move one?

  You must develop your skill at calculating short variations, while at the same time taking into account the possibilities available to
  your opponent. This skill should reduce blunders.

  Exercises with mate in two moves are very well suited for training in
  the art of calculating short variations with great accuracy.
  Emphasis as written, not mine.

I will take this one step further with my own suggestion. Try to train yourself that before you make every move, look at EVERY move your opponent has. I am not saying that you are calculating anything. You are simply looking at it so you consider it. It will do two things: If you are hanging a piece, just looking at it will usually "hit you in the face like a brick", and second, I have done many combination problems over the last 40 years, and sometimes, when I cannot figure it out, and look at the answer, I realize immediately that had I just LOOKED at the move, I would have seen the combination.

So, again, you are not trying to calculate, just consider every move. You will be amazed at what you register immediately.


Would a chess game go on indefinitely if both players played the absolute best move each turn? Just as the title says: Would a chess game go on indefinitely if both players played the absolute best move each turn? (assuming there is no draw) Or is it white that's going to win?

Is it even possible to be sure about that? Since even engines like Stockfish don't have a 100% accuracy rate.

It's not really a "does white have the advantage" question, rather "if we make the best move each turn, will it ever end?"

It doesn't matter whether the players play good moves or bad moves there is a maximum possible number of moves. There is a rule which guarantees this - the 75 move rule. It says that if 75 moves are played without either a pawn move or a capture then the game is drawn.

The relevant article of the FIDE Laws of chess is 9.6.2-

  9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:

  9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

  9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each
  player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If
  the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

So, once every 75 moves a piece must be captured or a pawn moved (forward). Eventually all the pawns have queened or been captured and all the pieces captured and only the kings are left - which is a draw.


Is there a name for this variation ? (or just this setup in general) Recently I played a game against an international master, which I won, with a variation I prepared by having Deep Fritz 14 analyze each move individually, and now I'm wondering is there a specific name for this: (I play with white)

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nc3 0-0 6. Bf4

And to continue, I never actually played e3 in the game, but proceeded to set up e4 and eventually succeeded...

It doesn't have to be exactly this one, but I found that it doesn't fit in the description of the Barry attack or London system?

You are right that it doesn't fit the description for the Barry Attack or London system. In neither system does white fianchetto his kingside bishop like that.

The black side looks characteristic of the Gruenfeld Defence. There are many ways for white to respond to the Gruenfeld. I haven't seen this one but that doesn't mean much since I rarely play the Gruenfeld as black.


Borg and Grob comparison The Grob is a white opening which starts with 1.g4.
The Borg(reversed Grob) is a black opening which goes 1.e4 g5, or 1.d4 g5.
Since White is a tempo up in the Borg, what difference will this make? And what is the significance of the difference?

Well for 1.d4, White's able to win a pawn outright with 2.Bxg5. In 1.e4, the extra tempo gives White better chances to capitalize on Black's dubious move.


Maximum number of queens possible I was thinking about what the maximum number of queens can be on the board after only legal moves. The theoretical upper bound would be 18, the original 2 queens plus 16 promoted pawns.

However, to have the pawns get past each other they would have to capture the opponent’s pieces. But they could not capture the opponents king or queen, so thats 2 less for each side (although a capture on one side would open for the other-so gets a bit tricker than that I realize). If so that would be 14, but with that many queens it would be easy to put the opponents king in check or checkmate I guess.

Is it possible to get 14 queens on the board
in a legal game, and if not what is the maximum?

It should be easily possible to get 18 queens. If white captures four enemy pieces, that's enough to get doubled pawns on four files (a, c, e and g, for instance). And black captures four times to get his pawns on the b, d, f and h files. Then they can all advance and promote, and it should be easy to avoid mate by storing them all in some corner.

