Is Gilbert Guerrero a 2500 US player? According to the FIDE website, Gilbert Guerrero is from the US federation and 2500 Elo. I have never heard of this player, who mates GM Campora in ... 11 moves!

Here is the game from Chessgames.com

[Title "Gilbert Guerrero vs Daniel Hugo Campora, Lima 1999"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Bc4 e6 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Bd3 d6 8.Qe2 dxe5 9.Qe4?? (9.dxe5+=) Nf6?? (9...f5!-+ 10.Qe2 e4) 10.Qh4 Nd7?? (10...exd4! 11. Bg5 g6-+) 11.Qxh7#1-0

Could we assume that Gilberto Guerrero is actually Hernandez Guerrero, Gilberto? Here is his Wikipedia page.
Did Hernandez Guerrero, Gilberto ever play for the US?
Has the game been played in classical time control? This game looks like a joke!

Could we assume that Gilberto Guerrero is actually Hernandez Guerrero,
  Gilberto?

We could but we would very likely be wrong.

First a word on how FIDE allocates FIDE numbers. FIDE doesn't allocate individual numbers to players. Instead it allocates ranges of numbers to individual federations.

Gilbert Guerrero's FIDE number is 2012707 and was allocated by the US federation.
Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero's FIDE number is 5100011 and was allocated by the Mexico federation.

For that to happen the same player would need to have registered with each federation resulting in one player with two FINs. Now that did happen in the early days and so is a possibility but is unlikely.

According to his Olimpbase records Gilbert Guerrero's only FIDE rated games were 12 games played in the second half of 1996 which gave him a rating of 2500.

Checking the Olimpbase data for 1997 for other players called Guerrero we see only one other, a Spanish player called Manuel Gomez Guerrero. He also has FIN 2207893, which is different from Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero, who has FIN 5100011, so not the same player.

The next step is to find, from Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero's FIDE profile what the details are for his earliest recorded result in FIDE's published data. To do that, in his profile, click on "Click to view All previous periods" under "Individual Calculations". There scroll to the bottom to see that there is an entry for July 2001. Clicking on that we see that the entry is for "Hernandez, Gilberto".

There are two possibilities here.

He changed his name some time since 2001
There are two players with different names but the Mexican federation re-used the FIN when one of the players died. By the way, the English Chess Federation did this with Tony Miles' FIN when he died! So, it can happen even with great players.

OK, back to the Olimpbase files to check on Hernandez, Gilberto. The Olimpbase records for this player go back to 1987 and the FIN is 5100011, the same as Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero.

Are Gilberto Hernandez Guerrero and Gilberto Hernandez the same player? Probably. They are the same federation. Maybe he did change or correct his name just before July 2006. The ratings match up before and after with no big jump. Furthermore it is very unlikely that a GM had a change of FIN like that in 2006.

Regarding the Campora game, here are his olimpbase records. He was 2543 in the July 1999 list and 2534 in the Jan 2000 list. Even playing blitz blindfold and drunk he would not have made those moves.

Apropos the reuse of Tony Miles' FIN. From his Olimpbase records you can see that his FIN was 403385. Today the player with that FIN is Andrew F Footner. Check his rating history and see that apparently he had results in the October 2001 list. Except the player listed is Tony Miles! There are no more results until January 2007 which are for Andrew F Footner.


When evaluating score of new position with UCI chess engine is the Hash used at all? I am using a UCI chess engine (stockfish 6) to evaluate the score of specific positions from different games.

On this stockfish help forum thread it states: Hash size is the amount of memory you want to designate for Stockfish to store positions (a temporary hash). You don't want your hash size to exceed your physical memory, but you don't want it to be too small either.

In my case I am not using the engine to go through subsequent moves in the same game, but different positions entirely. For example:

after 4th move of Aldrovandi vs. Cocozza (2003):

position fen rnbqkbnr/pppp2pp/8/4pp2/8/5P2/PPPPPKPP/RNBQ1BNR w kq f6 0 3
go movetime 10000
info depth 16 seldepth 25 multipv 1 score cp -71 nodes 2171367 nps 879095 tbhits 0 time 2470 pv b1c3 b8c6 e2e3 f5f4 g2g3 d7d5 d2d4 g8e7 f2g2 f4e3 c1e3 e7f5

after 2nd move of Hirneise vs. Hirneise (2010):

position fen r1bqkbnr/pppppppp/n7/8/8/7N/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 2 2
go movetime 10000
info depth 19 seldepth 24 multipv 1 score cp 16 nodes 7228257 nps 723259 tbhits 0 time 9994 pv d2d4 g8f6 e2e3 e7e6 c2c4 d7d5 b1c3 f8e7 f1e2

In these consecutive uses of the engine, I am solely interested in score cp -71 and score cp 16

It seems that the Hash is not used at all and thus I can set it to zero. Is that correct? Is there a way to disable the Hash entirely in the UCI specification? The reason I ask is I am using a mobile device so conserving memory is more relevant.

Short answer

No, don't set it to zero, in fact the more the better. Stockfish is using the hash table very heavily, just that you can't see it.

Long answer

Let's briefly cover hashing in a non-technical way

Q: What is hash table?

Hash table is an internal data structure in chess engines to "memorize" previously searched positions. It's like the black-hole; you can't see it but it's part of the galaxy.

Q: Why hash table?

Because we don't want to the engine search the same position again and again. There're lots of repetitions in chess, hash table is a simple but very effective strategy to deal with them. Hash table also helps move reductions and pruncing.

Let's look at the quote:

  Hash size is the amount of memory you want to designate for Stockfish
  to store positions (a temporary hash). You don't want your hash size
  to exceed your physical memory, but you don't want it to be too small
  either.

If your computer has 4GB of RAM, you wouldn't set it over 4GB (google virtual memory if you are interested to learn more). But at the same time, making it too small would be a waste of resources. You would have to pay for the electricity to power up the computer anyway, so we want to maximise the size of the hash table as much as possible without affecting the overall performance.

Let's pretend we are using Stockfish to analyze the starting position.

You were confused because you thought hashing is like just storing the initial position:

Hash Table :  { default position }

This is not correct, because the table is actually being used in the engine search. The hash table would look something like:

Hash Table : { default position, 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.e4 e5, 1.a4, 1.a4 h5 .....}

Although you can't see it, hashing is very important because it memories positions that you will need in the current search and next search. Let's say we play 1.a4, immediately from the hash-table we have an evaluation of 1.a4 h5 from the previous search.


When (if ever) was it a rule that pawn promotion was optional? I'm reading a very old chess book ("The Chess Pocket Manual" by G.H.D. Gossip, copyright 1894), and I find this passage in it's section on "The Laws of Chess":

  When a Pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option
  Of selecting a piece, whether such piece has been previously lost or
  not, whose name and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that
  it shall remain a Pawn.

There is a footnote on this that reads:

  This is the famous " dummy " Pawn rule laid down in case of a position
  where a player, compelled to take a piece, would thereby lose the
  game, whereas, by refusing promotion to his Pawn, he could draw it.
  Need less to add that such positions, although possible, are extremely
  improbable, and do not occur in the course of a lifetime to most
  players.

When was this ever a rule?  I've never heard of this.

If it was a widely recognized rule at some point, when did it change?

Dummy Pawns
Today, it is little known that for forty years at the height of the British Empire, dummy pawns were the scourge of tournament play, and even grandmasters ran scared. (Possible exaggeration here.)
The heresy raged from 1862-1904. See Eminent Victorian Chess Players: Ten Biographies by Tim Harding. However, the origins of the dummy pawn goes back to at least 1832 and before.
Timeline of known events
(+/- indicate events pro/con the dummy pawn concept)
1832 + the earliest known reference to the dummy pawn is printed in “A new treatise of chess” by George Walker
1847 + the first known chess problem with the dummy pawn in it occurs in the American Chess Magazine
1851 + arrival in London, first appearing in the “The Chess Player’s Chronicle,” and called “The Revolutionary”
1854 - an example by Alexander Petroff appears in “Règles du jeu des échecs” in which the concept was denounced
1860 - Howard Staunton in his "Chess Praxis" wrote "no one will consider [dummy pawns] worthy of serious consideration."
1862 + International London Congress - provides an official rule for dummy pawns
1865 - William Pavitt, UK, explores the effects on chess composition in “The Chess World”. He describes it as "an exquisite stroke of chess legislation," but still condemns the concept.
1870 + Baden Congress - takes same line as London Congress of 1862.
1876 - new edition of Staunton's "Chess Praxis" - his rules still say no dummy pawns
1879 - American Chess Journal - "a frivolous and undesirable innovation"
1880 + Fred Thompson, in “Pawn on 8 In Chess Problems,” advocates for them as aids in chess composition
1883 - London International Chess Congress bans dummy pawns
1883 + Francis C. Collins composes a s#2 allumwandlung for “The New Zealand Mail”
1889 + Steinitz - supports London 1862 decision, and reports that so have many Congresses
1894 + "The Chess Pocket Manual" describes the "famous Dummy Pawn rule"
1898 + a spectacular Sam Loyd #3 composition
1900 + a superb #4 by E. J. de Savornin Lohman
1895 - the legendary Hastings congress bans dummy Pawns
1903 - there is an unsupported statement that the reign of dummy Pawns ended in this year ([http://www.chess-poster.com/english/history/the_pawn.htm][1])
1904 - founding of British Chess Federation, which according to Harding published the rules that finally exiled the monstrous dummy pawns to history
1913 + leading problemist Thomas R. Dawson composes a classic study with 3 dummy pawn promotions by White
1996 + John Beasley publishes a dummy pawn promotion study in EBUR
2017 + dummy pawns gains new life in chess.com and Matplus.net forums
2018 + chess.stackexchange.com diagram editor (still) supports dummy pawns
2020 + Popeye & Jacobi problem engines (still) support dummy pawns

See dummy pawns in action in our own heretical diagram editor below! (Except for the Ponziani game which is even more bonkers, and cannot therefore be animated correctly.)
1832: A Concept Develops
The origin of dummy pawns is mysterious and unknown. It most likely occurred in the early 19th century though. However, there is some sparse record of it. The earliest known reference to the dummy pawn is in 1832 from the book “A new treatise of chess” by George Walker.
On top of page 15, under the section “No. XX.,” pawn promotion is briefly described.
“When you have advanced the pawn to the extreme rank, or eighth square of the board, it immediately assumes the power of any piece you chuse [sic]. (The constitution of the game, would, of course, not allow of your demanding a second King, but you may have as many Queens, Knights, &c. as you can get. En passant, I may be allowed to add, that it is presumed from the wording of the law, you might not call for a pawn, and replace it at its own square; but might certainly, for argument's sake, leave it as its eight square, as a Pawn, without exchanging it for an piece.)”
The text we have put in bold does not say “dummy pawn” exactly, but the language is clear enough. Dummy pawn is the central subject.
1847: A Misty Appearance In America
The first known chess problem that uses the dummy pawn is from “The American Chess Magazine” in the year 1847. On page 113 the following problem was shown with the attached question.
[Title "F. Leake - American Chess Magazine 1847, Can White force checkmate in five moves? "]
[FEN "2B5/8/1K1k4/4pP1N/3pP3/Pp1P4/p7/7R w - - 0 1"]

