Randomness in Chess? I have had periods in my life when I became quite engaged in Chess. I am also a card player - particularly Bridge and Two Handed Pinochle (old game, not very popular these days). Oftentimes I get bored/frustrated with Chess because there is apparently no "luck factor" - no randomness. So I prefer a good game of two handed Pinochle to chess: It requires great skill, but also has a significant luck factor, whose impact is of course diminished the more you play against a particular opponent and the laws of probability become manifest, so that the more skillful player emerges.

I understand that's what Chess fans love about the game - it's a contest of pure skill - but I often feel that the luck of the random factor detracts from my interest - diminishes the excitement - it's all about learning everything that was done before and trying to master it and then improve in little ways that you can, although most of what you come up with will already be "old hat", unless you're a chess genius.

So, am I missing something? Is there a random factor in chess (I don't mean getting lucky that your opponent has a headache and can't play as well as he should) or am I just too lazy and superficial to appreciate the game (that may indeed be true...).

If it's randomness you're after, why not try Chess960, aka Fischer Random Chess? The starting position of the pieces is random, which can lead to very exciting games dominated by tactics. There's still no "luck", but at least memorizing openings is less of a factor.


Why did Shirov not trade bishop for knight in this position to play against doubled, isolated b-pawns? In The wisest things ever said about chess by GM Soltis, he quotes this about tempi and gives the following example:

  Tempi should not be counted but weighed.

[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1b1nb1/n2p1pp1/3Pp2p/2N1P2B/2N2P2/PP2B1PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[Site "Istanbul"]
[Date "2000"]
[White "Gelfand"]
[Black "Shirov"]

  1. a4             Qb8
  2. Nb5 (2...Bxb5 3. axb5 Nc7)           Rc8
  3. Bf2            Bh6
  4. Qb3            Nc5
  5. Qa3             *

The point of the example is that white started with 2 extra tempi in a King's Indian structure, that allowed him to place pressure on the queenside.

My question is, why didn't black play 2...Bxb5 3. axb5 Nc7 to gain chances to win one of the b-pawns?

why didn't black play 2...Bxb5 3. axb5 Nc7 to gain chances to win one
  of the b-pawns?

1) The bishop on d7 is a particulerly fine bishop fighting for control of some very important white squares contested by white pawns. Getting rid of it seems a shame.

2) It's not clear that black is going to win the resulting white pawn on b5 any time soon and in the meantime it is very annoying indeed.

3) Maybe white is going to follow up with b6 and either that pawn is going to be a monster or if it is swapped off white is going to end up with a knight on b6 instead supported by the bishop which is going to move to f2. The white squared bishop is going to come to b5 and there is no corresponding bishop for black.

4) It is going to be difficult for black to compete for the a and c files.

All in all only a masochist is going to go down that route.


Do players play "boring" openings before an important tournament? The London Chess Classic is being held at the moment, just three months away from the Candidates, with some of the best players of the world and 6 of the participants of the candidates (Giri, Nakamura, Topalov, Anand, Caruana and Aronian).

So far the openings have been a bit "dull" in the majority of the games without any really sharp line or theoretical novelty. I feel that in the previous stages of the Grand Chess Tour the openings were much more sharper and fun to watch as an spectator.

Might this be caused because the Candidates is really close and the players don't want to show their preparation or is it just a coincidence? Is it usual for the players to play "boring" and well known lines before a big tournament?

"Hiding prep'" is a well known cliche in the chess world. When Anand had a slump in form a few years back, it was joked that he has been hiding his preparation for several years now.

I believe there are two sides to this phenomenon:

Especially going into world championship matches, players sometimes revamp complete parts of their opening repertoire. For example Leko going for 1.d4 against Kramnik, or Gelfand taking up the Sveshnikov and Grunfeld against Anand, or Kramnik playing the Berlin against Kasparov … Obviously in these cases the whole purpose of the preparation would have been defeated if they had tried the lines in some preliminary tournament.

On the other hand, if a top player doesn't plan to spring such a big surprise, arguably it doesn't make too much sense to hide single novelties or variations from your opponents. After all in every single game only the tiniest part of the preparation of a top GM is revealed. Showing one tricky line doesn't rip a big hole into your repertoire and you never know whether anybody will walk into your trap again. GM Gustafsson has repeatedly argued that even right before very important tournaments, top GMs are happy to spring a trap before a different player grabs that opportunity, after all they are all using the same engines ...


I was playing a tournament and some kids were talking about the game in a foreign language I was playing and I am pretty sure that my opponent was talking about the game with his friend in another language. I don’t speak the language, but you can tell. What should I have done?

First, you should inform the tournament director, and let that person handle it. There is a parental instinct that makes me want to just take the kid aside, and say something privately first, but since that can be misconstrued, do not do that, and let the TD handle it. I am sure that they will mention it, or warn the kids, and hopefully it will be done with.

I speak Russian, and in times gone by, I would hear some of them discuss games that were not mine, and it was not so much about specific calculations, but still. Thankfully, it was not common, but it still violates the rules, and needs to be dealt with. In my case, they were always adults, who should have known better. In your case, you have kids, who often just have not been taught well enough yet, and hopefully a stern word of warning will end this before it is evolves into intentional cheating.

Playing kids is hard enough: To have to play two of them in tandem is for the birds. :)


Is acceptable to consult with your team during a match break? The context
I am not into chess, but The Queen’s Gambit revealed its interesting world, and something got stuck into my mind.
As shown by this article the movie had to make compromises, especially when depicting the tournaments which have quite strict rules, thus making them very boring for the commercial movie consumers.
The issue
The last match was so long that it required an overnight break. During this break, the players consulted with their teams and the movie suggests that Beth winning was partially influenced by this help. Is this possible in real-life tournaments?
I tried finding an answer, but only got this Quora discussion which suggests that long (overnight) breaks during tournaments are something very rare today.

I haven't seen the series, but this was a quite common practice known as adjournment. It is indeed legal to ask for outside help, in the form of teammates and even computer programs during adjournment. However, they rarely happen anymore:

With the advent of strong chess playing computer programs, which can be used to analyze adjourned positions, most tournaments have abandoned adjourning games in favor of shorter time controls. The first World Chess Championship not to use adjournments was the Classical World Chess Championship 1995, while the last one to use adjournments was the FIDE World Chess Championship 1996.

The Laws of Chess still have guidelines for adjournment, so it's possible to organize a tournament with these breaks, but I can't remember a recent high-level tournament which had them.


Strategy according to the pawn structure in the Caro-Kann I have long been playing the Caro-Kann but I have never been able to come up with a plan according to the pawn structure in the games.

After playing d5 (and entering the Pawn exchange variation or the Advance variation) I just simply play what “seems best” but I am aware that a plan in chess is necessary.
I am asking this question because I hardly ever find a typical theme in this opening (doubled pawns, backward pawns) or any other typical position which has set goals for White and Black.

I am asking so someone can enlighten me on this.
Below are some positions I often reach but I am specially interested what are the goals for Black in the Advance and Pawn Exchange variations (according to theory). I highlight again, I am interested in the plan (if there exists any) in terms of the pawn structures which result from such variations.

The link of this game is:
https://lichess.org/0o6pkS9r/black#30

https://lichess.org/0o

Another game in which I have no idea what do after the advance c5 (in this position I should have probably played h6 in order to prevent the bishop from pinning my knight)

And here is a last one:

I (1878 rating) play the Caro-Kann and its cousin the Slav a lot and have found that in the Advance Variation, where White plays e5 you have to counterattack on the Queenside, usually beginning with ...c5 or ...b6 if c5 is occupied by White. You have to get the move in relatively early - usually soon after developing your QB, KN and QN. Of course, White playing Qb3 or Nh4 or Bd3, etc. can delay doing it, but it's almost always necessary to attack White there near the base of his Pawn Chain.
In some cases, White supports the Q-side so much that you can attack the neglected K-side with an ...f6, etc.
When I play White against the Caro-Kann, I play the Panov Attack or the Exchange Variation so the game is more open and Black isn't able to build the awesome wall you show in your boards. When I play Black I love it when White plays 3 e5.
If you look at chess.com/explorer (free membership may be required), click the drop-down box where "Master Games" is, select "Other Player, enter MickinMD, select Black, and click on 1 e4, you'll see it has 23 games where I played 1...c6, winning 39%, drawing 26%, and losing only 35% to White against players averaging even with my rating including excellent players from Russia, Hungary, and other chess-loving nations - one was the former high school champ of Sidney, Australia.
I posted one 3...e5 game on chess.com's Game Showcase that I won with a struggle - a struggle partly due to not playing ...c5 until later than I should have, according to some excellent players who critiqued the game at my request.


Turton theme in OTB play I regularly surprise opponents - if unprepared - with an obscure side variant of the Sicilian which most often ends up in a pericritic Turton reversal, like e.g. so:
   [FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 a6 7.O-O b5 8.Bf3 Ra7 9.Be3 Rd7 10.a3 Bb7 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Re1 O-O 13.Qd3 Qc7 14.Qe3 Rc8 15.Rad1 Rdd8

Can you come up with an example of useful rook doubling? (Note: In my example, the reversal was just for teh lulz, since it played no role whatsoever. "Useful" could be a) if it's done by QR or QB, where the order matters, but I already know such examples, even from my own games, b) assume your rooks are on d4 and e5 and you want to double against d8. But if Re5-d5, say, your Rd4 stands in the way of Be3. Thus you double either Rd4-d6,Re5-d5 or even Re5-e3-d3, where the interference is only lifted when the first rook crashes into d8. Those are "true" Turtons.)
Link to game base appreciated.