Here, have the ugliest proof game ever :-)

[FEN ""]

1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nb5 Ne5 3.Nd4 Nc4 4.Nf5 Na3 5.bxa3 Nf6 6.Nh6 gxh6 7.Bb2 Ng4 8.
Bf6 exf6 9.Nf3 Ne3 10.fxe3 Bb4 11.Nd4 Bc3 12.dxc3 Rg8 13.Nf5 Rg3 14.hxg3
h5 15.Nd6+ cxd6 16.Rb1 f5 17.Rb6 axb6 18.a4 h4 19.a5 h3 20.a6 h2 21.Rg1
h1=Q 22.a7 Rb8 23.a8=Q Qh6 24.Qa3 Qg7 25.Qb2 h5 26.a4 h4 27.a5 h3 28.a6 h2
29.a7 h1=Q 30.a8=Q Qhh8 31.Qaa1 f4 32.g4 f3 33.g3 f2+ 34.Kd2 f5 35.Bg2
f1=Q 36.c4 Qf4 37.c5 d5 38.c6 d6 39.c7 Bd7 40.c8=Q Qfh6 41.Qcc3 f4 42.Qcb3
f3 43.c4 f2 44.c5 f1=Q 45.c6 Qf5 46.c7 Qfh7 47.c8=Q d4 48.Ke1 d3 49.Kf2 d2
50.Qf1 d1=Q 51.Qcc1 Qd5 52.g5 b5 53.g6 Qge7 54.g7 b4 55.g4 b5 56.Qd3 b3
57.Qbc3 b2 58.Kg3 b1=Q 59.g8=Q+ Qef8 60.g5 b4 61.Qgg7 b3 62.Qgd4 b2 63.g6
Qc2 64.g7 b1=Q 65.g8=Q Qdh5 66.Qda4 d5 67.e4 d4 68.Qda6 d3 69.Qga2 Qdf6
70.e5 Kd8 71.e6 d2 72.Qc3a3 Kc7 73.e7 d1=Q 74.e8=Q Qd8 75.Qef7 Rb7 76.e4
Rb8 77.e5 Rb7 78.e6 Rb8 79.e7 Rb7 80.e8=Q *


Chess challenge #7: Women's European Team Championship In the recent Women's European Team Championship Anna Muzychuk won a quick game against Almira Skripchenko.

[fen "r3qrk1/1b3ppp/ppp5/2nBp1N1/P3P3/7P/1PP1QPP1/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

Skripchenko has just played 15 ... c6 and resigned a few moves later because of a beautiful tactical sequence played by Muzychuk. How did White win the game?

I think the winning tactical combination is the following:

   1.Qh5! h6 2.Bxf7+ Rxf7 3.Qxf7+ Qxf7 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.b4 Nxe4 6.Rd7+


What to play vs. 1. d4 when Sicilian is my favorite defense? I've been playing chess since my childhood however just recently got into chess very seriously and my online balance was approx. 90-60 out of 150 games and then I lost 25 games due to a broken phone. Now I'm rated 1323 and my balance is 118-96 rising drastically from 1116 a month ago. Currently I'm playing 20 games and winning in about 16 of them. I have been playing very well since learning new openings. So I would say I'm experienced online when I have been challenging people and mostly I am the white player which I do play very well as against >1400 using Stonewall as white and generally winning 9 out of 10 games. Recently I have been using Kopec system vs Sicilian defence players and wrecking my opponents. But I have been playing as black more often now for overall game development and started using Sicilian def. but found that playing against 1.d4 gives me serious trouble and confusion of how I should play it. For example:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 c5 2. dxc5

leaves me in an inferior pawn position and enemy queen staring me down

I am more a tactician and I set up position rather than setting up traps or use an exchange of pieces to gain center board position until I have better position/castle and I am up on pawns/pieces and then gg.

You can play the Stonewall defence with black as well, as quid suggested. You can start with a Dutch and get the familiar structure (just an example):

[FEN ""]
1. d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 d5. Nf3 c6

Or you can play as you have shown and don't have to worry about dxc5 (it actually isn't such a good move):

[FEN ""]
1. d4 c5 2. dxc5?! e6 3. Nc3 (3. b4? a5 4. c3?? axb4 5. cxb4 Qf6-+) Bxc5=

If this variation was your only problem, it should be solved now... :-)

If you don't mind playing Benoni or the Benko gambit I would stick with this variation.


What happens when someone quits in the middle of a swiss tournament? 5 rounds of a Swiss Style Tournament passed and a person who was second in the table quit (withdrew). What should we do? What about points others earned wining him? What about people who lost against him? And what about his future games?

The General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments published on the FIDE website merely say:

  Players who withdraw from the tournament will no longer be paired.