It says: “ A question of great importance - one which is not provided for in the laws of the game of Chess, and to decide which we know of no precedent- is here involved. Can White force Checkmate in five moves? That's the question."
If Black is obligated to promote to a piece, then there is a mate in 5: 1. f6! b2 2. Rb1 a1=B 3. Rxb2 Bxb2 4. Ng4/g7 ~ 5. Nf5/e8#. However, if Black may keep it as a pawn, then there is no mate in 5. There is a unique mate in 6 though: 1. f6! b2 2. Rb1 a1=Pawn 3. Kb7 Kc5 4. f7 Kb5 5. f8=Q Ka5,Ka4 6. Qb4#
On pages 136-139 appears correspondence giving opinions as to whether or not there is a mate in 5.
No: “(Skipped text) I presume that the question you raise is this: When a Pawn reaches the eighth square, is the player obliged to change it at once for a Piece, or has he the option of allowing it to remain dead on the eighth square? In my opinion, he is obliged to change it at once for a Piece ; he has no option but in the choice of the Piece so exchanged. The Twenty-third Law of Chess, according to Walker's Treatise, (1842,) is :— Directly the Pawn attains the eighth square, or extreme rank of the board, it must be replaced by a Queen, Rook, Knight, or Bishop, at the option of its owner; and this without regard to whatsoever Pieces he may already have on the board. Should you not replace the Pawn with a Piece, before your opponent move, he may take it off the board as forfeited. (Skipped text). Though you appear to think this a very nice question, I have but little doubt as to the nature of your decision, should you think proper to make one. And with all due deference to your well-earned reputation as a Chess-lawyer, I will venture to risk the opinion, that the " big wigs" in London will be surprised that you should regard the question as one unprovided for in the laws of Chess." - Philo-Chess
Yes: “(Skipped text) For myself, however, I incline to a different opinion. The Checkmate in this case cannot be forced in five moves, unless the Pawn, on reaching the "royal line," loses its character as a Pawn, and immediately and necessarily becomes a Piece of some kind; or unless Black is compelled, by some law of the game, to replace the Pawn at once by some Piece. (Skipped text) It is obvious that the right of promotion is granted as a favor or privilege, and that upon the assumption that a Piece is of greater value than a Pawn. Why, then, limit this privilege, by confining the choice to a Piece? Why, especially, require the player, who is entitled to a reward for his skill and success in conducting his Pawn to the "royal line," to submit to a positive disadvantage, by compelling him to exchange it for a Piece of inferior value to him? Finally and conclusively, the rule, strictly construed, is anti-republican-and this is a "free country!" Why should the Pawn have "greatness thrust upon him If he is satisfied with untitled merit, why not permit him to indulge his tastes for private station? Why elevate him, against his inclination, to a rank to which he does not aspire?“ - A.D.P.
The wonder is that this problem is much more sophisticated than any other dummy pawn problem that would be made for nearly two decades, until Pavitt came along with his 5-mover in 1865.
1851: A Boost In London
The dummy pawn, 4 years later, once more made an appearance on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean in Edward Winter managed to find the first mention of a dummy pawn endgame study in England in C.N. 7619. In the September 20, 1851 edition of “The Chess Players Chronicles,” the following problem called “The Revolutionary” appeared. This is where the dummy pawn truly started its reign.
[Title "Josef Kling & Bernhard Horwitz - The Chess Player 1851, Revolutionary Question XIX: How can White draw?"]
[FEN "r7/1Pp5/2P3p1/8/6pb/4p1kB/4P1p1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

The solution, which was given in a week later, stated: “The solution of No. 19 is Pawn takes Rook, remaining a pawn. It may seem ridiculous to many chess-players, but we think candidly that, when first the rules were laid down, nobody thought of such a case, or else the rules would be a little more precise on that point."
In the correspondence section of the 9/20 issue the editors also said “ We are of opinion that a pawn, when reaching his eighth’s square, is entitled to become any piece the player thinks best; and, naturally enough, if it prove disadvantageous to become a piece, it may still remain a pawn. (See Diagram 19.) This question among others, we thought, should have been discussed at the Tournament.”
1854: Spread In Europe & Rejection
From 1851 onward, the idea of the dummy pawn seems to spread across Europe. One indication is the appearance of another dummy pawn problem, this one also being White to play and draw, that was created by the Russian composer Alexander Petroff and published in the 1854 French book Règles du jeu des échecs. On page 97, the problem was given.
[Title "Alexander Petroff - Règles du jeu des échecs 1854, White to play and draw"]
[FEN "rn6/pp2n3/2p5/P4k2/8/6p1/6Pp/7K w - - 0 1"]

1. a6 Nd5 2. axb7 Nf6 3. bxa8 null

However, this problem is flawed because Black can play 2... Nf4!, 3. bxa8 Nxg2 4. Kxg2 Kg4, and Black wins. White doesn't win even if they promote-3. bxa8=Q Nd3 4. Qxa7 Nf2+ 5. Qxf2 gxf2 6. g4+ Kxg4 winning.
The French text, roughly translates, reads: “This subject, we must say that Mr. Petroff communicated to us the following problem, in which, supposing the best possible blows on the part of the blacks, the whites could not postpone the game, unless they were allowed to refuse any promotion to their pawn entered lady, that is to say to leave it pawn. (Diagram of the problem.) On this occasion, Mr. Petroff asks us to submit to the judgment of the European authorities in matters of gambling, if it would not be advisable to introduce into the regulations a clause which would allow the possessor of a pawn entered to queen, to renounce to any increase in its forces, leaving this pawn inactive and immobile, as a pawn, until it is taken or until the end of the game?
(Skipped Text)
“For its part, the Society of Saint Petersburg Chess Lovers did not believe that it could accept this opinion (expressed in the form of doubt by Mr. Petroff himself), contrary to the fundamental principle of the game, which 'does not admit the existence of pawns to the strips of the chessboard originally occupied by the pieces.'"
This shows that the dummy spread like wild fire, relatively speaking for the times, and within 3 years it was already an outrage in at least France and Russia. It would take awhile for the English to get their turn.
1860: Staunton, bastion of orthodoxy
The "dummy pawn rule" was not part of the official rules up to 1860. See "Chess Praxis" by Howard Staunton 1860. Staunton was a very influential player and author, and in this book codified the Laws of Chess, in a way which is still recognizable in the style of the FIDE Laws today. On page xi, in the Introduction he lists chronologically the many antecedents of his work from Ruy Lopez in 1561, to the 1850s.
*Page 6, Queening a Pawn: “When a Pawn has reached the eighth or last square on its file, it immediately assumes the name and power of any Piece its player may select, except a King, whether such Piece have previously been lost or not; and, if the player does not select a Piece, such Pawn is always to be considered a Queen.”
On page xii, he had defined "Piece" to explicitly exclude pawn. The real fun comes later:
Chapter 4, "A Queened Pawn: “On this subject great difference of opinion prevails, but the rule laid down in the text is that universally observed in practice. In the middle ages, as we have previously explained, the Queen could only move one square at a time diagonally. She was, therefore, by far the weakest piece on the Board. And the ancient law, which required that every Pawn pushed on to the eighth square should become a Queen, was really a restrictive enactment, since it gave the promoted Pawn as little additional power as the conversion could offer. But the spirit of the modern game is to regard the Queening of a Pawn as the highest feat a player can accomplish, and to reward it with the greatest possible advantage. So that a player in the present day is not only allowed to select a second or third Queen with its enormously extended power, but may choose any other Piece that would be more advantageous in a particular position. Various modifications of this law have existed in different places and at different times. It has been held, for example, that the Pawn should only acquire the power of the Piece on to whose square it had been played, or of a Piece already lost. It  has also been proposed to limit the conversion to either a Knight or a Queen, as the latter comprises the power of Rook and Bishop; and the Pawn has sometimes been required to perform certain additional moves before becoming entitled to the privileges of a Piece. The most plausible of the regulations is that the Pawn should only supply the place of a Piece already lost, so as to avoid, what Philidor so violently denounced, plurality of pieces. But then comes the difficulty of providing for the case where a Pawn has reached the eighth square before any Piece has been lost. It has been proposed to leave such a Pawn, as it were, dormant, until a capture should have made among the Pieces a vacancy for it to supply. Ponziani, an advocate of this regulation, has given the following little game as an example of it.”
Example of non-standard castling & promotion
 [Title "Ponziani scheme - White to move"]
 [FEN "Bn1qk1nr/p1p2ppp/8/8/4P2b/5N1b/PPPP3P/RNBQ1rK1 w k - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. g3 fxg3 6. Kh1&Rf1 d5 Italian style castling!
7. Bxd5 Bh3 8. Bxb7 g2+ 9. Kg1 gxf1 without promoting
10. Bxa8 Bf2# & f1=R# only now does pawn f1 promote to a rook
“In this game the black Pawn, which attained the eighth square on its ninth move, neither gave mate nor check, because the player had lost no Piece into which it could be converted, and it was not in a situation to check as a Pawn. But as White chose to capture the Rook on his tenth move, Black plays down the Bishop with one check, giving another and mate, with the Pawn now become a Rook in place of that captured. There is so much of the absurd about such a finale as this that no one will consider it worthy of serious examination, and it is only mentioned as a matter of curiosity.”
1862: The Madness Becomes Official
As described in the Edward Winter link in another answer, the dummy pawn rule was codified in the International Congress of London in 1862, despite Staunton's outrage. For a generation, the war raged between the two camps, echoing the chaos in the European political space at this time. English chess papers would bicker about it for decades to come, with numerous joke problems and articles,  with most condemning the dummy pawn.
1865: Some Chess Composers Grumble
In 1865, 3 years after the passing of the law allowing the dummy pawn, an early article by William Pavitt against the dummy pawn appeared in the “The Chess World”.
Pavitt gave this simple mate in three he created that worked under normal promotion rules
[Title "William Pavitt - The Chess World 1865, Mate in 3"]
[FEN "K7/2N5/2p5/k1P3R1/p4N2/P2P4/6p1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ng6! g1=Q 2. Ne5 Qc1 3. Nxc6#

However, in essence, with the dummy promotion rule, the problem wouldn’t work as there is no mate in two. He showed a mate in 5 to show how the problem would have to be corrected to conform with the dummy pawn. (Note that this is a correction the original created by James Malcom as the original is incorrect).
[Title "William Pavitt (corrected J. Malcom 2020), Mate in 5"]
[FEN "8/K1N5/2p5/k1P5/p7/P2PP3/3p2pN/3B4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ng4 g1 2. Bf3 d1 3. Bd5 cxd5 4. Ne5 d4 5. Nc4#