I believe this qualifies as a useful Turton doubling from OTB play:
[Event "Eforie Nord Romgaz op"]
[Date "2007.08.09"]
[White "Berescu, Alin"]
[Black "Filip, Lucian"]
[WhiteElo "2511"]
[BlackElo "2400"]
[FEN "6k1/p2b1rpp/qn2Rp1b/2BP1P1Q/1P1R3P/8/P5P1/7K w - - 0 38"]

1. Re1 Qxa2 2. Rde4 Qa4 3. Re7
Rf8 4. R7e4 Rf7 5. Rg4 Qc2 6. Qxh6 Qxf5 7. Qf4 Qxf4 8. Rxf4 Nxd5 9. Rd4
Nc7 10. Red1 Be8 11. Rd8 1-0

Black was threatening 1... Qf1+, so there was no time for 1. Rde4. On the next move however, 2. Rde4 was obviously strong, threatening 3. Re8+ with checkmate to follow. After Black defended against that, 3. Re7 was good enough, although there were other good options at this point, as shown by the game continuation after the repetition.
Trying to save the bishop with 5... Bd2 would have run into another interesting way to double the rooks: 6. Qxf7! followed by Re1-e7xg7 and checkmate in two more moves.


What is "spaced repetition" and how can I use it to improve my chess? What is spaced repetition?

How can I apply it to studying and improving my chess?

Is it just for tactics or can I also use it for openings and endgames?

What experience do people have with it and with what results?

Spaced repetition is a learning technique that repeats content after increasing time spans according to learning success, i.e. faster for stuff you haven't grasped yet, longer if you do well.

In chess this is either used to learn a certain set of (easy) tactical exercises basically by heart ("woodpecker method" according to Axel Smith, Michael de la Maza, …), which is supposed to improve your tactical pattern recognition.

Or it is used to learn your opening repertoire by heart. For example by using the software Chess Position Trainer.

In my experience both are probably beneficial, but I cannot offer more than anecdotal evidence. Also you should complement it with exercises that tax more than your memory.


FIDE-approved opening names The Wikipedia article on the Latvian Gambit says that the name Latvian Gambit was made official by the FIDE Congress of 1937. I didn't realise that FIDE was in the business of approving names of openings, so my question is:

  What other opening names have been made official by FIDE?

FIDE has long given up on trying to standardize opening names. In 1935 they published a booklet (in French) which attempted to do this, but it had little to no impact. The Latvian Gambit ("Gambit leton" in French) is an ancient opening that was previously known as the Greco Counter Gambit. For some reason the new name for the Latvian Gambit took hold; most of the other proposed new names did not.

Today, as always, opening names are simply a matter of tradition and convention and may vary between countries and writers. For example, in Eastern Europe the Benko Gambit is usually called the Volga Gambit.

See http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fidehistory.html#Section_7:_Attempts_by_FIDE_to_openings_ for more info.


Why is exchanging these knights the best move for white? Why is exchanging these knights the best move for white? I'm trying to understand how to get better with strategy and tactics.

Despite the difference in evaluation, e4 is not really a mistake. White is a rook ahead and will win this game anyway, provided that they don't blunder. Perhaps Nxc4 leads to a victory a few moves faster, almost within the engine's search horizon; that's probably why the engine prefers it over e4.
However, even humans should prefer Nxc4. If you're this far ahead, you should exchange material; every exchange means less chance of threats from your opponent. A two-to-one advantage is much more decisive than an eight-to-seven. Black's knight is also more active than White's, that's another reason to exchange it. (That the engine indicates that Black should exchange knights after e4 is surprising, but it only underlines how bad Black's position actually is.)
The advice about exchanging when you're ahead is of course not a rule set in stone. You should always keep in mind the (potential) activity of the exchanged pieces. And if you're only a pawn ahead, that doesn't need to be decisive enough for the win. Rook endgames and endgames with opposite bishops are notoriously drawish, and there are more examples out there, but you don't have to worry about them for now.


Are you allowed to calculate on paper? e.g. corresponding squares? (FIDE/Club level etc) I have been looking at corresponding squares recently.

It can be pretty hard to visually calculate and imagine them in your mind.

What I was wondering, would you ever be allowed to draw your plans on paper?
I know in tournaments you are allowed pen & paper for your moves, could you scribble on that or under what circumstances would this not be allowed? I would have assumed in world championships you would not be allowed to do this. Is my assumption correct and what about club level / school players etc?

Example of what I mean by calculation: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-mentor/tricky-chess-problem-elo1700---corresponding-squares?ncc=3

This is never allowed in an actual, over-the-board tournament.

National chess federations ban analysis notes, and local chess organization follow their national rules for rating.


Is there a good method to come out with a plan during a game I started to play chess more serious those days, through playing some tournaments. During all the games on those tournaments I face serious problems coming out with plans during the middle game, is there a methodical way of thinking to come out with a plan, by looking to a given position? Or a good book that I can read to improve this skill?. My current Elo is +1600, I have played around 20 standard time control games.

Its a great question! When teaching chess, I get on my students about always having a plan. However, many of my beginning students have the impression that making a plan means "I'm going to use a combination of Queen and Knight to Checkmate my opponent's King on the 27th move." Of course, this is unrealistic.

Chess is a constantly changing landscape and two or three moves can completely turn a winning position into a losing position. Therefore, plans have to be flexible. That's where it gets tricky. I tend to create flexible plans in which I play elastic moves. Planning really comes into play during the middle game.

Once the opening is complete and you have your pieces on ideal squares, you get down to the middle game. At the start of the middle game, I go through a checklist included pawn structure, position of my opponent's King in relation to his or her defending pieces, material balance, etc.

If I'm down material, I create a plan that evens the material balance which repositioning my pieces on good squares. I try to keep it simple and flexible. I think a lot of players have narror plans and when something goes wrong, they find their pieces on squares that do them no good. I try to play elastic moves that prepare for more than one response from my opponent.

My plans change as the game changes. However, I try to play positions that allow me to maintain my original plan while still dealing with the potential curve-balls some times thrown by my opponent.

It's a tough call because you want to have a plan that goes forward but often you have to rethink your plan and alter it to fit the current position. I would say that your plan has to take into consideration imbalances but that is often the cause of a change in plans. A master can see many more moves ahead than I can so it is easier for them to create a plan that they can stick to. Moreover, Andrew Martin has mentioned on numerous occasions the need for playing flexible moves.


Approach to learning one opening and its variations? When learning a new opening, do you learn the opening every time you encounter a new variation or do you try to learn them all at once?

I read this article on chess.com about learning an opening in one hour and wanted to know your thoughts (agreements and disagreements) with the article.

When learning a new opening, I tend to stick to a line which suits my style. At first, I will play strictly to the book and usually end up in traps, getting a piece horribly out of position, or with a pawn structure that prevents defending myself. After a while I begin to realize the traps that are associated with the opening and can avoid those. Eventually I will have my pieces in the right alignments, usually by the 8th move or so. And after a long time, I will have become used to setting up the pawn structure so that I am well defended by the 15th move.

Once those basics are covered, I will begin to look for places in those first 15 moves where I can get in a simple tempo changer, like a bishop check, so that I can castle with tempo, or perhaps there is a nice trap somewhere. This is just me though, I am not sure how everyone fares with learning new openings or if they just pick them up right away.

An example of this situation for me was the English (1. c4 .. 2. Nc3). I really enjoy this opening, but figuring out how and when to advance the e and d pawn took me a while to learn. As did figuring out if or when I should fiancetto, or advance the f pawn after 0-0, or how to avoid a kingside pawn rush, etc.

As for the question of learning all the lines. I did not, I just learned the one which I felt was similar to my tastes, and then learned all the nuances to that one, including its transpositions to other similar lines. Sometimes I have noticed the English can transpose to the London, which I enjoy.

Specifically about the article you link, I agree that playing towards an outdated but proven trap can be beneficial, but I honestly doubt your opponent is going to play that exact line. So in the mean time, you will have to deal with all the other facets of the opening you only learned the one trap for. Note that the author states "All you need is a desire to learn new stuff.". I think that is the key to learning an opening. Learn the main line you like, and then play it for a while knowing you are going to get cheap shotted, trapped, blocked, out of position, and be in a funk while learning it. Once you get over having all that happen to you, then you will have that shiny polished diamond.


Is the following Knight sac in the Sicilian Najdorf justified? [FEN ""]
 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Nbd7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bxf6    Nxf6 10. O-O-O Qb6 11.e5 Nd7 12. Bc4 dxe5 13. Nxe6

I ran this through Stockfish at 15 minutes per move. What I have found is that the sacrifice is sound and wins.  But for a 'won' game, it is about the hardest road I have ever seen.  The evaluation of the position is less than a pawn advantage for White up through move 25 or so.

The sacrifice leads to opportunities for White, but both sides are walking the razor's edge.