The rules don't say that he/she can't be included in the final ranking (unless the additional rules for the tournament say the contrary, I suppose).

The points that his/her opponents won should remain valid. (How to deal with ties between opponents in the final ranking - that is unclear to me.)

It is not clear why leaving a tournament should affect a player's future games, unless there are regulations that apply to a cycle of tournaments. For example, for the Regulations for the 2016-2017 FIDE World Chess Grand-Prix Series contain the following rules:

  4.5 If a player withdraws from an event after completing 50% or more of the games, the rest of his games are lost by default. Unless a withdrawal is justified by serious injury or illness, he will forfeit his right to the prize for the tournament and be excluded from the rest of the World Chess Championship cycle.

  18.3 Should a player withdraw from a tournament or the Grand Prix Series without proper justification to the WCOC, then an automatic penalty of €5,000 will be imposed by FIDE on the player and the player may be excluded from the next World Championship cycle.

For official FIDE competitions (not all tournaments fit this category), the following rules from the FIDE Tournament Rules (version from 2011) also apply:

  5 (c) If a player withdraws, is excluded from a competition after the drawing of lots but before the beginning of the first round, or there are additional entries, the announced pairings shall remain unaltered. Additional pairings or changes may be made at the discretion of the CA in consultation with the players directly involved, but only if these minimise amendments to pairings that have already been announced.

  9 (b) When a player withdraws or is expelled from a round-robin tournament, the effect shall be as follows:
  1. If a player has completed less than 50 % of his games, his score shall remain in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes), but the points scored by him or against him shall not be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are indicated by (-) in the tournament table, and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).
  2. If a player has completed at least 50 % of his games, his score shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as indicated as above.
  (c) If a player withdraws from a Swiss-system tournament, the points scored by him and by his opponents shall remain in the cross-table for ranking purposes. Only games that are actually played shall be rated.


Can a single player's choice of opening dictate a more (or less) aggressive game? Usually a player feels comfortable with few "positions" (unless he/she is a GM). That's why sometimes it's said that a player should choose and begin to study openings whose outcome results in a position he/she likes.
It's said, for example, that positional players should open with 1. d4, while aggressive players with 1. e4; a Black who chooses Sicilian 1. e4 c5 is more aggressive than one who chooses Caro-Kann, etc.

  Are there some lines which allow a single player to change the aggressive or positional path of a game, in order to surprise the opponent?

For example, a Benko Gambit, despite the "positional" 1. d4, is a double-edged opening, but it's chosen by Black whether to play it or not. Is there an aggressive or very tactical opening that White may choose after 1. d4?
Other examples: are there ways, for White, to lead a game to a strategic-positional slow battle when Black chooses a Sicilian Defense? Are there ways for Black to play positionally against a King's Gambit?

It feels as though you have already answered your own question. After 1. d4 d5, white may choose to offer the Queen's Gambit, and go for a somewhat more tactical variation, though black will likely decline. However, as you mentioned, white choosing 1. d4 is already a choice for a more positional play style. The idea is that after 1. d4 d5, you are already facing a closed game, which, in general, will lead to a positional game rather than a tactical one.

As for the Sicilian defense, white can choose to play a closed Sicilian by not offering up a pawn on d4. This is typically done with the move order 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3, intending to eventually gain some king-side space by not blocking the f pawn with the g1 knight. For this reason, the Sicilian defense is known as a Semi-open line.

Black has the option to decline the King's Gambit, though typically white will eventually (usually pretty soon) open up the position. Typically, the move order 1. e4 e5 leads to an open game, which in general is more tactical.

So, in attempt to answer the question: if you're playing white, and you're looking for a more tactical game, then you should probably open with 1. e4 rather than 1. d4. On the other hand, if you want a closed, positional game, I would suggest 1. d4. I hope this helps.


Can engines use the current pawn structure to refine its search/eval? As I understand it, engines use so-called "bitboards" to generate the current position & possible moves. I'm wondering if any engine uses the pawn bitboard to refine its search and eval.

To illustrate what I mean, suppose this is the current pawn structure:

[FEN "8/8/8/2p5/1pPp4/pP1P4/P7/B7 w - - 0 1"]

In this pawn structure, impose massive penalties for the Bishop on a1 because it's more or less permanently stuck.