Pavitt showed these problems to give examples on how allowing the dummy pawn would greatly affect chess problems, and he condemned the concept as negative.
Most chess composers in the chess problem world were eventually set against the dummy pawn due to how it would interfere with known chess problem and the needless work that would be needed to incorporate it in. An occasional exception, i.e. Christmas and trick problems that intentionally used it, was generally accepted for the humor. In fact, many problem tournaments specified to rules to disallow the dummy pawn.
1870: Baden
A typical data point from this dark time is the Baden Chess Congress of 1870, which adopted the 1862 rules (source). An article covering this begins attractively:
“Unmoved by the shrill notes of the war trumpets sounding in their ears, the Chess players have commenced their mimic strife in Baden.“
1876: Staunton
In the mean time, Staunton came out with another edition of his Praxis (source). He did not mention the 1862 rules, but he did give the previously discussed 1854 example by Petroff.
1880: A Rare Friend To The Dummy
However, not everyone gave disdain to the dummy problem. A few chess composers thought that it should be allowed. An old article by Fredrick Thompson, published in 1880 in “Chess Player's Annual And Club Directory,” called on “Pawn On 8 In Chess Problems” gives an insight into the supporters of the dummy pawn. In his article. Thompson advocated for the dummy pawn to be allowed in chess problems.
Various reasons are given, the most interesting perhaps being this: “ The main objection to P on 8 is, that it breaks a fundamental law of Chess. So it would if pawn stood on square 1, but on square 8, in the enemy's territory, is quite another thing. As Staunton in his Praxis says—" The ancient idea supposed the Chess Board divided into two belligerent kingdoms." Have common soldiers never mounted guard in the palace of a foreign potentate at the conqueror's behest? Ought pawn to be played to 8 at all if he may not remain there? His captain bids him stand sentinel as a private soldier, and it is not for the discomfited foe to say him nay. Ought pawn to attack a piece or check the King from square 7, if he has no business on 8?”
The logic is that if the pawn has power on the 7th rank as a pawn, why should can it not extend its rights as a pawn on the 8th rank?
A more straightforward reason is also given: “The present pawn-queening law bristles with innovations upon ancient usage. As Mr. Staunton wrote on March 18, 1865—"The old laws from which you quote, have been constantly modified of late years." Fundamental law, forsooth! The law never had a bottom. No one will deny the use of pawn on 8 in problems if pawn on 8 is permissible in play. The " Competent authority " for the laws of Chess must be players, not problem composers, for the laws, of the game govern the problemist, not the problemist the laws of the game.”
Lastly, he advocates for it as to prevent cooks in chess problem, to make possible otherwise impossible ideas realizable at last. He gives a problem to illustrate his defense of the dummy pawn, since it would be cooked without the pawn on c8, since without there would be a cook starting with 1. Qc8+.
[Title "Fredrick Thompson, Mate in 3"]
[FEN "2PQ4/6p1/3P2B1/3Pk3/8/2N1N1P1/8/7K w - - 0 1"]

He ends with this: “ I claim, therefore, P on 8 in Chess strategy, and conclude this paper with a problem commenced in July, 1879. (Skipped text). Dropping the men one square down the board also produces a cook, in fact the dead pawn saves the problem from being relegated to the waste basket. I consider this one of the best compositions I have put together during a practice of thirty years, and I fail to see why it should be treated to Lynch-law, when the queening-a-pawn rule is to "reward it with the greatest possible advantage."
1883: London Congress
Another data point is the London International Congress of 1883, where the rules include:
“10. A Pawn reaching the eighth square must be named as a Queen or Piece, at the option of player, independent of the number of Pieces on the board. The created Queen or Piece acts immediately in its new capacity. Until the Pawn has been so named, the move is incomplete.”
This is the first occurrence I've ever seen a usage of Piece to exclude the Queen! However, it's clear that dummy pawns are on the wane.
1883: Far Reaches-The Dummy Pawn’s Travels
One example that can be found of how far the dummy pawn reached is a problem from the 3/10/1883 edition of the “New Zealand Mail.” New Zealand was then part of the British Empire, is so not so surprising that the dummy pawn got that far, but it is pretty far though!
[Title "Francis C. Collins - New Zealand Mail 3/10/1883, Selfmate in 2"]
[FEN "1n3R1n/3p1p2/B1pP1Pp1/2B1K1P1/2r5/3k4/NR2p1Q1/8 w - - 0 1"]

The point is that capturing the b8 knight fails because Black can then promote to a pawn and there is no selfmate after that.  The solution is 1. Rxf7!, such that after e1=P, the move. 2. Rxb8 forces 2... Nxf7#.
The solution, printed in the 4/21/1883 edition, says this: "This position has been composed by Mr. Collins in accordance with the British Chess Association’s 13th Law: —“When a pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option of selecting a piece, whether such piece has been previously lost or not, whose name and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that it shall remain a Pawn.” This rule of the “dummy pawn” has never met with much favour amongst chess-players, and there are very few clubs or societies which observe it. We have received no correct solution to the problem (which is a most ingenious one), the result doubtless of the non-acquaintance by our friends of such a rule as the foregoing in any of the codes of chess laws."
This shows just how weak of an entity the dummy pawn has become and how very few looked upon it with favor.
1895: Hastings Congress
By the time of the famous Hastings Congress in 1895, dummy pawns are clearly gone from serious play. The Congress rules adopt exactly the same wording as London 1883. (All attendees were searched to make sure no dummy pawns were being smuggled into the venue.)
1898: Sam Loyd #3
In what is widely known as the last hurrah, no discussion of the dummy pawn period would be complete without the following beautiful problem by the American composer Sam Loyd.
[Title "Sam Loyd - American Chess Magazine, Mate in 3"]
[FEN "N1Br4/2Pb1P2/3k4/1P2R3/1P2K3/B7/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. cxd8!
(1. cxd8=Q/R? stalemate)
(1. cxd8=B? Bf5+)
(1. cxd8=N? Bc6+)
threatening 2. f8=Q/B#
(1... Bf5+ 2. Rxf5 Ke7 3. f8=Q#)
(1... Bc6+ 2. bxc6 Kxc6 3. b5#)
(1... Bxc8 2. f8=Q+ Kd7 3. Qe7#)
(1... Bxb5? 2. Re6#)

1900: An Ingenious #4
But in fact Loyd's was only the penultimate hurrah. Two years later the brilliant but little-known E. J. Lohman produced this gem, which is as ingenious as Loyd’s #3. This is what should be known as the last hurrah of the dummy pawn, the pinnacle of the times when you could make a position and legally solve it by promotion to a dummy pawn.
[Title "E. J. de Savornin Lohman - De Amsterdammer 02/09/1900, Mate in 4"]
[FEN "2B5/1pR1P3/1P1k4/8/2K5/5P2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8! Ke5 2. Rf7 Kd6 3. f4 Kc6 4. Rf6#
(1. e8=Q/R? stalemate!)
(1. e8=N+? Ke5 2. Rf7 stalemate!)
(1. e8=B? Ke5 2. Rf7 Kd6 3. f4 stalemate!)

1904: The Mischief Ends
But it was only with the arrival of the British Chess Federation that the final nail in the coffin was driven home. There is still some lack of clarity as to the precise year this happened, but it was around 1904.
1913: ...And Yet
Nearly a decade after the dummy pawn was finally killed off in law, the famous fairy chess composer Thomas R. Dawson took some time to make a drawing study with it. White must create three dummy pawns in order the achieve the draw via self-stalemate!
[Title "Thomas R. Dawson - The Chess Amateur 1913, White to move and draw"]
[FEN "6K1/6PP/3p2PP/3P1ppp/8/ppp5/qrp5/1rk5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kh8 Kd2 2. g8 Re1 3. g7 Re6 4. dxe6 Rb1 5. e7 b2 6. e8 Qxg8+ 7. hxg8 null 8. h7 null

Afterward, the dummy pawn slowly faded into history, only mentioned now and then, until the dawn of the Internet.
1996: A Lone Bright Spot
In 1996, the dummy pawn had another brief period of relevance when John Beasley made a small study in which the only way for White to win is to promote to a pawn. It is the first known dummy problem in which White wins since the Loyd #3-nearly a century! I will leave to you figure out the reasons to avoid promoting.
[Title "John Beasley - EBUR 1996, White to move and win"]
[FEN "5r1K/2k1P3/3N1Bqp/N2Q1B1P/8/8/8/1R6 w - - 0 1"]

2017: Just For Fun
The Internet has allowed many to create and share their own dummy pawn problems. While there is no doubt many problems been created, perhaps the pinnacle of achievement was when Peter Wong created an entirely new problem in which White wins by promotion to a pawn!
The problem was shared on the Matplus.net forums in November, 2017, although. the composer has originally shared somewhere on chess.com.
The chess composer Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe managed to add a golden touch to Peter Wong in that it is in both sides best interest to promote to a pawn!
[Title "Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe & Peter Wong - Matplus 11/12/17, Black to move and White to win"]
[FEN "5qnk/3pPB2/1p1p1N2/1pbK1NP1/1p1pP3/1P1P4/6p1/7R b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1. gxh1! exf8!

White easily wins with an extra piece. The full solution and the refutations of each promotion can be viewed here.
Also from the same forum, here are two possible 6-piece settings for dummy pawn draw:
[Title "ichai - MatPlus 7/2/2020, White to move and draw"]
[FEN "8/2P5/8/8/8/2r5/p1r5/K1k5 w - - 0 1"]

1. c8!
(1. c8=Q? Rb3)

And the current economy record-holder:
[Title "A.Buchanan - MatPlus 13/5/2020, White to move and draw"]
[FEN "7K/5rPp/7k/8/8/8/6p1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. g8!
(1. g8=Q? g1=Q! 2. Qxg1 Rf8+ 3. Qg8 Rxg8+ 4. Kxg8 Kg6!
    (2. Qxf7 Qd4+ 3. Kg8 Qd8+ 4. Qf8+ Qxf8+)
    (2. Qf8+ Rxf8#)
    (2. Qg7+ Qxg7#)
    (2. Qxh7+ Rxh7#)
    (2. Qg5+ Kxg5)
    (2. Qg6+ Kxg6,hxg6))

Will the dummy pawn rise again?
It seems unlikely that FIDE will introduce the dummy pawn for over the board play, although it would be cool if they did. For compositions, dummy pawn promotion, as the ultimate under-promotion, is paradoxical and dramatic: exactly what a problem chess move should be. However, introducing a 5th promotion option would render incomplete the vast range of allumwandlung studies, including solutions to the famous Babson task. So this novelty seems unlikely to happen.
Where Can I Find Dummy Pawn Problems?
Currently, the largest known catalogue of dummy pawn problems is on the Die Schwalbe Chess Problem Database Server, known as the "Schwalbe PDB for short. Searching "K='dummy pawn' in the search function currently brings up a list of 63 dummy pawn problems, from across the 19th-21st centuries. It is but a small sample of what exists out there.
Extensive edits and additions were carried out by Rewan Demontay May 6, 2020.
Some follow-up mods by Laska subsequently: let's keep building it!
Addendum 8/31/2020-The history of the dummy pawn has been pushed back to 1832.