[FEN "r1b1kb1r/1p1n1pp1/pq2p2p/4p3/2BN1P2/2N2Q2/PPP3PP/2KR3R w kq - 0 1"]

1.Nxe6 fxe6 2.Qh5+ Kd8 3.Qf7 Qe3+ 4.Kb1 Qxf4 5.Qxe6 Qf6 6.Qh3 Bc5 7.Rhf1
Qc6 8.Bd5 Qg6 9.Bxb7 Ra7 10.Be4 Qe8 11.Nd5 Rf8 12.Qh4+ g5 13.Qxh6 Rxf1 14.
Rxf1 Bb7 15.Qxg5+ Kc8 16.h4 Qd8 17.Qg3 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Kb8 19.h5 Rc7 20.Rd1
Ka7 21.Be4 Qf6 22.Qg4 Nb6 23.Qf5 Qg7 24.a3 Be3 25.g4 Bf4 26.Rd6 Nc4 27.Rg6
Qd7 28.Qxd7 Rxd7 29.Bd3 Nd2+ 30.Ka2 e4 31.Be2 Kb8 32.g5 Nf3 33.Rg8+ Kc7
34.g6 Kd6 35.Rh8 Nh4 36.Bxa6 Be5 37.Re8 e3 38.b4 Nf5 39.Rf8 Ra7 40.Bd3 Nd4
41.h6 Nxc2 42.Kb1 Nxa3+ 43.Kc1 Re7 44.h7 Nc4 45.Rd8+ Kc7 46.Rg8 Nb6 47.
h8=Q Bxh8 48.Rxh8 e2 49.Bxe2 Kd6 50.Kd2 Rg7 51.Bd3 Nd5 52.Rd8+ Ke5 53.b5
Nb6 54.Rf8 Ke6 55.Ke3 Rb7 56.Kf4 Ra7 57.Kg5 Ke5 58.Kh6 Rd7 59.Rf5+ Kd4 60.
g7 Rd8 61.Rf8 Rd6+ 62.Bg6 Kc5 63.g8=Q Kxb5 64.Qb3+ Kc6 65.Qc3+ Kb7  66.Rf7+
Nd7 67.Qc5 Rd1 68.Re7 Rh1+ 69.Kg7 Rh7+ 70.Bxh7 Ka6 71.Bd3+ Kb7 72.Rxd7+
Kb8 73.Qf8#

The general method of White's win isn't a Tal-like knockout, but instead we find that Black cannot hold onto the Kingside pawns. They drop off allowing White connected outside passers.    Black has plenty of resources however.  In return, Black gets a passer on the e-file that will be a real threat.  Black also eats two of the three pawns on the Queenside. I think this passer is one too many, and it's going to kill him.

After 2. Qh5+, Black's King is stuck in the middle of the board. This will be a
lodestone that will haunt Black for the rest of the game.  Yet another example of
what happens when the weak f7 square is exploited.  This is really the lesson of
this sacrifice - "Weaken the f7 square and you might just get some traction."

3. Qf7 and the White Queen is in Black's business.

After move 5, we see White's side is orderly, his two minor pieces are developed,
his King is secure, and his Rooks are ready to leap into action.  Charitably
speaking, one of Blacks minor pieces is developed.  His Rooks are still in the
box, and one Bishop is entombed.  Black is trying to trade off the Queens.
If he does, he wins.  When one has a material advantage, it's generally best to
trade off pieces. Of course, White is having none of it.

6... Bc5  Black must develop. Now his Bishop matters and he can activate his Rook.

Up to move 9, White harasses the Black Queen developing a Rook with tempo, then
picks up the loose b pawn.  This allows Black Queen Rook to enter the game, but
now Black as 2 isolated pawns to defend.

10... Qe8 To this point, Black has managed to swap his King's and Queen's positions!
White's Rooks control two open files and has a big grip on the center.  The Rook on
d1 is a monster, holding the center, pointing at the exposed Black King while pinning
the Knight in the process.  Remember, if Black can't use the Knight, it does not really
exist, and thus White is, after a fashion, not down any material.

11... Rf8 challenges White's f Rook.  The cost is terrible - the remaining pawns
on the kingside.  12. Qh4+ is frightening, exposing Black's folly.  At this point, it's
worth pointing out how the computer is very particular with tempo.  Instead of an
immediate Rook trade White throws a
check first - again hitting the misplaced King and cause Black to further weaken himself.
Amusingly (for White) the Black Knight is still immobile.  If he moves it to,
say b6, Rf8 wins.
I would be interested to see peoples' alternatives to 11... Rf8.

15. Qxg5+ White scoops up the other pawn, with tempo, adding insult to injury.
The immediate 16. h4 is the signal Black's in for a long day.

17... Bxd5 Black has finally completed his development though White has the
open file and the majority of the center.

20. Rd1 Back to the center, now pressuring the Queen.

23. Qf5 White now offers the Queen trade which is declined.  This is another point
in the game where a variation could be helpful.

Through move 26, Black's defensive play is quite good.  He's a tempo from picking up the
pawn on g4.  White's 27. Rg6 supports g4 again with tempo.  This move does
three things: it threatened the Black Q, defends g4, and frees the White Q to run if
Black were to play Ne3.

Through move 29, the Queens drop off, Black claims the d file, and White blocks it
with his Bishop, simultaneously preventing a nasty Knight fork on d2.  Such economy!

30... e4 Black has threats, too.  Black's play is a great lesson on how not to give up.
White is one bad move from losing this game.

31... Nf3 wins the g pawn?  Nope, White checks with tempo allowing the jammed pawn
to move out of danger.  Again, seeing alternatives to 31...Kb8 would be interesting.

35...Nh4 looks goofy as it allows the a-pawn to drop off.  But it's lights-out if White
is allowed to play h6.  In that case, White wins the Black Bishop and threatens a
discovered check with g7.  Economy!

You might think Black should just resign. And maybe he should.  Now let's look at the
defensive resources that are available to him.

First, Black's e3 hits White where he isn't.  That pawn is scary.  Only the Bishop
is saving White.  Black attacks it. If the Bishop is driven off the a6-f1 diagonal,
Black wins or draws.

41. h6 computers are cool under fire.

41... Nxc2 if Bxc2, White loses.  Now the threat is Nxb4+ where white's defending
Bishop drops off, and it's mayhem that favors Black.

42. Kb1 the Bishop needs help.  White must now pay the Butcher's Bill.

44. h7 White pours on the pressure, but Black's Bishop and Rook combo is very effective.

44... Nc4 is hard to understand.  Perhaps it is one of those moves that moves a bad
evaluation out one move.  Some thought here is needed.

49... Kd6 is a great example of an inhuman computer move, where the machine is making choices about fractions of pawns.  The alternative is 49... Rxe2 50. g7 Rg1 51. g8=Q Rxg8 52. Rxg8 and Black has lost the exchange for a pawn.  I would like to know why Black played 48... e2 at all.

Finally, to answer the OP's question, is the sacrifice justified?  That's a value judgement.  If I played this as White, and won, it would easily be the hardest win in my 'career'. A win is good, but this game is a hard, risky win. If one is willing to walk the razor's edge and one is good at managing one's clock, a point's a point.

This could be one of those games where one side has to play MUCH better in order to hold. That is, maybe White has to play like a master to hold, but Black can play like an 'Expert' to draw.  That is, whoever missteps first, loses, and White has more land-mines to avoid.

If anyone has alternate variations they'd like me to run, let me know.


What should you do in this position? I no longer have this game, although I do remember losing it. Here's the setup of the game, with White to move:

[fen "2b1kb1r/r5pp/8/p1pQBp2/qn1P1P2/6P1/4P2P/2R1KR2 w - - 0 1"]

White can safely resign. He is down 2 pieces without compensation and Black has a passed pawn.

Now, Black's King is not secure, so if the White Q could get a check in, it is possible the Queen and Bishop could be a threat.  However, I see nothing here that makes me think White can get anything going.

So Qc4 to keep the Queen close to the action while keeping an eye on g8 to prevent castling. This pins the Knight on b4 though I don't know that it matters much.

If White gets time, he could consider Kf2.  This will connect the White rooks in preparation for Rfd1, after which White shoves the d-pawn down Black's gullet.  If Black takes it, all the better.

But White really is doomed.


Entering and saving chess games I used a chess pad to enter games. However, it lacks an undo feature and there is no way to correct an incorrectly entered position.
What other program can do this?

Chesspad allows for deleting and adding new lines.
To delete, right click on move in movelist and select delete.
To add new variation, move back to move you want to add variation to, by either clicking or left arrow, and enter new move.
Right clicking any variation will give you the option to make this the main line.


Are there any good instructional chess videos in German with captions? I would like to watch chess videos, and improve my German at the same time, and youtube has a a few videos with captions, but I can't find any videos that are chess-related AND in German AND with Captions.

I have found this video(This Guy has a quite lot videos). It is in German, it is about Chess and you can turn the Captions on, but I think they were generated from a computer. Since I as a German guy can say, its not really, what he is actually saying, but it might help you.


What should a chess beginner do with his/her knights after 2. Nf3 or 2. Nc3? Let us suppose I am a chess beginner. I often lose my games. Well, it depends on the opponent but generally I can hardly win. My problem is I do not know what I should do with my knights.

Usually chess textbooks or people whom I asked for advice tell me, "You must develop your knights very early in the game; it's necessary for castling." After that, they don't give any more useful information.

I simply do not know what to do after I castled... For example, I've played 1. e4 2. Nf3 3. Bc4 4. 0-0. After that, I am stuck. A few times, I tried to be brave and to advance my knight forward in hope of giving a smothered checkmate, but I always had to encounter the opponent's queen, which is extremely powerful. Returning my knight to initial square doesn't make any sense for me. And not making any further moves with my knight seems to be pretty stupid as well.