[FEN "8/1pp4p/p2p4/3Pp1p1/2P1Pp2/5P2/PP4PP/8 w - - 0 1"]

In this pawn structure, as White, prioritize searching variations that include the moves b4-c5, and as Black, prioritize searching variations that include h5-g4.

I don't know how many possible pawn bitboards are there, but presumably not too many arise in serious play (a couple hundred perhaps) and one could have handwritten functions for all of them. Some bitboards could even be duplicated, e.g. in the second bitboard it doesn't matter if Black's pawn is on h7 or h6, general plans for both sides remain the same. If there are no special plans for the current pawn structure, one could also default to the current search/eval algorithms.

Question: Is this idea feasible? If so, are there any engines that use it? If not, why not?

EDIT: seems to me that traditional engines could really use something like this, e.g. in this game no less an engine than Stockfish falls into this trap, when in spite of having a firmly entombed bishop, it thought its position was superior.

[FEN "2r3k1/p2n1r2/4q3/2Pp2b1/PP4p1/B4pPp/2Q2P1P/R2R2KB w - - 1 30"]

Something very similar is doubtless encoded into AlphaZero and Leela's neural network evaluators, which are very positional.  Most conventional Minimax engines, by contrast, are stronger at tactics and can therefore search very deeply.

Pawn structure is indeed a factor in most of the top engines' evaluation.  This might take the relatively simple form of rewarding connected pawns and penalising isolated and doubled pawns.  The pawn bitboards are mainly a means of recognising when the pawn structure changes (which happens relatively infrequently once established) and recalculating that factor of the evaluation, thereby saving some calculation time.

However, the pawn structure does not directly lead to the bishop mobility analysis you note in your first example.  This would be deferred to threat and control maps, which would put any of the bishop's legal moves low on the priority list for further analysis, since they leave the bishop on a threatened square with no support.


London System with Nc3 -- what's the idea? Recently top GMs are playing a London system type setup with Nc3 before c4.  I can't imagine they are going for cheap tricks with Nb5, but I am not seeing a valid positional idea behind the move either.
For example Carlsen-Ding 2017

[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nc3 d5

If you want to know whether the knight is badly placed on c3, you have to think about your plan. Normally, in d-pawn openings you want to play c4 to attack Black's hold on the center on d5. Here, this is not White's plan. Instead:

White may want to play h4-h5 and attack Black on the kingside. This means White may want to follow up with Qd2 and 0-0-0.
Another idea is the play a gambit with e4. If Black takes dxe4, the knight isn't so bad on c3.

The badly placed knight on c3 is a small price to pay for "getting it out of the way", since it wouldn't do much for the attack elsewhere (it's block in the queen's best square on d2, and a3 is an even worse square).

You are right that according to conventional chess wisdom, you shouldn't play like this. But this kind of system is not conventional! Highly creative players like Jobava play this way (In fact, this setup is named after Jobava). Check out some of his games here.


Why was castling bad for white in this game, and engine strongly prefered trading queens? I'm a novice player, trying to improve. In the following game I played as white recently on chess.com, I analysed afterwards and my worst move of the game was apparently when I castled. The engine strongly favoured trading queens on move 9.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. d4 Nc6
5. Bb5 Be7
6. Bxc6+ bxc6
7. dxe5 dxe5
8. Nxe5 O-O
9. O-O Bg4
10. Nxg4 Nxg4
11. Qxg4 Bb4
12. a3 Bxc3
13. bxc3 Rb8
14. Be3 a5
15. Bd4 Rb4
16. Qxg7# 1-0

Why is this? I can't quite see why the trade is beneficial, and so much better than castling at this point.

Maybe I'm giving up initiative by allowing black to initiate a trade? Or perhaps I'm better developed, so it makes more sense to trade down and benefit for more activity with my pieces? It was a strong 2 point difference from what seems like a fairly even choice from my perspective.

Any ideas why the castling move at that point was such a bad choice?

Castling (9. 0-0) is not a very bad move. You still have a very solid advantage after it due to being a pawn up and having the better pawn structure (black's pawns on a7, c7, c6 are weak and vulnerable).

However you had a better move...

The pawn on c6 is hanging and you could have simply taken it. Both 9. Nxc6 or taking the pawn after queen trades (9. Qxd8 Bxd8 10. Rxd8) are good.