Why do titled players always play online (blitz) speed chess? If you have been to an online chess server, you will notice that almost all titled players always play quick games (3 0) at a max.

On the other hand, if you go to tournaments, it needs cool thinking and not instantaneous moves.

I am surprised, then how do they maintain this balance? Doesn't playing too many quick games spoil their overall playing ability?

Good chess players who play online prefer quick games like 10sec + 1 or 1 min because nobody can cheat with a computer engine for such short games.

If a player tries to cheat with a computer, in this type of game, he loses the game on time.

After many quick games, these players can maintain this balance easily. Indeed, they train brain to think very quickly. And those who can think quickly can think slowly. Thus, there is no problem playing slow games after fast games.

Moreover, just for your information, blitz game refers to all chess games where each player has up to 10 minutes for all the moves.


Is opposite side castling an advantage? I usually work things out as I go along. I don't know any openings and tend to improvise the opening and the middlegame.
For a player like me, is opposite castling a good or a bad choice? I took a look at the tactics involved in such a game (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/attack-on-opposite-side-castled-king) and it seems that you need a high tempo to perform well. For someone who never follows a strict plan and improvises, is this an advantage or a disadvantage? Should I castle on the same side and aim for a slower game with less pawn involvement?
Say, for example, my queenside is under attack and the opponent has castled kingside. Castling kingside would reduce pressure and allow me to recollect my thoughts. Castling queenside would allow me to put pressure on the opponent's kingside and form a counterattack quickly. For each of these possibilities, the play style must change, but does castling opposite the opponent actually give me any advantage apart from aggression? Possibly, it would allow my bishops to take a long diagonal against the opposing king, w/hile same-side castling would require more knight action.

The short answer is that castling long, vs. short or staying in the centre depends on the concrete nature of the position. I would advise against 'castling into it [an attack]', and give this quote from Pillsbury:

  Castle because you will or because you must, but not because you can

This means that if I gave a general answer of, say, 'always castle kingside, it's good', then that advice may not apply to many positions, and also goes against your player personality of working things out move-by-move.

If you could post some concrete positions into your question, then the community can comment on if/when castling queenside is appropriate.


Age categories in chess What is the minimum age to play chess in senior category?  A senior chess tournament for selection of nationals is happening in our state. I would like to play. What age do I have to be to play in the different senior categories?

FIDE has 2 senior age categories - over 50 and over 65. Most national federations will follow FIDE's lead.

Note that over 50 means that you will be at least 50 years old on the 31st December of that year. So, for over 50 tournaments this year you need to have been born in 1968 or earlier. The reason FIDE do it this way is that they publish your year of birth but not your exact date of birth (for privacy reasons). This information allows organizers to establish whether or not you are eligible.


Novice - Capitalizing on players not knowing their openings? I am a 1400-rated player currently working on my theory and understanding of openings.

I am good at learning lines, much more so than others at my rating. But I'm less sure on where/how to learn the theory behind my preferred openings (I prefer the London System as White, and the Taimanov Sicilian as Black). Therefore, I don't know how to capitalize when my opponent doesn't know the lines themselves.

For example, I know the main line of the Taimanov Sicilian to the 18th move, as well as how to transpose into several variations along the way depending on White's move. However, what I struggle with is knowing what to do when my opponent plays a move that is not part of any studied line.

To display this, in the Taimanov Sicilian, the standard line is 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Bc5 Bb7; if white played a move other than 15. Bc5 (that wasn't an obvious blunder or mistake), I would struggle to know how to continue.

I guess what I'm essentially asking is how and/or where I can learn the theory behind the openings. Every video I've found simply walks through the main lines and standard variations, and Wikipedia articles generally only give one-sentence summaries of the theory behind certain openings (for example, their section on the Taimanov Sicilian reads simply "Black develops the knight to a natural square and keeps his options open regarding the placement of his other pieces. One of the ideas of this system is to develop the king's bishop to b4 or c5."

I think your problem comes from the difference between memorizing the opening theory, and understanding it. I suggest you focus more on understanding, why this move is played (both yours and theirs). This way, you can think during the game, why this move could be not optimal and play accordingly. Even if you do not know, how to take advantage of it, you can it least follow the theme of your opening.

To understand the theme of an opening, you can (most of the times) read books about it. The introduction will contain the goals of the opening most of the times. You can also just take a chess board and look for yourself, what the lines of the openings are about.

To understand the reasons behind the moves, just play out different moves, which look natural to you. I recommand not to use an engine at first, and only check afterwards, if you missed something. Do not memorize every line, but rather look for common motives, which appear, e.g. they do not defend a field, so now you can put your knight there which puts pressure on a crucial field. Or they trade DSB, so now they have a weakness on dark squares (if pawns are on light squares), so you can try to capitalize on that.

My personal experience however is, that at your level (and some levels above) gaining minimal advantages through the opening is not so important. A lot of games will be decided by tactics, so remember to constantly look out for them!


Enable pondering with Leela chess zero I just got Leela Chess Zero up and running inside docker using this guide. Added a couple of weights from here

Now, when I run leela

$> lczero -w path/to/weight/file
go
info depth 16 nodes 435 nps 48 tbhits 0 score cp -437 time 9085 pv b5c4 d3c4 d5b4 ...
bestmove b5c4

I've used stockfish before, which also returns a ponder move

bestmove b5c4 ponder d3c4

Here is described that you can use --ponder to enable it, but that option is not recognized. Is something like this also possible with Leela?

Furthermore, I've seen different weight files, where can I find good weight files?

After asking on the Discord as @Oscar Smith suggested in a comment, I got some results.

The person I asked said that you could download good weight files for Leela from this webpage: http://lczero.org/networks/

This was also said: "nT40.T8.610 (used in TCEC Sufi): https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmcf0lf1hes10gi/256x20.T8-swa-610000?dl=0 and currently in use in TCEC Rapid is 42547.pb.gz from above page. LCZero won Season 15 TCEC Superfinal  with above net T40.T8.610, but might not any more be strongest one."

I'm assuming that it's relavant to what you need.

Here is the Leela Chess Zero Discord link so you can find out more: https://discordapp.com/invite/pKujYxD


Why is Bf5 good in this position? I would like to know why playing Bf5, allowing White to exchange the white-squared bishops, doubling Black's pawns is good for Black.

In such situation, castling on either side seems quite unsafe for Black given its weaknesses of b6, h6 and probably f6 later on.

Plus, I am not sure eliminating the White bishop is a good reason, as it is not particularly dangerous in such a position.

After the exchange of white squared bishops black will play e6 cementing the center, leaving all his pawns on white squares. The white squared bishop is Black's bad piece in these structures and conversely it is white's best piece. The exchange very much favours black.

With black pawns on d5 and f5 white isn't going to be opening the center any time soon so the black king is safe in the center. Black has at least equalised.


(Unbalanced) Double-Move chess - can white force a win? I'm not talking about Marseillais chess (which is similar, but rules are added to reduce the advantage of the white), which is sometimes also called "balanced double-move chess".
In a Double-Move chess both players move two times instead of once. There is no check, capture the king to win.
Is the advantage of white sufficient? I.e. is it feasible to prove that white can always force a win?
Was a question like this examined in the past? I'm looking for references on any related work.

For example, if we were talking about Triple-Move chess (both players move three times instead of once, there is no check, capture the king to win), then white always wins on the "second move" by sacrificing the queen. That is, white makes their "first move" by: pushing e pawn, queen to h5, queen to f7, and black is lost!
To see why black is lost, observe the f1 bishop. It can capture the king on the next move either by b5, d7, e8 or by c4, f7, e8 (the white queen must be captured). If black captures the queen with anything but the king (i.e. spends two moves on the knight), then black does not have enough moves to defend both lines of attack from the bishop. Otherwise, if black captures with the king, then there are again two lines of attack from the f1 bishop and black again does not have enough moves to defend both. Black king gets captured on the "second move" in every scenario.
If we reduce the variant to Double-Move chess, is the advantage for white still significant enough such that we can possibly find the (least?) number of moves in which the white can force a win (capture black king), or is this variant as hard as solving the ordinary chess?

Edit: I'm aware that "If there was a perfect play from both sides, but each player was allowed to do 2 moves every time, would white win?" was asked before, but there it is not clear if the OP refers to the (balanced) Marseillais chess, or not. - Also, the answer there isn't useful as it simply states "White would probably win. However, this is not certain..." without further clarifications. (I.e. they appear to claim that it is as hard as ordinary chess, but this is not obvious.)

We will prove that there exists a strategy for the white player that guarantees them a draw in the case of Double-Move chess.
Assume that such a strategy does not exist. This means that whatever move is made by the whites, there exists a strategy for the blacks leading to a win for them, i.e., the black player has a winning strategy. However, if the whites move a knight forth and back, the position on the board will be the same for the black player, as it was the initial position for the white player! Therefore, after such a move, the black player is not able to guarantee a draw and thus the white player must have a winning strategy. This is a contradiction since we assumed that the whites do not even have a strategy guaranteeing them a draw.


Which was that Marshall's game with that spectacular Queen sac? Which was the game where Marshall, I think that with Black, made a spectacular Queen sac in g3 (White pawns on f2, g2, and h2, King in g1).  The Black Queen could be taken with the f and h pawns and also with a third piece, and all variants led to different checkmate themes.

I believe that the audience started throwing gold coins after Qg3 was made.

UPDATE: I changed Murphy's mentions in the original question to mention Marshall instead, as Marshall was the player who actually did the Queen sac.

I believe it was Levitsky vs Marshall

[FEN ""]
1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nc3 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Be2 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8. Bg5 O-O 9. dxc5 Be6 10. Nd4 Bxc5 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Bg4 Qd6 13. Bh3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Bb4 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. Rad1 Qc5 17. Qe2 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qxc3 19. Rxd5 Nd4 20. Qh5 Ref8 21. Re5 Rh6 22. Qg5 Rxh3 23. Rc5 Qg3   (23... Qg3 24.Qxg3 Ne2+ 25.Kh1 Nxg3+ 26.Kg1 Nxf1 27.gxh3 Nd2)


If we move white's bishop to a dark square in the Fisher-Taimanov (1971) bishop vs. knight endgame, can white still win? My coach showed me a famous game Fisher vs. Taimanov (1971) where Fisher expertly used the bishop's advantage over a knight in an endgame.