The knights don't necessarily move beyond the third rank in the opening. The middlegame is more variable and depends on the opening, but I think the main "rule" you need to remember is that knights, being slow pieces, work best when they are supported. You generally should avoid advancing a knight unprotected, where it could be lost to a tactic. The best support for a knight is a pawn, but also you don't want your knight to be "kicked back" by an enemy pawn (unless that move would be bad for your opponent for some other reason), so the ideal square for a knight is an outpost, which quoting the Wikipedia definition is "a square on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh rank which is protected by a pawn and which cannot be attacked by an opponent's pawn."

One more thing to consider is that, if you castle short, the f3 knight also has an important defensive role since it defends the h2 pawn, which is often a target of attack. That doesn't mean you can never move the knight, but you should be wary when there are enemy pieces threatening that pawn. A famous attacking pattern known as the "Greek gift" begins by sacrificing a bishop for the h2 pawn (or h7 against Black, of course!).


Are certain tactics always good or does it really depend on the game? I've recently joined chess.com at the suggestion from chess club.

Something I've always struggled to understand with chess is why certain moves are "good" and why others are "bad"

I got thinking about this especially recently as I played around with the tactics on chess.com.
Some of the "answers" were obvious- of course you'd take the bishop with your king if it meant getting you out of check and there was no consequence for moving the king to that spot.

But there were other times where it seemed a bit murkier. It had you mess around with the king until you could take the rook. What if you don't want to take the rook?
And would that move only be good for that particular setup? You're never going to be in the exact same setup they give you in tactics. There's way too many combinations.

Is a good move = something that will get you closer to checkmate?
Or is it more subjective, and good = ridding of a piece.

Some excellent chess games have been played without removing a single piece from the board. What makes that good and others not good? How do you realize what a good move is?

TL;DR - Winning material is usually good but it's checkmate that wins a game of chess.

In chess there is only 1 primary aim, to checkmate your opponent before she checkmates you. ALL other aims are secondary. Thus a good move is one that makes you more likely to checkmate your opponent before she can checkmate you. End of story.

However great though that be it doesn't always provide a whole load of practical guidance when sat at the board with the clock ticking louder and louder. Thus as players of the game we employ a number of secondary objectives that experience has taught us will, with a good degree of probability, lead to the primary objective above, e.g. control the centre, develop your pieces, force your opponent to make weaknesses, win material, with your extra forces checkmate your opponent - it's only the last that counts, the others are just useful, but often very useful, stepping stones to that end.

To get to some of the more specific parts of your post, yes, the vast majority of times winning material is a good thing. To use the military analogy you now have more soldiers than your opponent, and more soldiers in a war is generally a good thing. Here's an example from a game I played at the club earlier this week:

[White "Me"]
[Black "My Victim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "r3q1rk/pp2p1bp/3p1p2/3P1PnQ/2P1B2R/1P2B3/P6P/2R4K w - - 0 1"]

1.Bxg5 Qxh5 2.Rxh5 fxg5 3.f6 h6
    ( 3...Bxf6 4.Rxh7# )
4.fxg7+ Kxg7 5.h4 1-0

Why has my opponent resigned? Well ultimately it is because he believes I am a good enough player that one extra piece is enough for me, in the long run, to force checkmate against him. At the board he'll say "Oh, I dropped a piece to Ian so resigned", but this is really a short hand for the above - Checkmate is the ultimate aim in chess, all others are secondary.

However you are also right in saying that it does depend on the particular situation, and this is because while a great aim winning material doesn't win the game of chess, checkmate does. And thus occasionally a player will give up material because he or she thinks or has calculated that doing so will make it more likely that they will checkmate their opponent before their opponent checkmates them. Be very clear that this is the exception rather than the norm, but it's having to evaluate such possibilities that makes chess such a great game! As an example here's one of my favourite games of all time. Black gives up loads of material but it's all toward the end of queening one of his pawns, and with his new queen he will checkmate his opponent - and checkmate is how you win a game of chess!

[Event "Student Olympiad, Marianske Lazne"]
[Site "Marianske Lazne CSR"]
[Date "1962.07.??"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Eduard Gufeld"]
[Black "Lubomir Kavalek"]
[ECO "C64"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 f5 5. d4 fxe4 6. Ng5 Bb6
7. d5 e3 8. Ne4 Qh4 9. Qf3 Nf6 10. Nxf6+ gxf6 11. dxc6 exf2+
12. Kd1 dxc6 13. Be2 Be6 14. Qh5+ Qxh5 15. Bxh5+ Ke7 16. b3
Bd5 17. Ba3+ Ke6 18. Bg4+ f5 19. Bh3 Rhg8 20. Nd2 Bxg2
21. Bxg2 Rxg2 22. Rf1 Rd8 23. Ke2 Rxd2+ 24. Kxd2 e4 25. Bf8 f4
26. b4 Rg5 27. Bc5 Rxc5 28. bxc5 Bxc5 29. Rab1 f3 30. Rb4 Kf5
31. Rd4 Bxd4 32. cxd4 Kf4 0-1


Make checkmate with pawns without promotion I have a chess puzzle here:

[FEN "7k/8/8/4KPPP/8/8/8/8 - - - 0 0 "]

  Can White force mate without promotion?

And if such exist, where can I find some more chess puzzles like this, which feature particular and restrictive directions?

As Daniel indicated in a comment, the answer here is that, no, White cannot force checkmate without promoting at least one pawn. Enough toying with the position makes this pretty clear, intuitively. The only way it could possibly be done would be to keep the black king in the corner it's in, and while doing so, to then checkmate by advancing the pawns. The intuitive reason this isn't feasible is because the white king is the only option for keeping the black king from running to the other side of the board, but while he's doing that, there's not enough support behind the pawns to advance them for checkmate.

But I want to point out that if one finds that intuitive explanation unconvincing or unsatisfying, there is a more rigorous way to demonstrate that White cannot force checkmate from your position without promoting, and that is to do a little bit of retrograde analysis. (Incidentally, the retrograde analysis subfield of chess problems provides some of what you ask for at the end of your post, namely problems with a very particular sort of solution.) Basically, all I mean is that we should work backwards: with the given material on the board, there's only a small handful of positions that could possibly be our final checkmate position. Thus, if we can show for each of those positions that there couldn't be a forced win that ends that way, then we know it can't be done.

For instance, here's a non-promotion checkmate position with the given material:

[fen "5k2/5PP1/4K2P/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

But I claim we couldn't possibly force Black into this position: the final move would have to have been 100.g7# (where I just picked 100 arbitrarily), the move before that would have to have been 99...Kf8 (moving from either e8 or from g8), and the move before that had to be 99.f7+. OK, so we know that White must have played this 99.f7+ with the black king either on e8 or on g8. But if the black king was on e8, he could have instead played 99...Kd8 in reply, and if the black king was on g8 then he could have instead played 99...Kh8 in reply. The point is that, either way, White couldn't actually have forced Black into that final checkmate position.

Alright, so that's one possibility down. There are others of course, but a similar retrograde analysis for each of those will confirm that none of them can actually be forced, and that's all you need for an airtight proof that White can't force checkmate from your initial position without promoting a pawn.


Is my decision correct? I always gave up when I have exactly a king, one knight, and one bishop, while my opponent had a king, one rook, one/two knights, and two/one bishops (respectively). Is my decision correct, because I felt I cannot do anything with those 3 pieces, while my opponent had those 5 pieces.

If you feel that if you could change seats with your opponent and play his side and win then your decision was correct. He was good enough to get such a big advantage. If you could win from his position then, likely, so can he.

If, on the other hand, you don't know how you would win if you could swap positions, then don't resign. It could be that he doesn't know how to win either. Instead try and work out how to make his task as difficult as possible. It may be that you can get a draw.


Is a wasted tempo with an early ...a6 or ...h6 by Black in the opening really compromising? Is a wasted tempo in the opening for Black with an early ...a6 or ...h6 really dangerous? For example, in the following opening:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 a6 (or 3...h6)

Or in the following:

[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 a6 (or 3...h6)

Or in the English Opening:

[FEN ""]

1.c4 a6 (or 1...h6)

And so on. Is Black's position really compromised, or can he afford to do that without much trouble?

At such an early stage, there is plenty of room for speculation, but the answer is that it can be dangerous in some positions, and not so dangerous in others. I will go into detail in a moment. The biggest drawback of playing those moves so early is that you are not yet sure if they will fit into, and if they will be useful (very important), as the position develops. A good rule of thumb is to play moves that you know you will need earlier, and then see what other moves fit in with your plan as the game has developed.

In the first position, you have a double-king-pawn opening, aka an open game. It is called an open game for a reason...because the position will be very open. Very open positions often rely on tactics and tempo, so losing a tempo on move three could easily evolve into a lost game by move 15. I would say in that position, it is the most dangerous.

In the second and third positions, both are closed games, and thus, losing a tempo is not as likely to be fatal. Again, whether you can make a6 valuable in those positions, it is not clear. In either case, even if it does not lead to an immediate win, I would expect white to have a MUCH better chance at obtaining a solid +/- out of the opening, instead of the more typical +/= or =.


How to learn to play blind Is there a standard way to learn to play blind? How should one go about becoming better at blind chess? Should it come "natural" to a player at some point?
I am interested in knowing if it is a skill to learn or something that is simply a proof of a player's ability and so can't be learned before one reach like master level or something.