Taking the pawn after queen trades is better, because you will also exchange the knight later on for black's dark squared bishop (which is due to the pawn structure, the stronger piece).

For instance an almost forced sequence could be:

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/p1p1bppp/2p2n2/4N3/4P3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 1 9"]

9. Qxd8 Bxd8
10.Nxc6 Bb7
11.Nxd8 Rfxd8
12.f3

In the end white is left with two pawns up, a strong pawn structure and the better bishop.


When did Bobby Fischer move from New York to California? As title above, when did Bobby Fischer move from Brooklyn, New York, to California, where did he actually locate, and why did he leave New York?

It’s just a guess, but it could be because he started following Herbert Armstrong who was in California. Fischer did donate lots of money to him and was reported riding in his jet plane with him. As I recall, it would have been in the 70s or possibly the 80s.


Glicko-2 Rating System: Bug or exploit? I originally had this posted on StackOverflow as it could be a bug in the implementations, but some suggested I post to math. I just found this stackexchange, and I thought who better? Some of you may know off the bat rather this seems accurate or not, without the need of debugging. Any links to online calculators or alternative rating methods are welcomed.

Glicko-2 is a rating system used in chess, but can be used in many other situations. Glicko-2 is an improvement on Glicko-1, which addressed problems of the older ELO rating.

What makes Glicko-2 special in comparison to version 1  is that it incorporates a higher rating deviation (RD) the longer someone has been inactive. It does this with the notion of a system constant which relates to time/rating periods.

An example write up from the author is found here: http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf.
Within this document, he explains:

  The Glicko-2 system works best when the number of games in a rating
  period is moderate to large, say an average of at least 10-15 games
  per player in a rating period. The length of time for a rating period
  is at the discretion of the administrator.

Making an assumption that a group of active chess players play 10-15 games on average in a 1 month time period, the administrator would then update ratings at the end of every month.

I needed a PHP Implementation of the Glicko-2 rating system and came across the following:

Glicko-2 JavaScript Implementation

The JavaScript had a small error, in which didn't let it match the
technical write-up example, the author found it close enough, and
didn't bother to debug.

Glicko-2 PHP Implementation

The PHP implementation was plagued with many bugs, but that wasn't
apparent unless you did more than one rating period (which the
technical write-up never shows expected values of)

Glicko-2 Calculator in Excel

Finally the Excel calculator seemed to be error-free and the most
professional, done by someone in the chess community. Once the
JavaScript bug was solved, the JavaScript and Excel Calculator
matched very closely with each other (albeit not perfect, could be within rounding error)

I had fixed the bugs (and submitted issues/patches to the authors) I could find on the PHP and JavaScript versions to match as closely to the Excel Calculator

Now I am 99% confident that I have an accurate Glicko-2 implementation (between the 3 of them)  for analysis and that is when I came across something strange, and the topic of this discussion.

Given the suggested default for Glicko-2 for a new player:

Rating:      1500
RD:           350
Volatility:  0.06

If you face an average opponent of rating 1378 and RD 99 (Source) only once every rating period (1 month) for the next 12 periods (1 year) you will have accumulated an assumed National Class A (1800-1999) rating of 1852 when in reality you have only beat 12 average rated players over a span of 12 months.

Month   Rating      RD      Volatility      Class
1       1625        259     0.059999        National Class B
2       1682        225     0.059998        〃
3       1718        205     0.059997        〃
6       1784        174     0.059994        〃
12      1852        148     0.059988        National Class A
24      1922        127     0.059976        〃

If you face 2 average opponents every rating period, you can get to National Class A about 4-5 months, facing only 8-10 average opponents.

Month   Rating      RD      Volatility      Class
1       1672        215     0.059999        National Class B
2       1733        183     0.059997        〃
3       1770        166     0.059995        〃
4       1797        154     0.059993        〃
5       1819        146     0.059992        National Class A
6       1836        140     0.059991        〃

Are these assumptions accurate? Is there a bug in my calculator?

If it is not a bug, what are some ways of countering this besides:

Consider "true rating" to be lower bound of the deviation (Rating -
RD)
Do not show inactive user's rating
Do not show users with less than N games

I worked on a Scala implementation a few months ago, although it was a bit unpolished--I should go back to finish it. I at least got some reasonable results from it.