[fen ""]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Mark Taimanov"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7 5. Nc3 e6 6. g3 a6
7. Bg2 Nf6 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Bf4 d6 11. Qd2 h6
12. Rad1 e5 13. Be3 Bg4 14. Bxc5 dxc5 15. f3 Be6 16. f4 Rd8
17. Nd5 Bxd5 18. exd5 e4 19. Rfe1 Rxd5 20. Rxe4+ Kd8 21. Qe2
Rxd1+ 22. Qxd1+ Qd7 23. Qxd7+ Kxd7 24. Re5 b6 25. Bf1 a5
26. Bc4 Rf8 27. Kg2 Kd6 28. Kf3 Nd7 29. Re3 Nb8 30. Rd3+ Kc7
31. c3 Nc6 32. Re3 Kd6 33. a4 Ne7 34. h3 Nc6 35. h4 h5
36. Rd3+ Kc7 37. Rd5 f5 38. Rd2 Rf6 39. Re2 Kd7 40. Re3 g6
41. Bb5 Rd6 42. Ke2 Kd8 43. Rd3 Kc7 44. Rxd6 Kxd6 45. Kd3 Ne7
46. Be8 Kd5 47. Bf7+ Kd6 48. Kc4 Kc6 49. Be8+ Kb7 50. Kb5 Nc8
51. Bc6+ Kc7 52. Bd5 Ne7 53. Bf7 Kb7 54. Bb3 Ka7 55. Bd1 Kb7
56. Bf3+ Kc7 57. Ka6 Ng8 58. Bd5 Ne7 59. Bc4 Nc6 60. Bf7 Ne7
61. Be8 Kd8 62. Bxg6 Nxg6 63. Kxb6 Kd7 64. Kxc5 Ne7 65. b4
axb4 66. cxb4 Nc8 67. a5 Nd6 68. b5 Ne4+ 69. Kb6 Kc8 70. Kc6
Kb8 71. b6 1-0

I want to consider the position at move 45 (with black to move), but move white's bishop to a dark square.  Let's say this position:

[fen "5B2/8/1pnk2p1/p1p2p1p/P4P1P/2PK2P1/1P6/8 b - - 0 1"]

All I've done is move white's bishop from b5 (a light square) to f8 (a dark square).  This seems substantially harder for white to win, and perhaps it's unwinnable for white.

Question: If we move white's bishop to a dark square in the Fisher-Taimanov (1971) bishop vs. knight endgame, can white still win?

I think white cannot win, and if that's correct, then there's an interesting nuance in the position: Fisher didn't simply win because "the bishop is better than a knight", but because he organized his pawns to suit.

I would say no.

Black's king is doing a very good job at protecting the queenside, with no possible threats on the kingside. Also, the e4 square could be a great source of counterplay for Black. In short, I wouldn't say that White even has an edge in that position. I'd prefer being Black if I could choose.

Finally, the statement "the bishop is better than the knight" is just meaningless. Even if such an advantage exists, other existing factors in the position will make too big of a difference to apply the general principle. By the way, knights are OFTEN better than "good bishops" at defeating "bad bishops"


Is it beneficial to play chess against yourself? I tried it when I first learned chess, and it was fascinating, because I had no ideas about strategy or tactics. But now that I have some experience, it seems pointless, as I know what my "opponent" is thinking all the time, and what my main ideas are for both sides. Should I still make an attempt to play against myself? Is there a deeper point behind doing so that helps one's chess ability? Do strong player (expert or above) do it?

Depending on exactly what you mean by "playing chess against yourself," I would say it can be extremely beneficial, and that yes, strong players do this quite a lot.

Consider what you do when you have to decide what move to make when you're playing a normal game against an opponent distinct from yourself: you analyze the position as best as you can in your head, which means needing to figure out what possibilities are available to both players in order to get to the truth of the position. In essence, you play some portion of a game against yourself starting from the position you're at. But you don't just play straight through; you have to consider sidelines and various ideas and pitfalls that might pop up along the way.

Because this is such a fundamental part of playing the game, analyzing positions or entire games on one's own, freely exploring moves and ideas while trying to determine best play, is a fantastic way to improve at chess. Not only does this endeavor have the simple potential to open your mind by exposing you to more and more types of positions and ideas, but it also offers practice at just the kind of thought process that you continually need to engage in internally during a game. One can anylyze existing games, of course, be they grandmaster games or your own past games, but games initiated on the spot serve just as well to offer up new positions in which you have to figure out how to play for each side.

So if, when you play a game against yourself, you don't merely play an alternating sequence of moves until you get a result, but instead do some stopping, backtracking and general meandering, digging deeply to figure out how and why things could proceed differently, then really you're working to develop your analysis skills, and so it could definitely prove beneficial.


At what time control do you stop recording your moves? I've been to a 15|2 (Fischer) tournament where it was not necessary to record your moves and I've also played in longer games where it was expected. My question is at what time limit are you no longer expected to record your games (generally speaking)?

More specifically, would you expect to have to record your moves in a G30 tournament?

Anything less than or equal to G/29 does not require you to record moves, according to USCF. Otherwise known as Blitz and Quick, they have a separate rating for those time controls.

Reference: An Introduction to
USCF-Rated Tournaments [PDF]

So, yes, you do need to record your moves in a G/30, because that is considered Standard time control.

There is a rule that allows you to stop recording once you (or your opponent) have less than 5 minutes on the clock, in Standard time control games. See #7: USCF - FIDE Rule Differences - 2 Columns

Additionally, if you have an increment of 30 seconds or more, it looks like you have to record moves regardless of the time left on the clock. (I wonder if people really have that sort of increment in tournaments.)


Chess thought process Can any of the higher rated players here (1500+) talk about their thought process during a game so I can improve my own?

For example, my own process goes like this:

Am I hanging a piece with this move?
Does this move create a hole in my camp?
Can the opponent put me in a nasty fork after this move?

The first thing is that you should have a general idea where your play is, whether on the queenside, center, or kingside. Your plan as to where your place your pieces, and how you open that part of the board is going to be based on the opening pawn structure.

If it is later in the game, you want to try to figure out where the opponent is weakest. From there, you want to figure out which of your pieces you can aim at that weakness. This is called "planning".

From there, you have to analyze the best order of moves to move your pieces to attack that weakness, while taking into account your own weaknesses, knowing that your opponent will be trying to do the same to you. Sometimes, you have to just wait and defend if you are much worse.

A lot of this is intuitive based on your level of play, but from there, you just have to calculate variations.

Lastly, as I have gotten older, and tend to miss obvious things more, I like to look at every possible move for both sides, no matter how absurd a move seems. I am not analyzing them, but sometimes, it is just that simple consideration of a move that makes me see a tactic I might have missed, or a mistake I am about to make. I am only talking about spending seconds total looking at all the moves.

Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov, and I think I have seen other strong GMs say it, say that most calculation errors happen in the first couple of moves.


Exchanging on d5 in queen's gambit like openings I'm  ~2170 rated but having avoided d4 d5 type setups my entire chess career, as some things are quite mysterious to me.
In positions where white has pawns on d4 and c4 and black has one on d5 (typically accompanied by some on c6 or e6, or both), I've noticed that white often exchanges with cxd5 and the reasons behind this are quite enigmatic for me. Often by doing so, white allows black's light square bishop to come out, if not immediately then, in the future. For example, some people will play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5, or similar positions. The exchange may be featured in other positions, for example where black has played b6. Perhaps it's done in the Catalan. Some positions are obvious to me, like in the mainline of Grunfeld's where the exchange leads to a white center. However, often to me it seems that the exchange helps black in regards to piece activity. I suppose the exchange of a side pawn with a center pawn is an argument, but it seems quite soft and unsatisfying. Also, the timing of the exchange also is enigmatic. Could the exchange have happened a turn before, and why precisely now? There are many classical queen pawn openings where this exchange is featured and I would like if someone could explain to me the typical reasons for doing this exchange.

Your incomprehension is very understandable. Black opens with d5 and e6 entombing the light squared bishop only for white to play cd allowing the reply ed from black and, hey presto! the bishop is free! Is white really so stupid? What's the trick?
Well, some white players want the structure that arises, the so called "Carlsbad structure" and they want to pursue the "minority attack".
Here is the pawn structure:
[fen "8/pp3ppp/2p5/3p4/3P4/4P3/PP3PPP/8 w - - 0 1"]

The basic idea is that white will advance the a and b pawns and exchange them for black's a and b pawns leaving a weak backward c pawn and a hole on c5 where white can park a piece. The long term aim is to win this weak pawn and end up in a winning ending a pawn up. QED
Of course life isn't that simple. Nevertheless the minority attack is a template which strong players (over 2000) should know. It can occur in a number of openings, not just the QGD. For instance it also occurs, with colours reversed, in the Caro Kann.
There is actually an English GM, Keith Arkell, who has this as one of his main weapons. He is an expert in the kind of endgames which can arise from this opening and the endgame is where he applies most of his effort. (He is also probably the leading expert on the KRB vs KR endgame. Although a theoretical draw he has won something like 95% of the games where he has had the extra bishop.)
He has just published a book, "Arkell's Endings", which describes his chess philosophy and gives a lot of annotated games showing his methods. The main English chess magazine just published an extract dealing with this topic and including a game. The full article is about half way through this pdf.
Here are some of Arkell's comments and the game:

I rarely look to create unfathomable complications, I don’t carry around an armoury of opening traps, and I don’t concern myself with trying to force a win from the earliest stages. Instead, my opening repertoire and subsequent play are all about creating a framework from which I can try to acquire the tiniest of advantages, and then, inch by inch, convert that into something tangible. Unsurprisingly, I win many of my games in the ending. Very often I am not sure at what point my opponent’s position has deteriorated from what was difficult but tenable, to a forced loss.