As others have mentioned, the "normal" way to learn to play blindfold is to simply get better at chess. A strong amateur will be able to play a game blind without much specific training. This is due to chunking—being familiar with lots of patterns makes memorizing those patterns much easier.
That being said, there are specific exercises which can help a weaker player play blindfolded:

Become extremely well versed in coordinates. It is impossible to play Blind without this. See this trainer for instance.

Tactics involving deep calculation. Deep calculation while looking at a board is essentially the same muscle as holding a position in your head.

Quiz yourself on the color of each square. This will help you get a feel for the board.

Mentally move single pieces around in your head. Especially knights and bishops (long diagonals can be tricky). Write down 10 of these moves and check that they were legal afterwards. You should be able to do this reasonably quickly.

Practice. Lichess has a Blindfold setting where the pieces vanish. Not quite as good as proper blindfold (you can still see the board...) but it's a good stepping stone.


Scid chess can not save I try to save color marking, etc. but the program gives error messages.

“The requested function is not supported by this type of database.”

Can I save this? So far it doesn’t save, amd when I save it won’t save markings.

I figured it out a few minutes later
Go to Menu at top “game” then “Save: Add New Game”
Add a new tag or title and will show in game list so you can pick which one you want!
Saves markings and you can edit tags and of file after


How good of a tactical player is Magnus? Everyone knows the amazing positional ability and endgame ability of Magnus Carlsen, but how is his tactical skills. I have heard someone say tactics are not his specialty? is this accurate

You can't be a strong positional player without being a strong tactical player... and you can't be a strong tactical player without being a strong positional player. The two go hand in hand, and when a player is strong they tend to be strong in both domains. Here's one way of explaining this. In order to achieve a good position, you have to see the tactical possibilities on the board. This will let you find good squares for your pieces and activate them. And in order to have tactical possibilities, you need to achieve a good position, as tactics flow from a good position. That's why the two are connected. For someone of Magnus's strength (the best in the world) you have to be extremely strong in both. So, to answer your question, he is extremely strong at tactical chess, positional chess, and endgames.

Another question you might ask is, what is his style? Does he play tactically or positionally? A player's style is largely composed of the positions they have learned and the openings they choose. Historically Magnus has a positional style as he tends to play strategic positions over sharp, tactical ones. However, recently this has changed. In the World Championship against Caruana, he played one of the sharpest openings with black, the Sicilian Sveshnikov. In Tata Steel he reprised this opening. Thus it seems that he is favoring sharp openings with black these days, perhaps out of his desire to win more games and play fewer draws. It will be interesting to see how he plays during the rest of the year. Will he continue to play sharp, unbalanced openings with black? Will he continue to play aggressively with considerable risk? To draw a connection between this question and the one you asked, it's important to point out that Magnus can do this -- switch from a positional style to a sharper and more aggressive style -- because he is so strong both tactically and positionally.

Here is a masterful endgame he played in 2012 which showcases both strategy and tactics. Notice how 38. Kd5 involves a tactic that lets him improve his position, an example of how tactical and positional chess are connected. Another example would be 49. f6.

[fen ""]
[Event "Grand Slam Chess Final"]
[Site "Sao Paulo BRA"]
[Date "2012.10.08"]
[EventDate "2012.09.24"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Fabiano Caruana"]
[ECO "C00"]

1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.Ngf3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Be2 O-O 7.O-O a5 8.Re1 e5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nc4 Re8 11.Bf1 Bg4 12.h3 Bh5 13.g3 Nb6 14.Nxb6 cxb6 15.Bg2 b5 16.a4 b4 17.Be3 Bc7 18.Qb3 h6 19.Qc4 bxc3 20.bxc3 e4 21.dxe4 Bxf3 22.Bxf3 Ne5 23.Qe2 Nxf3+ 24.Qxf3 Qd3 25.Kg2 Qxe4 26.Bd4 Qxf3+ 27.Kxf3 b6 28.Rab1 Rac8 29.Re4 g6 30.g4 Kf8 31.h4 Rxe4 32.Kxe4 Re8+ 33.Kd3 Re6 34.Be3 Kg7 35.Rb5 Bd8 36.h5 Rd6+ 37.Kc4 Rc6+ 38.Kd5 Re6 39.Bd4+ Kf8 40.f4 Bc7 41.f5 Rd6+ 42.Ke4 Rc6 43.Rb1 Ke8 44.hxg6 fxg6 45.Rh1 Kf7 46.Kd5 Rd6+ 47.Kc4 gxf5 48.gxf5 Bd8 49.f6 Bxf6 50.Rxh6 Be7 51.Rxd6 Bxd6 52.Kb5 Ke6 53.Bxb6 Kd7 54.c4 Kc8 55.Bxa5 Kb7 56.Bb4 Bf4 57.c5 Ka7 58.c6 Kb8 59.a5 Ka7 60.a6 Ka8 61.Bc5 Bb8 62.Kc4 Bc7 63.Kd5 Bd8 64.Ke6 Bc7 65.Kd7 Ba5 66.Be7 1-0

Here's a Sicilian he played as white against Karjakin in the 2016 tie break. He plays a strategic Maroczy bind in the opening but uses a clever tactic to win at the end.

[fen ""]
[Event "Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "2016.11.30"]
[EventDate "2016.11.11"]
[Round "13.4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Sergey Karjakin"]
[ECO "B54"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 Be7 7.c4
a5 8.Be3 a4 9.Nc1 O-O 10.Nc3 Qa5 11.Qd2 Na6 12.Be2 Nc5 13.O-O
Bd7 14.Rb1 Rfc8 15.b4 axb3 16.axb3 Qd8 17.Nd3 Ne6 18.Nb4 Bc6
19.Rfd1 h5 20.Bf1 h4 21.Qf2 Nd7 22.g3 Ra3 23.Bh3 Rca8 24.Nc2
R3a6 25.Nb4 Ra5 26.Nc2 b6 27.Rd2 Qc7 28.Rbd1 Bf8 29.gxh4 Nf4
30.Bxf4 exf4 31.Bxd7 Qxd7 32.Nb4 Ra3 33.Nxc6 Qxc6 34.Nb5 Rxb3
35.Nd4 Qxc4 36.Nxb3 Qxb3 37.Qe2 Be7 38.Kg2 Qe6 39.h5 Ra3
40.Rd3 Ra2 41.R3d2 Ra3 42.Rd3 Ra7 43.Rd5 Rc7 44.Qd2 Qf6 45.Rf5
Qh4 46.Rc1 Ra7 47.Qxf4 Ra2+ 48.Kh1 Qf2 49.Rc8+ Kh7 50.Qh6+ 1-0

And here's a blitz game he played in 2015. A lot of these moves, including the tactical blows at the end, he played almost instantly. Notice how 19... Bf5 20. Qd2 would lose to 20... Be4 with an unstoppable mate. In a blitz game it's very hard to respond to a move like 19... Bf5. Everything goes downhill after 20. e4 Qxd3. And 24... Bb4 followed by 25... Bd3 is a clever way of saving material after 24. Rd2 put both bishops in a skewer.

[fen ""]
[Event "banter blitz"]
[Site "chess24.com"]
[Date "2015.11.??"]
[EventDate "2017.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Jan Gustafsson"]
[Black "Magnus Carlsen"]
[ECO "A96"]

1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.O-O Be7 5.c4 O-O 6.Nc3 d6 7.d4 a5
8.b3 Qe8 9.Ba3 Na6 10.Rc1 Nb4 11.Qd2 Ne4 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Ne1
Qg6 14.Nc2 Bg5 15.e3 Nd3 16.Rcd1 e5 17.Bxe4 Qxe4 18.Qxd3 Qf3
19.dxe5 Bf5 20.e4 Qxd3 21.Rxd3 Bxe4 22.Rc3 Bd2 23.Re3 Bxc2
24.Re2 Bb4 25.Bxb4 Bd3 0-1


chess variants similar to retrograde gameplay Two players could start from any checkmate position ; the one player taking black , the other white, they could play chess backwards with the goal of trying to get all of ones pieces to their original positions first. Could there be a way to make this feasible?

This is just my opinion, as I doubt the question can be objectively answered, but I don't think this is feasible.

There are a few big problems arising from the idea of going backwards in the game of chess, and not only that the pawns' movement must be inverted, but also concerning the captured pieces. How to decide when a captured piece can "emerge" from the graveyard is, IMO, quite challenging. One can't simply set that every time an opponent's piece moves, you can put a captured piece on the square just left empty, since this would mean that a player has the right to "move" twice: to choose which piece to put on said position and then to move another (not necessarily different) piece. And this same problem applies to pawn promotion, when a player could choose to transform a piece on the last rank to a pawn on the seventh (or second). This doesn't happen in normal chess and I find it a little of an abomination.

Moreover, assuming all the pieces are already on the board, none of them can be captured (including the king, who now can enter into check but cannot be checked by an enemy piece). Plus, there are several strategies that any of the two players can adopt as to win almost immediately, one of them being to put a knight on the last rank, for example on a bishop's square. It would be impossible to a black piece to dislodge it, but if all the pawns are on their starting squares, the knight can go back to his place while the bishop can never trespass the pawn "chain".

This would lead to problems concerning what moves are legal and what are illegal. If, for example, we assume that a player must be capable of completing his objective, that is, any move that impedes the opposing player to complete his task is illegal (like forcing him to put first all the pawns on their squares but leave out the queen), would mean that one can enter a never-ending discussion of when a knight shall leave the last rank (the pawn has to be two squares advanced, or one, but what if the knight has all the other exits blocked and can no longer move, is it illegal to move the pawn thus A wins or the knight is in an illegal position thus B wins...). Or maybe we shall decide that if a player cannot attain his objective, he directly loses.