If you win every game you play, yes, your rating will grow to be quite high even if you play against only low rated players. The probability that you will win every game against such an opponent is probably about what a class A player would achieve (although it probably is a bit inflated due to the relatively high RD, still).

The best way to counter, in my opinion, is to not consider someone with an RD over a certain amount to be a stable rating--i.e. consider it to be "provisional". Also, in order to actually gain a title, at least in USCF, they have a system of norms, where you must perform at a certain level in a tournament of 4 games or more (4 times, I believe), which makes the likelihood of playing against a ~1378 for the whole tournament [four times] very unlikely.

Is your goal to use this for chess? What is your use case?

Update:
FICS handles it by only considering people with an RD of <80 active. (They use Glicko-1, still, I believe.) http://www.freechess.org/Help/ficsfaq.html#Q005.003

And by the way, Glicko-1 uses RD/time decay as well. Glicko-2's main improvement was the "volatility" factor, which allows people with erratic results or stable results to be calculated very slightly differently. I think it's a very minor tweak to Glicko-1 which causes considerable extra calculation--but like you, I was still interested in calculating it. I actually asked Glickman himself for some additional datapoints for testing, but he was too busy to supply them at the time.


Teaching 3 years old kid chess My new neighbors have a 2 years 10 months old kid. When he come to visit me, he often see me playing chess online. So he kept asking me, how to play this.

I got a plastic chess set and he opened it and grabbed the knight and screamed "duck, duck!"

I was kinda surprised that a two years old can recognize ducks, he's from Syria, he left Syria because of the war there so there's no ducks there. I told him, it's not a duck, it's a horse. He knew what a horse is. he seems very interested in chess.

So I decided to try the same educational experiment that László Polgár did.

But I'm having some difficulties. The kid is not in school yet, he doesn't know how to read and write, he can't speak English and the names of the pieces are too hard for him. I've been trying to teach him chess for less than a week. I met him last week, started teaching chess the very next day :)

So far he know what's a knight and he call it a horse. He know what's a pawn and I told him it's called grandpa. He knows what a king is and he call it a king, I decided that the word king is too hard for him and I told him that it's called dad. He didn't yet memorized the rook, he call it uncle. I am going to tell him that the queen is mom and the bishop is bob  or cat.

I noticed that he uses the shape. He first memorized the horse, because it has a very unique shape. Then he memorized the pawn, because it's the smallest piece on the board, then the king because it has a cross. It's hard for him to see the difference between a queen and a bishop.

I was thinking of buying another chess set, one with superman and
batman instead of real pieces. Is it a good idea or should I stick with the real pieces?
Is it good practice to change the names of the pieces in order to help memorize them?
If we keep at this pace, I think I can make him memorize every piece in a week or two, and next month I want to teach him the starting position, and two months after that, I  want to start teaching him how the pieces move. Am I going too fast on him? Can his brain understand all this that quickly.
Is he considered smart for his age, or is it normal for kids of his age to start understanding what I'm teaching him?

I learned to play chess when I was 3. My biggest challenge was learning the starting positions of the pieces, and I also remember mixing up the bishop and Queen because of the shape of the point.

At that age, I wouldn't think language acquisition would be a big challenge, as I've known kids of that age (2-5) to pick languages up faster than teenagers.

You're on the right track with the idea of buying a distinct set of pieces, but I have no idea if Batman would help or distract at that age being that the pieces may resemble toys. It would certainly make the pieces more memorable, but so would animals at that age. I would try to find a set with animals or at least something that resembles actual chess pieces shape but uses the profiles of something meaningful to him like animals. I don't see any problems in training his visual and spatial memory and teaching him the names after he understands how they move differently.

Everyone is different, but I remember that it wasn't until after I understood the differences between the pieces' movements that I actually managed to memorize the starting positions. Perhaps that is something he can learn by watching. As you set it up on your side, you can have him mirror you down the files. This physical action of placing them in space will likely help him learn.

I think you will be very successful. Kids are neuroplastic sponges. I hope it's rewarding and teach him to enjoy losing. Keep up the noble pursuit!

EDIT: I've since found this resource for teaching kids chess.