Here is the game where Arkell demonstrates his use of the Carlsbad structure as a framework from which he extracts a win.
[Title "Arkell - Bradbury, EACU Open, Newmarket 2019, QGD"]
[fen ""]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. d4 c6 6. Bg5 Bf5 7. e3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 {Theory dismisses this position as about equal, or at best only very slightly better for White, but my familiarity with the arising structures gives me a good chance to gain the upper hand} 9...Be7 10. O-O h6 {Normally Black would castle here, but now, by capturing on f6, I would be able to follow up with either 12 Ne5 or 12 b4} 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. Ne5 O-O 13. Qf5 {This doesn’t look very ambitious, but I am playing for an endgame in which I can probe on the queenside without having to worry about counterplay} 13...Qc8 14. Qxc8 Raxc8 {My opponent doesn’t make any serious mistakes in this game, but this felt like a minor one since the action will most likely take place on the a-, b- and c-files, so the other recapture was likely preferable.} 15. Rfc1 Bd6 16. Nd3 Rfe8 17. b4 Nd7 { I had calculated 17...Ne4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Nc5 b6 (or 19...Bxc5 20. Rxc5 when b4-b5 will follow, with overwhelming positional pressure) 20 Na6 with the plan of attacking Black’s c-pawn.} 18. a4 {I wasn’t sure about the consequences of 18. b5 c5 19. Nxd5 cxd4 20. exd4 Rxc1 21. Rxc1 and then something like 21...Re2. I’m a pawn up, but it all looks a bit loose, so instead I formulated a plan to fix c6 as a longterm weakness.} 18...Nb6 19. a5 Nc4 20. b5 {Threatening to undermine Black’s whole queenside with a5-a6, so more or less forcing the following sequence} 20...a6 21. bxa6 bxa6 22. Na4 Rb8 {22...Nxa5 23 Nac5 just plays into my hands.} 23. Nac5 Rb5 24. Nxa6 Ra8 25. Nac5 Raxa5 26. Rxa5 Nxa5 {And so we have arrived at base camp – the successful conclusion of the minority attack. I have one pawn island against two; Black has active pieces, so a direct assault against c6 is obviously impossible. The correct procedure therefore is to probe on the kingside in order to inflict a second weakness, or at least to gain some space over there.} 27. g4 { This is by far the best pawn move. If 27 h4 h5 it will be hard to make progress, as breaks with e3-e4 or g2-g4 will involve ruining my own pawn structure} 27...Nc4 28. Kg2 Kf8 29. h4 Ke7 30. h5 { Not only does this move fix a target on g7, but experience of playing these kinds of positions, literally hundreds of times, has taught me that there are certain mating nets Black needs to be wary of.} 30...Nb2 {I felt this was a little impatient, enabling me to activate my rook. It was better to sit tight and await events.} 31. Ra1 Nxd3 32. Ra7+ Kf6 33. Nxd3 Rb3 34. Ne1 Rb6 { Neil played this quite quickly, but I wasn’t sure whether he should be playing 34...c5 instead. Actually I had a similar game at Harrogate about four months earlier where I managed to win from the structure which would have arisen after ...c5.} 35. Nf3 Bb8 36. Rd7 Ke6 37. Rd8 {My opponent’s position has rapidly become critical. I now threaten 38. Re8+ Kf6 39. Ne5 when he will either be mated or face heavy material losses.} 37...Bd6 38. Rc8 {This was a bit lazy. As soon as I had released the rook, I regretted not playing 38. Re8+.} 38...Kf6 {There was a chance to prolong the game with 38...f5, but I could still keep up the pressure with 39 g5} 39. Nh4 { After this move, heading for f5, I could no longer see any way for Neil to avoid losing material. His c-pawn, g-pawn, bishop, and even his king have come under increasing pressure, all because his pieces were tied down to the defence of the c6-pawn – a product of White’s typical minority attack in the Carlsbad structure} 39...g6 40. hxg6 fxg6 41. Rg8 Kf7 42. Rxg6 Bf8 43. Kf3 Ra6 44. g5 hxg5 45. Rxg5 Ra2 46. Rf5+ Ke8 47. Ng6 Bd6 48. Rh5 {I have to be careful to prevent the break ...c5 at a moment when the d-pawn is safe from capture.} 48...Kd7 49. Nh4 Bb4 50. Rh7+ Ke6 51. Ng6 Rc2 { I was pleased to see this as it enables my knight to reach its ideal post, back on d3. On 51...Bd6 I intended 52 Rh6 when only an engine might be able to hang on.} 52. Nf4+ Kd6 53. Nd3 Rc4 54. Rb7 c5 55. Rb6+ Kc7 56. dxc5 Bxc5 57. Rb5 {Either Black enters a lost king and pawn endgame, or he loses the d-pawn} 1-0

A masterclass from an expert on the Carlsbad structure.


By how much does being told what piece to move improve one's Elo? Here is a (rather humorous) game in which a 900 player is told by a much higher rated player only which kind of piece to move (e.g. along the lines of "bishop", not "light square bishop").

Is it safe to assume that this assistance would improve the player's game, and presuming so, is there any statistical approximation (or rule of thumb) to estimate the expected improvement in someone's performance (measured by Elo) when given such an advantage?

E.g. would a 900 player assisted in this way by a 2700 player become a 1500 player? (that's a wild guess for argument's sake)

This chess variant is called hand and brain.

From watching many of these games, I can guess that the only boost achieved is that low rated players get advice on a piece which is hanging.  So given your example, the hand would appear to gain Elo (named after Arpad Elo) just for not leaving pieces en prise.  Another advantage, although not very useful, is that by restricting the number of moves from the usual 30 down to about 8 does increase the shear odds of guessing the correct move.

The downside of this game is that the tactics (which most consider to be 90-99% of chess) is severely restricted.  It's dangerous start a combination or even a simple attack unless the lower rated player understand.  It's also possible that a difference in playing style would adversely effect the choice of moves.  That is, an aggressive player always wants to push forward, and a positional player wants to suffocate to opponent, so each has a different view of the most correct move.

There currently isn't enough data to give a statistical answer, but I can guess about a curve.  A low rated player could play about 300 lower than the higher rated player with a limit around 1500.  As the lower rated player rating rises, this playing strength average around 100 points below the lower rated player.  As the lower rated player rating reaches the master level, the playing strength almost disappears.

EDIT:
Expanding answer to better explain and suggest research.
I've only seen about 50 hand and brain games, so my data is unofficial and sprace.
My first exposure to hand and brain chess was on twitch.tv watching Anna Rudolf(2200) and Alexandra Botez(2000) play, from their respective channels.
Two channels which often have a pair of players that have played are HashtagChess (2200 and 1800) and CurlyQueenn (both 1900).  (On of the members of CurlyQueen is getting her own channel, so they may stop streaming together.)
I've seen other channels play this game, but they don't play regularly enough to be suggestions.

The chatter shows that they often guess wrongly about what the brain move was.  But, since there is a chat box, you could ask them directly for their opinions.  You could note the games and have computer analyse and compare to their normal games.  (You can tell which site they are playing from and can see their user name, but I'm sure that they will be helpful if you just ask.)

NOTE:  I have some objections to the enforcement of twitch.tv policies, so I won't be able to get this information directly.


What does it mean to ''analyze grandmaster games''? I am currently rated 1850. My coach tells me that in order to get better at my game, I should ''analyze grandmaster' games''. On the surface, I understand that he wants me to learn from great players' moves. But I'm unsure about what I should be ''analyzing''.

In particular, I have the following problems:

When I look at GMs moves, I see GMs responses. So it's difficult for me to learn why the GM 1 played this particular move, when the GM 2 plays an equally "perfect" move. As a 1800 player, I cannot see the +0.1 advantage that the GM 1 just obtained by his move.
If I put an engine like Stockfish on the move, I will have a bunch of move opportunities, but none of them ''speaks to me''. Why is one move slightly better than another? Stockfish will not tell me.
Finally, like Kasparov said, ''Life imitates Chess''. So in principle, I should make each move with an underlying grand plan. But what is the grand plan? I do not know.

So how can I ''analyze grandmaster games'', so that I can learn from them?

Please give me some guidance.

I agree with you, more than your coach. Just analyzing a GM game, even with a computer, is not helpful just by itself if you have no idea what is going on.

For example, just earlier today, I answered a question here, where the person gave a computer line that made no sense as far as the plans for the position were concerned, so the computer was really no help at all there.

I think what you need are grandmaster games that are WELL-ANNOTATED, to tell you what is going on in them IN WORDS, not just variations, although concrete lines are clearly important too. Another thing that happens in modern chess is that games between IMs/GMs have become so advanced that the battles between each side's plans have become too complex for learning early in a chess "career" because the plans are so effectively thwarted by the opponent it is not always clear what each side was aiming for.

What is much better are the games of old masters like Capablanca and Alekhine because their opponents, while not slouches, were not on their levels; so you can see plans more clearly executed from beginning to end as the plans were often not met with the type of resistance that you would see today at the top levels.

I would get collections of their games, written by them, and play through those games. I have also written here extensively about opening pawn structures, and as you read any game trying to understand it, you need to have some understanding of what you are striving for in any given opening.

Another book that is extremely good for learning is "Learn from the Legends: Chess Champions at Their Best" by GM Mikhail Marin.

Learning to calculate is really a different skill, but one that is reliant upon how well you understand chess (see above), in general, and what you are aiming for (that is, what is the plan).

Calculation prowess can be gained by combining two practice activities: Reading pure tactics books, and reading books that have non-tactical positions for you to practice calculating the best move. Also, try practice reading annotated games without a board, including the annotations, to work on vision in your head.

Tactics books are self-evident as there are a million of them out there. Some excellent books that will give you positions to calculate (mostly) non-tactical positions include:

"Positional Chess Handbook: 495 Instructive Positions from Grandmaster Games" by trainer FM Israel Gelfer. I cannot even begin to tell you how much I love this book. It is incredible. (Do not get the Kindle version as there are way too many mistakes)

"The Best Move" by GMs Hort and Jansa.

"Test Your Chess Skills: Practical Decisions in Critical Moments" by GMs Sarhan Guliev and Logman Guliev

These will help you improve your pure calculation.


Is the position in this trick question reachable? I found this trick question on r/Anarchy chess:White to move, mate in two.
[FEN "2R2RK/6PP/5P/3PN/P/1pQ3p/n1p1qbp/5brk w - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

The trick is that

 you're looking from Black's side, so the white pawn on the H file can promote to a Queen or a Rook, with the only option left for Black to throw their Queen in between.

But is this position actually reachable?
The black and white pawns must've passed eachother, which is not impossible but not trivial either.

Even though the board is upside down, the position is still easily legal.
[FEN ""]
[startply "86"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. a4 h5 2. g4 h4 3. Bg2 Rh5 4. gxh5 h3 5. h6 e5 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Nxe5 hxg2 8. h4 Ne7 9. h5 g5 10. Rh4 Ng6 11. Rf4 g4 12. Rxf7 Qh4 13. e3 Bxe3 14. Ke2 a5 15. f4 Qf2+ 16. Kd3 Nc6 17. b4 b5 18. bxa5 Rxa5 19. Rf8+ Ke7 20. f5 b4 21. f6+ Ke6 22. hxg6 Rc5 23. g7 Rxc2 24. h7 Rxc1 25. Ra3 Rxb1 26. Qc2 Rg1 27. Rc3 Kf5 28. Rc5 Kf4 29. Rd5 Kg3 30. Ke4 Ba6 31. Rxd7 Bf1 32. Rdd8 Qe2 33. Kf5 Bf2 34. Kg6 Kh2 35. Kf7 Kh1 36. Kg8 b3 37. Qc3 Nb4 38. d4 Na2 39. d5 c5 40. Rc8 c4 41. Qd2 c3 42. Qd3 c2 43. Qc3 g3


XiangQi (Chinese chess) textbook or video tutorial I know how the pieces move and understand basics, like forks and pins. Now I am looking for additional tutorials in English. So far, I've only found this book: "Introduction to Chinese Chess (XiangQi) for International Chess Players".

Can you please suggest video tutorials or books in English.

The book I learned from is Chinese Chess: An Introduction to China's Ancient Game of Strategy by H. T. Lau.

The book is mostly examples and exercises. There could have been more explanatory text.


Is there a comprehensive coverage for Lasker variation of the Scandinavian defense? Recently I was trying to improve Scandinavian defense in a way that I can reach "Viking" setup ( ...0-0-0 + ...Nc6 + ...Bg4 vs d4 ). I am trying out various move orders, and have stumbled upon one that I believe would suit me the best:

[Title "Scandinavian defense, B01"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4

If White plays 6.Bc4 then I can reach my desired setup, which seems to give Black good play according to GM Eric Prié. Unfortunately, I can't afford subscription for the Chess Publishing and the article is dated.