Well, I have to accept that maybe it is plausible to make such a game, but that would not resemble much the chess rules, and they would be so complicated that I don't think the game could be playable.


Can a player be forced to adjust a piece? If one of my pieces is knocked off the board unintentionally, do I need to place it back on the board?

Can I continue to play with one or more pieces not on the board (but still have it in effect - for example a rook that was on A1 but has been knocked off the board still "watches" the vertical and horizontal)?

Can I place it back on the board only when I intend to move it?

When FIDE tournament rules apply: If you displace one or more pieces – knocking off the board, intentionally or unintentionally, is a displacement – you have to re-establish the correct position on your own time (Art. 7.4.1). While it is not specifically mentioned, I would say that you have to do this at once; if you wait, that could be regarded as an attempt to "distract or annoy the opponent" (Art. 11.5).

In a regular game, if you proceed while the incorrect position is on the board, any move will be regarded as irregular, the correct position before the knocking off will be reinstated, the game will continue from that position, the arbiter will set the clock and give penalties. In rapid and blitz games, after the opponent made a move, the game will continue without the "vanished" piece.

USCF might have additional rules.


(How) should I avoid bishop exchange in Sicilian (Dragon) style setups? I often play the Sicilian, and out of that, sometimes I end up in situations like the one below, when my dark square bishop is fianchettoed and my opponent is getting ready to get rid of my bishop (after Bh6 the bishop exchange is forced), leaving me with dark square weaknesses.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2

How do you defend in such situations? Is there a general idea or solution to this problem? Or should I just ignore my weakened dark squares and try for a good bishop vs. bad bishop game?

I'm more interested in general tactics than specific lines, in other words, ideas that can be applied to other games, not only this one. This situation can occur for both sides in lots of openings.

Thanks

Generally, in such type of structures, Black can avoid an exchange by moving away the rook from f8, so that when White's bishop comes to h6, the Black bishop on g7 is not pinned to the rook and can move to h8.

 [FEN "5rk1/4ppbp/6p1/8/8/4B3/3Q4/4K3 b - - 0 1"]

 1...Re8 (1...e6?! 2. Bh6 Bh8? 3. Bxf8)2.Bh6 Bh8

However, in this specific position, White doesn't have time to play Bh6, because Black's counterplay is too strong after 8...Nc6! The only way White can manage the exchange if by playing 9. Nxc6 and then 10. Bh6, but then White doesn't gain much in that line. Black has strong central control and a semi-open b-file for the counter attack.

I would suggest that you study the theoretical lines of the dragon variation after 8...Nc6

  [FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2ppbp/3p1np1/8/3NP3/2N1BP2/PPPQ2PP/R3KB1R b KQ - 0 1"]

  1...Nc6 2.Bh6
  ( 2.Nxc6 bxc6 3.Bh6 Rb8 )
  ( 2.O-O-O d5! )
  2...Bxh6 3.Qxh6
  ( 3.Nxc6 Bxd2+ )
  3...Nxd4


I was up a piece but could not win. What went wrong? I lost this game and I am not looking for a computer analysis, but what approach should I have taken instead? The game continued 1. Rxd4 Rb7 2. Rxc4 dxc4 3. a4 b4 4. Bd4 Rd7 5. Bb6 c3 6. Rb1 Rd5 7. Kf2 c2 8. Rc1 b3 and I lost.

 [FEN "6k1/r4pp1/4p3/pp1pP2p/2rn1P2/4B2P/PR4P1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rxd4 Rb7 2. Rxc4 dxc4 3. a4 b4 4. Bd4 Rd7 5. Bb6 c3 6. Rb1 Rd5 7. Kf2 c2 8. Rc1 b3

You unblocking your opponent's passed d-pawn with 2. Rxc4 is what went wrong from a pragmatic perspective.

You are up a piece.  The only way black wins this position is by promoting pawns so that you're not up a piece anymore (e.g. pushing that 2-to-1 queenside pawn majority).

This can be easily stopped with the following approach:

Keep your rook where it is.  It's doing a fine job blockading the passed d-pawn.  Ideally, you want a knight to blockade the pawn, but the rook can do this as well.
Bring your last piece (i.e. the king) over to the queenside to make sure those pawns don't go anywhere.  They shouldn't since you have two rooks, a bishop and a pawn there already.

Try following the above advice by playing it out against a comp.


Double Grob-Coca-cola Gambit? I was using the opening explorer on Chess.com when I came upon the following line
1.g4 g5 2. f4 (Coca-cola gambit)!?
How did this opening get its name? It sounds like Coca-cola walked up to Fide and payed some money for some weird advertisement.

Sense of Humor
There are several real but somewhat silly openings that gets its name. Sodium Attack (1. Na3), Ammonia opening (1, Nh3), Meadow Hay Gambit (1. a4 e5 2. Ra3 Bxa3), Picklepuss Defence (1. e4 h5 2. d4 Nf6).
No one will actually play these in tournaments or something, they serves no useful purpose (except maybe training), but they're funny. Similar to code golf.
Coca-cola is very likely just something that sounds humorous.


Beginner Tactics - Why Isn't This Mate? I was playing on chesstempo and came across the following setup:

[FEN "k1r4r/p6p/5p2/3Q4/1R5P/PPqn4/3N1P2/1K1R4 b - - 1 1"]

With black to move. I was unable to solve this tactic - it seemed to me the best move was to place the queen on b2. In my mind this was mate. The queen is defended by the knight on d3 so the king could not escape.

However, the tactic said this was the wrong move. I ran it through chessbase and it was the same result.

Why is queen to b2 the wrong move here? The correct move was rook to c6, but I have no idea why.

1...Qb2 is not a legal move because black is in check; 1...Rc6 blocks the check. Another alternative to block the check is 1...Qc6, but that would drop the knight on d3.

[FEN "k1r4r/p6p/5p2/3Q4/1R5P/PPqn4/3N1P2/1K1R4 b - - 1 1"]

1... Rc6 (1... Qc6 2. Qxd3)


Experiences with the Steiner Variation 1.e4 e6 2.c4!? in French? How sound is 1.e4 e6 2.c4!?, the Steiner Variation in the French Defense, and would you actually recommend it? Does it work well in normal games, or is it more a surprise weapon for blitz?

It's undoubtedly sound in the sense that it does not by force lead to any sort of catastrophic disadvantage for White, but it offers very little if any objective possibility of obtaining a theoretical edge.

If you're specifically trying to reach an IQP position, it's probably preferable to play the Exchange Variation and only then follow up with c4, since Black has other reasonable options against c4 on move two besides an immediate d5 thrust. 2... c5, for example, can reach positions similar to those found in the Sicilian (i.e., various Maroczy Bind structures that crop up against the Kan, Taimanov, or Accelerated Dragon variations) and English Opening Hedgehog systems. That said, an immediate d5 seems to be the most popular response, and it's probably what one would typically expect from a French player (and what I would likely play myself).

It's certainly a viable way to play if you enjoy IQP positions and you want to avoid the well-trodden paths of main-line theory. It shouldn't lead to any advantage against correct play, however.


What is the reason for 5...Bb4+ in this line of the Bishop's Opening? After the opening moves
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3

one of Black's fashionable answers is

5...Bb4+

What is the aim of this seemingly useless check?

5...Bb4+ looks like a weird move because you wouldn't play a move like that often, but it makes perfect sense because the white bishop in on b3.
White would definitely want to develop his knight with Nc3 on the next move and put pressure on Black's pawn center. By playing 5...Bb4+ you prevent 6.Nc3 (it'd lose a piece). If White goes for 6.c3, then Black can put his bishop on d6 without his position in the center being at jeopardy.
That's why the most successful move here is 6.Bd2!. Now 6...Bd6 is met with 7.Nc3!, so Black usually prefers to trade bishops.


Why doesn't Black play Bd4? This puzzle on chesstempo caught my eye (we play as White):
[FEN "4q1k/p4pb/r4npp/4P/n2B/5NNP/5PP/Q4RK b - - 0 1"]

1. Nd7

The move I made was e6, and it was the right one. Yet, the Black's second move was not quite something I foresaw:
[FEN "4q1k/p4pb/r4npp/4P/n2B/5NNP/5PP/Q4RK b - - 0 1"]

1. Nd7 e6
2. Ndc5 Bg7

I believe there is a word for the situation the black bishop finds themself in after 1... e6: no matter what the next move is, it gets captured. As one can see the Black can't play Kg7 on the 2nd board as it is protected by the White queen. Therefore, I would have gone for the White bishop with the "doomed" Black bishop straight away:
[FEN "4q1k/p4pb/r4npp/4P/n2B/5NNP/5PP/Q4RK b - - 0 1"]

1. Nd7 e6
2. Bd4 Nd4

Why does Black choose not to play as I did on the 3rd? Besides, what is the word for the "doomed" pieces, such as the Black bishop here?

Note: chesstempo users went over those moves in the comments under the puzzle, yet the discussion there is quite cumbersome, so I decided to bring this question up here.

Nxd4 is not the best response to Bxd4, instead exd7 counter-attacking the Black Queen wins a piece:
[Result "*"]
[FEN "4q1k1/p4pb1/r4npp/4P3/n2B4/5NNP/5PP1/Q4RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Nd7 2.e6 Bxd4 3.exd7 Qxd7
    ( 3...Bxa1 4.dxe8=Q+ )
4.Nxd4 *

I think the term you are looking for is desperado, even though it doesn't seem quite a typical use to me. Quoting wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desperado_(chess))

In chess, a desperado piece is a piece that is en prise or trapped,
but captures an enemy piece before it is itself captured. This can be
in either a situation where both sides have hanging pieces, "...in
which you use your doomed piece to eat as much material as possible
before it dies";[1] or alternatively a sacrifice that will result in
stalemate if it is captured.


Where can I find a large collection of random chess positions? Does anyone know where it is possible to find a large number of chess positions in PNG, JPEG or any other image format? Quality, colour, size does not matter. The only thing that matters is that I'd prefer there to be some distortions in the image (like images scanned from books). Here is an example of a chess position such as I am looking for:

I am creating a tool which converts an image of a position to the board representation, and for this reason I need to collect a lot of different positions. Up till now I am getting them from PDF books I have.

The easiest way I can think of is to write your own scraper (say) in Python.
I'd use beautifulsoup and aim at several sites, including Google Images (within whatever limits they impose)

If you are familiar with Python, this SO question is all you really need.

Start with Google Images, chessbase.com, and then make a round of the numerous chess websites that have tons of position images that you can scrape.


Is it true that amateur players tend to choose the advance variation after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5? My database shows that after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5, white has the following main variations:

Nc3

exd5

e5

and they are equally popular among professional players. However, from my experience playing online games, I have observed that among amateur players, 3. e5 is far more popular than the other two moves.  Is it true that 3. e5 is statistically more popular than 3. Nc3 and 3. exd5 among amateur players? If so, why?

According to Lichess's database for games between ~1600 rated players in the Caro-kann does indeed show that 3. e5 is much more common than other moves.
e5 in fact accounts for 46% of games played; compare this to the second most common move, exd5, which is only 28%.
Often when amateurs are learning the concept of space in chess, the Advanced French Defense is used as an example. 3. e5 therefore is a common move for amateur white players to play against the French Defense.
Since the Caro-Kann resembles the French Defense, I believe amateur players simply play 3. e5 as it is what they know best. (This is only my best guess, don't take this as a hard fact).


4 Player chess strategies Are there any nice strategies for 4 player chess? (Bughouse chess)

How to open, how to win? I have not found anything good on the web.

This reddit page has a ton of information, coming from a strong player.

Excerpts (z means "crazyhouse") :

  Opening
  The standard rules apply: develop your pieces, control the center, and get your king to safety. But there are some opening ideas uniquely emphasized in z:

  Flank pawns should usually be kept where they stand in the opening. Openings like the Bird or Dutch exposing this square are extremely dubious. Even openings like the English and Sicilian aren't to be recommended as they weaken the c2/c7 square respectively. Diagonal pieces can be dropped to exploit the weakened color complex.
  Guard the tender f2/f7 square from sacs so that your king isn't drawn out early.
  Pawn gambits, especially those in which you delay the recapture, are almost without exception a bad idea; your opponent can accept and then simply drop the extra pawn to stabilize.
  Note that getting your king to safety does not always mean castling: sometimes it means keeping it in the center and fortifying the tender points of egress.

  Middlegame
  The middlegame is almost always where the game is won or lost. This is where you should look to start exchanging pieces, breaking with your pawns, building up pressure on vulnerable squares, or cracking open your opponent's defenses with careful pawn drops or piece sacs. The midgame is rapidly achieved in crazyhouse, so be ready to join battle straight away!

  Strategy Pointers and other midgame motifs

  On both offense and defense, be aware of positional sacrifices: knights and bishops or even major pieces can often be sac'd to expose the king in a manner which might be considered unsound in chess but which in z is very powerful. Similarly, a few points of material can be sacrificed to gain a foothold in enemy territory.
  Scan for weaknesses: holes where pawns can be dropped, pieces vulnerable to a fork, weakly defended kingside squares, overloaded defensive pieces. Identify a weakness and then concentrate all your drops on that weakness.
  If you identify a weakness but your pocket is empty, look to force exchanges. If your own position is weak, avoid exchanges until you're more solid.
  Defend pawn drops on your kingside: know how to react to p@h3/h6. The knight is an excellent defensive piece in this scenario. [...]
  Knights should be kept on hand until you can drop them to attack weak squares around the enemy's king, place extra pressure on a pin, or drop into a fork.
  A knight and a queen is the most powerful complementary attacking combination because they each cover squares the other doesn't. Knights can be used to place un-blockable checks, and queens can be used to drop into mates.
  (and a ton more)

  Common Mating Patterns
  [...]

  My Opening Systems
  (see this answer for an excerpt)


What was the source of randomness in the Alpha Zero vs Stockfish match? My understanding is that Alpha Zero's algorithm was fixed after the "learning" phase, so would it come up with the same move for every position? Was the variability in the match entirely due to a Stockfish setting, or did Alpha Zero also display an element of randomness in its move selection?

I've noticed AlphaZero played 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 in http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=91944&crosstable=1. Possibilities:

Mutlithreading (any software engineer can tell you it's not deterministic)
Monte Carlo Tree Search (the algorithm draws random paths, so it can't be deterministic)

Please note while the model's parameters are "fixed" (your own words), the actual move might be different. We don't have the source code for AlphaZero, but multithreading and MCTS are likely two major casues.


Is there any more purpose to various openings than to get a positional advantage? I have a grasp on tactics at this point, but when it comes to openings, I am lost. I follow the principles of developing my pieces toward the center with an eye towards castling. Beyond this, I don't understand what I am trying to accomplish if I pick a specific opening.

For instance, I have been watching some YouTube lectures on various openings like the Ruy Lopez. Usually these lectures videos enumerate a bunch of variations without giving me a lot of insight into why I would choose these moves, in the moment or in the long run.

Going back to the principles that I play in my own openings, it seems to me that the goal is to gain a positional advantage. That is, increase my options while decreasing my opponents. I am assuming no big blunders occur. But what does this mean beyond just trying to take control of the center? How do I connect my opening to a long-term checkmate goal? Is that even possible?

This answer may seem long, but to understand openings one has to understand some important positional concepts first.

Space

Space in chess can be loosely described as the number of squares controlled by friendly pieces. Having more space is often a good thing for two reasons.
Firstly, it gives you a freer position and you will have more options than your opponent based on the fact that you have more space on the board to work with. Secondly, if you have more space it means that your opponent will have less space, which will make their position cramped and difficult to play since many of the opponent's pieces will need to occupy the same squares.

Piece activity

Piece activity in chess can be summed up in the following question:
What good are the resources you don't utilize?
An active piece is one that influences the board in a significant way, such as a centralized knight or a rook on the seventh rank. Active pieces are mobile, and can often perform many important aggressive and defensive tasks by themselves. They are often a great nuisance to the opponent, whose pieces are threatened and restricted by active pieces.

Piece coordination

Piece coordination is used to describe how well your pieces work together. For instance, two rooks on an open file are considered very powerful because they typically coordinate very well with each other; together they possess double the power of a single rook while at the same time they can defend each other from attack. Pieces who coordinate well are in general stronger than their sum parts, while pieces who coordinate badly are the exact opposite. Piece coordination is an important positional factor which will make or break your position.

King safety

This one almost goes without saying; a safe king is less likely to get mated while an unsafe king is more likely to get mated. As simple as this concept is, it very important to pay attention to; many players have fallen for the trap of leaving their king slightly too unsafe at one moment, and have gotten destroyed as a result.

Material count

The material count is the most simple and intuitive positional factor in chess, and it is easy to assess at any given moment of the game. Since it is so simple to use, many players tend to overestimate its importance, myself included. The thing to remember about the material count is that it is actually "just" a positional factor among others, and thus it can be trumped by other positional factors. While important (especially in the endgame, when few pieces are left, the one with the advantage in material count tends to have a great advantage), it is not necessarily the most important one; for instance, if you get checkmated due to poor king safety it doesn't really matter much that you have an extra queen compared to your opponent.

Beginners are often advised to follow the basic opening principles, since they are quite simple and will help them coordinate their pieces reasonably well and fight for space, while also getting the king to relative safety early on. The long-term goal of this strategy is simply to get a playable position out of the opening, and for beginners this is a perfectly acceptable outcome of the opening.

Past the beginner stage, chessplayers will often start playing some theoretical opening lines to get an edge over their opponent.
Different opening lines are designed to try and get an edge by emphasizing different positional concepts; for instance many gambits tend to ignore material count to some degree in favour of piece activity and coordination (and often also reduced safety for the opponent's king), while other openings may place emphasis on getting a space advantage and letting the opponent suffer in a cramped position for the long haul.

To answer your question: I'd say that in order to connect your opening to a long-term goal, you first need to understand which positional concepts your opening is designed to emphasize. This can be easy or difficult depending on the opening you look at. As a novice player you could try to study your opening in terms of how well it adheres to the basic opening principles you know. The principles are sound and shouldn't be broken willy-nilly, so if they are broken there will be a good reason for it (if the opening line is sound, that is). This concrete reason will often have to do with one or more of the above-mentioned positional concepts in this post, but sometimes it is of a more concrete nature.