My main interest is about positions with 6.h3! since they can become very hard for Black, forcing him to play "only" moves. In order for answers to this question not to be to broad I am asking for comprehensive resources on the line with 6.h3 only. If space allows, I would appreciate if the answerer could list resources for other moves as well ( like 6.Bc4 ).

To repeat, is there a thorough coverage of the following line:

[Title "Scandinavian defense, B01"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3!

I don't think there is a coverage for this line, but if you don't mind, I have been playing this line for years, so here's my thought.

In this position, black generally takes on f3. The reason is that the move Bg4 per se is aiming to trade off the knight at f3, if not, black will have no reason to play this move among others.

What if black doesn't exchange

a) Bh4 in this position is okay, but white can expand on the king side with h3 and g4. Black cannot really exploit the weakness white created in kingside, as Black piece placement commands black play on queenside.Furthermore, the knight on f3 usually will become a strong piece occupying the outpost e5 in the game later on, while black's light squared bishop is a bad bishop due to blacks pawn structure. This all gives white huge initiative in kingside. For instance

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 e6 9.Bg2 c6 10.h4 Be4 11.Bxe4 Nxe4 12.Qf3 Nd6

b) Bf4 or any retreating move is dubious, if black plays this, black may as well just play 5. Bf4 at first instead of wasting a tempo, as black has given white a tempo and white can follow up with g4 Ne5 etc. For instance

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bf5 7.g4 Be4 8.Bd2 Bxf3 9.Qxf3

What to do after exchange

a) What usually goes is like this

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4 e6 10.O-O Be7 11.Rfe1 O-O

Black ends up with a solid position

b) Black can also try undermine white's d-pawn if white is careless, due to the lack of f3 knight

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.O-O-O O-O-O 10.Bc4 e6 11.Ne4 Qa4 12.Bb3 Qxd4 13.Nxf6 Qxf6

c) In some line, black can also play a Bronstein-Larsen-like game.

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

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4 e6 10.Ne4 Qb6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6

Conclusion

If you opt to play Bg4, then you should Bxf3, Bh5 is also playable. Ultimately, the position is something like Caro-Kann for black. Usually, black is behind in development in most lines due to the capture on f3, but the solid position of black compensates it.


What is the approximate number of unique positions added by each practical game of chess? The average number of moves in a game of chess is about 40. This would be an average of about 80 positions in each game, but many positions are shared between games. More sharing occurs at the beginning and end of the game.

New positions arise as games are played. As we add new games to the database of chess games, how many new positions will be added by each game?

In probability terms, if the number of new positions added by a game is a random variable, what is the expected value?

The practical result of this answer might be how large a key would a position table need in a database.

The total number of possible positions in chess is estimated to be 10^43, so the key would need to be extremely large.

As to how many new positions you could expect from an incremental game load, that would depend highly on the current state of the database. For example: the first game would necessarily be all new positions, the second would share at least one position with the first (the starting position) and could otherwise either completely duplicate the first game or deviate entirely.

What seems certain is that as your n rises for positions, the expected value of new positions from an incrementally loaded game would decrease heavily. If you had somehow loaded every game of chess ever played (recorded or otherwise), the expectation of a new position occurring in the next loaded game would be very small indeed.


Is there any software (open source and/or free) that reads chess notation? I would like to convert a chess notation into a game. How to do that?

I have a game in algebraic notation, let say,

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 h6 3.d4 e6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 a6 6.Bc2 Be7 7.Qd3 b5 8.b3 Qc7
9.Nbd2 Bb7 10.0-0  c4 11.bxc4 bxc4 12.Qe2 0-0 13.Nxc4 d5 14.Nce5 dxe4
15.Nh4 Qxc3 16.Be3 Nc6 17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.Rac1 Bb5 19.Qd1 Bxf1 20.Qxf1 Qa5
21.Bb3 Rfc8 22.Rd1 Qh5 23.g3 Ng4 24.Ng2

Is there any software that reads this?

Yes, there are several.

Your question is very vague, though. Arena is an OK choice if you're on Windows; otherwise Lichess is an online option. All of these are free, but there are many more, both free and costly ones (but I don't have enough reputation for more links, and I don't know exactly what you're after).

The computer-readable format of algebraic notation is called Portable Game Notation (PGN), which might help you with searching for alternatives.


Difference in Tactics Ratings I have a Chess.com tactics rating (default blitz setting where time to solve is instrumental in getting points)  hovering around 1750 but for some reason I can't get beyond 1550 on the Chess Tempo's Chess-Tactics site on the standard rating scale (no time limit). Any reason why?  Is it only because the blitz capability and the no-time-limit capability are different, or because the problem difficulty ratings in these two websites are different?

Different sites will have different rating systems, even for games!

So, for tactical puzzles, basically every site works in a completely different manner. Also, I don't know about chess.com, but in chesstempo, different settings will also result in different ratings, as the kind of puzzles will be different, and the balance is not perfectly achieved.


What would happen if I touch two different pieces with each hand at same time? For example, I touch my king with the left hand and my queen with the right hand at the same time. Regarding the rules, I must move a touched piece, so what would happen in this case? Could I choose which piece to move? Would I lose the game automatically when doing such an action?

Is using both hands allowed at all? (e.g.: moving one piece with both hands).

As far as I know, at least in blitz, you must use the clock and move the pieces with the same hand, so what would happen there if you use both hands when moving a piece or touching two different pieces with each hand?

From the FIDE Laws of Chess, article §4.1:

  Each move must be made with one hand only.

So you are not allowed to make a move with both hands (this includes castling) and the arbiter can give you a penalty (§12.9) for this behaviour. IMHO, this should be a warning the first time you do it. In any case, because you touched the king and queen, you must make a move with either piece (§4.3):

  If the player having the move touches (...) one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved.


two or three initial moves = win? you have to play a game with the following rule : white can initially play two moves, then one move each side as usual, and a draw counts as a victory for black. Which side do you choose ? (say differently, do you think this variant favors white or black ?)

Same question with three initial moves for white. Maybe this is already solved?

Since I'm a 1.d4 player, my first two moves as White would be 1.d4 and 2.c4. After that position, Stockfish gives an evaluation of +0.59 if Black plays ...e6. I would definitely enjoy playing this as White since the threat of playing e4 at any time prevents the Nimzo and Dutch. Black best option is to settle for a QGD one tempo down by playing ...d5 on the next move, but this would be very comfortable for me. So I'd probably choose White, but it's not an easy decision.

That being said, it's not close to winning for White. An extra move just guarantees a pleasant edge.

With three initial moves, I would go for 1.e4, 2.d4, 3.Nf3. Stockfish gives a +0.99 evaluation, and it would be very tough for a human to defend as Black in a practical OTB game. This seems on the verge of winning for White, but still not a definite win.


Why was Nd2 played? instead of f4! 1kb4r/4r3/p1p3p1/Pp1p1p1p/1P1P3P/5PP1/2P2K2/1NR2R2 w - - 0 1

1. Nd2 Rhe8 (1... f4!) (1. f4!)

Silman suggests 1. Nd2, with a black response of Rhe8. Wouldn't black just respond with 1...f4! instead? This gives black counter-play on the kingside, opens an f-file for him, and activates his bishop (with an eventual ...Bf5!)

White should have just played 1. f4! What prevented such a move from being considered?

Why 1. Nd2?

Silman is suggesting to improve the worst placed piece with Nd2-b3-c5. This makes sense because:

White will have a good knight vs. bad bishop
The position is closed so White has the time to improve the worst piece

Why not 1. f4?

Black's ...f4 and ...Bf5 plan isn't that strong, because:

When black's bishop gets to f5, it doesn't threaten anything
White doesn't have to open files with gxf4. White should continue with the Nd2-b3-c5 plan as before

Having said this, 1. f4 isn't a bad move, i.e. it deprives the bishop of another target.


How is this not checkmate? I had loads of time to spare See below my game last night, I am white and I got 3 queens. He only has the king left. We have loads of time left. It was a 30min game.

As soon as I moved my original queen up one space and got him into check mate, the game ended as a draw!

How is this a draw?

A necessary condition for checkmate is that the king is in check, which is not the case here.

The position in question is called stalemate: black does not have any legal moves, but is not in check. The game ends at this point, and is evaluated as a draw.


Changing UCI output to include piece names UCI output from engines is generally raw in the form of g1f3 and e2e4 representing Nf3 and Pe4. One engine I saw (lozza) sends its PV output with the piece names.  Others, like Stockfish, don't include the piece names in their PV.

How do I get the piece names to show in the PV? I am working on creating my first user GUI, so any help is appreciated.

With the EGN (from, to) you can simply do a check up on what piece exist on the from position.

Say the engine gives you a2a4 you then simply check what exists on a2 and then generate information based on that.

You can do this cause your GUI will always have the same chess board as the engine. It's the engine that recieves a FEN string from the GUI anyways.


Best ways for improving "tactics" I have been playing chess for a long time, and I have been around 1850-1900 ELO for quite some time. I have always wondered which are the best ways to improve the tactics.

Does playing more and more games improve chess tactics?
Playing limited games but slow games?
Practicing board positions with sites such as chesstempo?
Analyzing others' and self games

Please feel free suggest any point that I have not covered.

All of the suggested can improve your tactics skills. Anything that makes you think hard about chess positions (particularly sharp and complex ones) will. I would add "perfecting the way you calculate variations", i.e. making sure that your calculation is as effective as possible. This was well described in some book, I think it was "Think like a grandmaster" by Kotov. Two points though:

Chess is not only tactics, the strategy, "feeling" for positions, is equally important. And one should always come with the other. In fact they make each other better.
Judging from your Elo, you are a hobby player. Getting better may need hard work which does not always agree with the word "hobby", so pick the method that you enjoy and keep in mind that everyone has limits.


Why is chess failing to attract big name sponsors? Despite all the efforts that chess professionals put to the game the majority of them cannot make a living out of chess. Only 4 or 5 super grandmasters across the world have been able to make a few million dollars from chess. This is mainly because there are no good brands/sponsors associating themselves with chess. At one point, one former president of FIDE had to sponsor world championships from his own "pocket".

Over the years chess has been associated with big industries in business, technology, health, research, etc but it has not been able to attract major sponsors or partners to competitive chess. For example one would have expected a big spin-off from Google's AlphaZero and partnership with FIDE but nothing big has come out so far. Hence the following question;

Why is chess failing to attract major sponsors like other sporting codes?

It's frankly quite boring to watch chess, unless you understand what is going on - it's not like football, basketball or hockey, where there is dynamic, action, fast-paced play - for us, chess players, it might appear that chess is dynamic and fast-paced, but this is not so for the common viewer.

Let's be honest, would you really want to watch a chess game lasting three hours on your TV, waiting for the next move which the player takes 30 minutes to think through and calculate? Specifically for this reason you will never see chess featured on TV, and since it is not featured on TV, it does not get the luxurious contracts that other sports do.


What are the capture rules in shogi? OK, I've never really played much chess, but shogi is more appealing to me. Now my question is, how does capturing work? Like what piece can capture what? I've tried online and some pieces can capture what others can't. So is there some rule on it?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. In shogi, any piece can capture any opposing piece, there are no restrictions like what you're speaking of. Be aware that all pieces capture the same way they move, though. There's no such thing as moving in one way and capturing in another (like the chess pawn, moving forward and capturing diagonally). See the Wikipedia shogi page for a full set of rules. If you have a more specific example of what you're wondering about, please post it.


Looking for the complete game score of Vlastimil Jansa-Istvan Bilek, Rubinstein Memorial 1968 I am looking for the complete score of the game Vlastimil Jansa versus Istvan Bilek, Polanica-Zdoj, Rubinstein Memorial 1968.

Here are the first 20 moves of this Sicilian Dragon-Yugoslav Attack game that have been reconstructed.

[Title "Vlastimil Jansa-Istvan Bilek, Polanica-Zdoj Rubinstein Memorial 1968"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "38"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Qa5 11. Bb3 Rfc8 12. g4 Ne5 13. Kb1 b5 14. h4 b4 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. exd5 Nc4 17. Bxc4 Rxc4 18. Nb3 Qb5 19. h5 Rac8 20. Na1!

This is the key position where Jansa played the fantastic backwards move 20. Na1! The opening sequence to this game could have been a little different however. The position after the first 19.5 moves should be correct. I have searched on ChessBase 15 and the Internet, but have been unable to find this game. I learned about this position from a video by IM Danny Kopec, which I no longer have, but I don't believe he gave the whole game. I would like to find out the actual moves played, especially those after move 20. In addition I would like to know the game result.  I would most appreciate if you could help me find this piece of chess history!

Here is the full game, as constructed from the OP's question and the video by IM Danny Kopec.

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Qa5 11. Bb3 Rfc8 12. g4 Ne5 13. Kb1 b5 14. h4 b4 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. exd5 Nc4 17. Bxc4 Rxc4 18. Nb3 Qb5 19. h5 Rac8 20. Na1 e6 21. hxg6 hxg6 22. Qh2 exd5 23. Qh7+ Kf8 24. Bh6 Bxh6 25. Qxh6+ Ke8 26. Qh8+ Ke7 27. Qh4+ f6 28. Rhe1+ Kd8 29. Qxf6+

Thesee three things not clear from the video:

1) What were the moves before 20. Na1?
2) Did the game continue on or not?
3) What was the outcome of the game?

Regarding 1)-The moves seem very reasonable to me since a large part of it is theory.

Regarding 2)-Perhaps. The position after 29. Qxf6+ is basically lost for black, but is not without hope. The white knight is currently out of play and there are still attacking chances for black, e.g. with a pawn storm.

Regarding 3)-It is likely that white won-see above.


Any tricks to defeat artificial intelligences? I've been playing a lot against an old build of Chess Free on Android the other day and noted that the AI almost always chooses the safest course of play, boringly eeking out positional advantages. If you play at its pace and react to it your games are dull. However I've got a feeling that if I play this type of game but avoid exchanges I can fashion opportunities via a series of sacrifices and exchanges that it seemingly hasn't considered. I'm guessing the computational cut-off (60 seconds in this case) prevents the AI from considering these sacrifices once the complexity of all pieces being developed arises.

Are there any other ways of abusing the fact that most chess AI's just brute force and typically go with the "safest" line?

Five ideas in my head to win against AI's chess:

trying to play unusual openings
better knowing theory than AI for several openings
trying to play avant-gardist positions (sacrifices and planning move in advance)
analyzing games of AI to determine the way it plays
trying to know how AI has been programmed

You have tips here and interesting information there.


What is the maximum number of squares 8 queens and 8 nightriders can attack on a 16x16 board? Including but still obstructed by occupied squares, what is the maximum number of squares on a 16x16 board that 8 queens and 8 nightriders can collectively attack at least once each? Even if attacking all 256 squares isn't possible, the maximum number still interests me.

I'm unsure what tags to use for this, or if maybe I should've went to the mathematics SE for this one; please suggest additional tags and let me know if this question would better fit the mathematics SE.

It's possible to attack all squares.

Q - queen

N - nightrider

Yellow background - attacked only by a queen

Red background - attacked only by a nightrider

Orange background - attacked by pieces of both types

Queens are placed such that 5 longest diagonals in each direction are attacked.

This can be done with just 6 queens, so 2 are redundant and result in queens attacking queens by diagonals. So 4 queens are attacked by other queens, 4 are not. I added nightriders on the edge of the board such that the missing squares are also attacked. Placing nightriders on the edge doesn't block any of the queens' attacks.

One can also see that the nightriders attacking queens could be placed in other ways, so there is more than one solution. An interesting question would be-how many?

edit. now correct...


Is there a site where I can play 30 seconds games? I only know, from the fastest time controls, which chess sites to play 1+0 and 0+1 on. But is there a possibility to play 30 second games?

Not only does lichess.org has the option to berserk in 1m bullet-games, but after a recent update you are able to to start a 30sec game. You will learn nothing though.


Which is the smallest chess engine with ELO at least 2000? Preferably written in javascript, but the language really doesn't matter.

I'm not aware of any "small" chess engine written in JavaScript, but there's a "small" engine written in C. Micro-max has about 1900 to 2000 rating, depends on the rating list and testing condition.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/cgi/engine_details.cgi?print=Details+%28text%29&eng=Micro-Max%204.8

Note that it's not the smallest engine, but the engine that is even smaller than Micro-max plays awful chess (dropping pieces) and even walk into check (illegal move).


What are the main plans for black and white in the main-line Slav after 5...Bf5 6.e3? I'm thinking about adding the Slav defense to my opening repertoire.  I'm looking at the following line, which I believe is the main line:

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3

Online, there's a lot of variations and specific moves and counter-moves, but I haven't found much in the way of general plans for black and white here.

Question: What are the main plans for black and white in the main-line Slav after 5...Bf5 6.e3?

Play usually continues:

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O

After which black may castle or play 8...Nbd7, and white may play any of 9. Qb3, or 9. Qe2, or 9. Nh4.  But again, these are just moves, not plans.

Fight for the center

The variation with 9.Nh4 has its own flawor. For the other main lines, the logical plans flow from the strategic evaluation of each side's plusses and minuses:

White enjoys the better center. Black's dxc4 was a slight concession in the fight for the center, Pd4 is firmly established.
On the other hand, Black has freed both his bishops, while White's queen bishop is still locked inside his pawn chain.
White has a very slight development advantage, having already castled.
White's Q-side is slightly weakened by the a2-a4 advance. The stronghold on b4 for one of Black's pieces makes his lack of space more manageable.

As a consequence, White aims to increase his space adantage, free his Bc1 and set his center in motion with e3-e4. If possible, he would also like to provoque weaknesses in Black position (the usual suspects are Pb7 fixed by a4-a5 or targeted by Qb3, and the kingside pawns White tries to induce into advancing by threatening a K-side attack, or wants to double with an exchange on g6).

Conversely, Black tries to slow down White advance on e4 (8...0-0 9.Qe2 Bg6!?, e.g., aims to avoid 10.e4 Bxc3 11.exf5), complete his development, and nullify White's central advantage by exchanging the Pd4 with ...c6-c5 or ...e6-e5 (Nbd7, Qe7/Qa5, Rc8/d8/e8 are typical preparatory moves to engineer those breaks). Alternatively, he can put pressure on White's e4-d4 center when it's formed in order to provoque an early e4-e5 (which gives White attacking chances on the K-side but also the d5-square for Black).

The battle for and against e4 is the main topic of the next 5-10 moves.

You can check several battles from the Topalov-Kramnik Elista WC match (WC stands for 'World Championship', not for 'Toiletgate'), or old games by Max Euwe and Gideon Stahlberg.


Marshall Defense 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 — transpositions I know that the theoretical refutation of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?! is supposed to be 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3.

Perhaps Black doesn't fear the refutation because he intends a gambit such as 3.cxd5 c6?! or 3.cxd5 c5?!.

My question is not about the refutation or the gambits. My question is, what if White declines to capture on d5, and plays 3.Nf3 or 3.Nc3? Does the game simply transpose into a normal line?

In that case, has Black gained or lost anything because of his funny move order?

If White is not going to play 3.cxd5, does 2...Nf6 have any advantage over normal moves like 2...dxc4 or 2...e6 or 2...c6 or 2...c5?

If you don't take on d5, I think the only advantage black has gained is flexibility. That means he can choose his opening according to your move. But you can be almost 100% sure that the opening will be transposed into some traditional line so white can't be worse, for example:

Slav Defence:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. Nc3 (3. Nf3 c6) c6 {with the possibility of both Semi-Slav and Classical Slav Defence}

Queen's Gambit:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. Nc3 (3. Nf3 e6 (3... dxc4 {Queen's Gambit Accepted})) e6 (3... dxc4 {Queen's Gambit Accepted})

Grünfeld Defence:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. Nc3 g6

and there are probably many other transpositions...

In my opinion you have no reason not to play 3. cxd5. The position after 3... Nxd5 4. e4 (I think this is logical and even better than 4. Nf3) is very comfortable for white. You have a great center and black has to lose time again...


What should you do when opponent opens with excessive pawn moves? As a beginner I'm not spending much time studying openings (there are so many!) but trying to work on opening principles.

One principle I've read is not to move too many pawns in your opening moves.

So, when an opponent opens with a long sequence of pawn moves, I feel like there should be some weakness that I should be exploiting.  Instead I ended up feeling extremely cramped.  What should you be thinking about if your opponent is only moving pawns?

Example:

[White "Me"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 d6 4. e3 h6 5. Bc4 g5 6. Bg3 c6 7. Nc3 a5

The thing is, in this example you opponent didn't play all that badly. h6 and g5 looks too risky to me, but blunting your bishop (with d6) and gaining space on the queenside makes some sense. Right now b5 is a threat and you might want to prevent it by playing a4. This would be the positional treatment of the position.

There are two problems with pushing too many pawns in the opening:

The creation of weaknesses: In your example the diagonal h5-e8 is weakened and you should always consider possibilities of bringing a queen to h5.

Neglect of development: But to punish lack of development you have to open the position. This can be done by pawn levers or by piece sacrifices. Or possibly by a combination of both. Now, if you had a pawn on c4 you could play 8.d5 and answer 8…e5 with 9.Nxe5 de 10.Qh5+ and 11.Bxe5.
Unfortunately you don't have a pawn on c4 and you only promising pawn lever e4 would lose the Bg3. So you have to go more slowly. Possibly Nd2,f3,e4 is a plan. Maybe after a4.

So, to sum up:

If you develop your bishops early, your opponent might get some pawn play against them. (In your example, against both!)
You can stop expansion with your own pawns (a4 or h4) and thereby also protect your pieces from a pawnstorm.
If your lead in development gets big, search for a way to open the position. Make sure you have a pawn lever (i.e. put enough pawns in the center), consider piece sacrifices.