Three Pawns for a Knight - Why Doesn't Stockfish Like it? In a recent game I swapped off a knight for 3 pawns:

[Event "County Match"]
[Site "Deepest Darkest Southern England"]
[Date "2018.01.20"]
[White "English Player"]
[Black "Ian Bush"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "41"]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.O-O d6 6.Nc3 c5 7.a3 Nc6 8.Rb1 Bf5
9.d3 Nd7 10.Nd5 Nb6 11.Ne3 Bd7 12.b4 Qc8 13.b5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.a4 Bh3
16.a5 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Bxe3 18.Bxe3 Nd7 19.Bh6 Re8 20.Qd2 Nf6 21.h3 Qf5 22.e4
Nxe4 23.dxe4 Qxe4+ 24.Kh2 Qxc4 25.Rfe1 Rad8 26.Re3 f6 27.Rbe1 e5 28.Rd3
Re6 29.Rc3 Qxb5 30.Qd5 Rde8 31.Rb3 Qc6 32.Qxc6 bxc6 33.Rb7 R6e7 34.a6 Kf7
35.Be3 Ke6 36.f4 Rxb7 37.axb7 Rb8 38.Rb1 a5 39.fxe5 fxe5 40.Kg2 a4 41.Kf2
a3 42.Ke2 a2 43.Ra1 Rxb7 44.Rxa2 c4 45.Kd2 d5 46.Kc3 Rb3+ 47.Kd2 d4 48.Bf2
Kd5 49.Ra5+ Ke4 50.Rc5 c3+ 51.Kc1 d3 52.Rxc6 d2+ 53.Kc2 Rb2+ 54.Kd1 Rb1+ 0-1

I've started here as this was the plan after Qf5, and I played this way as I thought it a good way to get winning chances - it was a match and as it all looked fairly even wins were the order of the day. But Stockfish really doesn't like it, putting me down ~1.5 pawns, and I don't really understand why. Can somebody turn the "thoughts" of the metal monster into human terms for me?

Counting material is only one portion of evaluating a position. Stockfish considers space, piece mobility and activity, king safety, etc.

All of that produces an evaluation of the position, and for this one SF grades it (using LiChess) as about +2.2 (depth 31).

I note that before your knight sac Stockfish thinks you were already down by about 1.2, despite roughly equal material. That bishop on h6 controlling your weakened dark squares, for example, is clearly worth more than your knight.

As for your decision to sac the knight, from a practical point of view it seems a reasonable choice in a bad situation, because if you simply move your queen to e6 or e5, as SF suggests, white has a clear and natural plan of f4 followed by eventually opening up that file, and your clumsy rooks will not be nimble defenders.

SF suggests for white an immediate b6 after your queen takes on c4, and with that you will not get the pawn storm as you did in the game. White will have an open line to invade with his rooks (which one depends on your reaction to b6) and his extra piece will tell.


Are there any moves that are more popular in databases of GM games but are objectively inferior? Usually in a particular opening position, if move A is more popular (in GM games) than move B, then either move A is objectively better than move B, or move A is equally good as move B.

Are there any examples of moves that move A is more popular than move B in GM games but move B is objectively better?

It really depends on how broadly you want to define the openings.

For example, while not popular at that level, GMs have played the Smith Morra. Of course, a standard open Sicilian is better.

The same goes for those, who have played the King's Gambit when trying for the Ruy Lopez is better.

The Ruy Lopez is probably objectively better than the Italian Game, but we saw the Italian played the last two days at times in the World Rapid and Blitz events.

The same goes for the Benoni, Benko, and Dutch. They are not horrible, but there is a reason the do not dominate high-level opening play.

Anytime a GM needs to win, and plays a sharp opening that is not objectively best, and that happens a lot.

I am sure there are plenty of examples that are deeper into the opening, but this already shows how common it is.

Lastly, many GMs play sidelines, and have pet openings that are not considered best. They play them when they need an imbalance, and to win.


Is it possible to play 1 minute bullet with no increment over the board? Playing 1 minute bullet games with no increment on the Internet is hard enough, but what about over the board, in real life with an actual wooden board?

Would it be possible, or would 90% of the games end in total chaos with many illegal moves and pieces getting knocked over everywhere?

Would it be possible to have "serious" over the board tournaments played at this time control?

If the answer to the question is no, what about 2 minutes bullet with no increment? Would serious over the board tournaments be possible at this time control?

I've played one minute, no increment, over-the-board chess, it definitely can be done.  My experience (at least with the opponents I've played with...) has been that it's almost always turned into a huge time scramble with lots of knocked-over pieces, and I can tell you that a substantial fraction of the games I've played at this time control (maybe 20% or so - just a guess off the top of my head) have ended with one player or another making an illegal move - often because they didn't notice that they were in check, or because they tried to move a pinned piece or something and ended up putting themselves in check.  Depending on who you are playing with (and your own habits in this regard), I'd personally recommend playing like this only with a clock that you don't really care much about - many of the opponents I've played at this time control have been really rough on the clock...


Example highlighting overprotection Nimzovich was a proponent of the idea of over-protection, a concept which I don't understand well enough to ever implement in my games. Are there any example games at the GM level that illustrate this concept particularly well as a theme?

The classic game that is typically used to explain 'excessive' protection is Aron Nimzowitsch vs A Giese (played in 1913)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1316457

pay attention to moves 10. Nf3! (first defense of e5) then 11. Re1! (second defense), and finally 13. Bf4! (third defense of e5)


Breadth-first search vs Depth first search in knowledge-based chess engines I would like to learn about the difference between depth-first and breadth-first search in knowledge-based chess engines (that, of course, excludes alpha-zero). The difference isn't that clear-cut, but, to my knowledge, some engines prefer to go deeper than explore more options per move. It seems that depth-first search, as it is used in Stockfish, has prevailed for now, but I don't necessarily find that obvious. Can anyone point me to research which has been done in this area?

Strength in chess engines depends on speed and speed depends on how strongly you can prune the tree. That is, how many nodes you can discard without degrading the accuracy of your search result.

In principle you might be able to visit the same nodes using either BFS or DFS, so a priori it is not clear which would be better prunable i.e. faster.

In chess, however, DFS is better prunable because one strong countermove is enough to invalidate a move. Therefore, the value of a move depends more strongly on a small set of next countermoves and the value of these countermoves on a small set of next moves etc. So, Min-Max-Search naturally lends itself to better pruning with DFS.


What should be defined as an en passant checkmate? Is there a general consensus among composers, players, and/or organizations for what exactly defines an en passant checkmate, and is there any history  to it?
As far as I know, there are two possibilities to define it by.

The pawn captures, moving to deliver a discovered check that results in checkmate.

The pawn captures, and the pawn itself checkmates.

After some research I could not find  any "official" definition by a chess association/federation. This doesn't really surprise me, as there really is no need for a definition of "e.p. checkmate" to ensure correct play.

However the general internet consensus on the usage of the term seems to agree on the following requirements:

The game has to end with checkmate.
The last move has to be played en passant.

An exemplary notated move would be "29... cxd e.p. #" (although notating e.p. is optional under the FIDE laws of chess (C.9)) - regardless if the pawn capturing delivers check or not. The Wikipedia examples follow this definition.

As there is no opinion by a regulatory instance about this topic, it seems to be up to you to make up your mind on this topic or bringing it to the attention of said regulatory instance. I am taking the "democratic" approach with the above definition.


Chess GUI recommendation for linux Which chess GUI will be good for Linux. I have tried a lot of GUI's, but as I am new at computer chess, I have no idea about pros and cons of chess GUI's.

Which is chess GUI will you recommend? Is that free? Is that opensource?

I used http://www.pychess.org/download/ and https://sourceforge.net/projects/scidvspc/.

Linux chess applications are generally free and open source.


How is it like for live audience watching long classic chess? For the live audience that's watching chess in person, not online, how is it like?

Do they sit through it all, say 7h? Can they leave and comeback? Are their seats reserved if they leave? Do they have restaurants and so on to spend their time?

What was it like in the old days, say 90s or 80s when there was a huge crowd, did they sit still for 7h and comeback everyday?

I just wonder how it like to be in the audience, mainly in FIDE world classic chess championships, lets say the final match, since in theory it should attract the most audience.

I helped out at the 2008 match between Kramnik and Anand in Bonn and attended many other world class events as a spectator. (Like Kramnik-Fritz when he blundered the mate in one. Epic.)

Usually seats aren't reserved and people come and go. Often there is a separate commentary/analysis room that you might attend, although you can also hear commentary with headphones in the playing hall. If you are accompanied by friends you might occasionally slip out to discuss the current position.

But many people are actually sitting though almost the entire game, with only the occasional toilet break etc. Time flies when you are having fun. And of course 7h games aren't the norm.


What chess software allows to search for sacrifices and combinations? I want to search a database of games for generic interesting tactics combinations. What are my software options for this (SCID/CB/CA)? Is there a published algorithm/script that determines that a move is a sacrifice/combination? I see that Chessbase allows this: as per http://help.chessbase.com/Reader/12/Eng/index.html?search_sacrifices.htm, but I would be curious to see if other software does something similar, and also want to know more details behind these algorithms: "The ChessBase sacrifice search does a look-ahead in all tactical situations and for this reason takes somewhat longer than the other searches. The algorithms were written by Dr. Christian Donninger, the author of Nimzo."

The http://ChessTempo.com tactis trainer is based on tactical problems extracted from a large database scanned with an engine and the problems have been tagged with tactical motifs by users. Perhaps it is sufficient for your purpose if you learn to create custom problem sets based on these tags. There is a discussion forum there where you can ask your question in detail.


Are there decided recent games with 1. b4 at top level? I would like to have a survey of the decided games with 1.b4 since 2010,
 where both players had at least 2600 Elo.

chessgames.com allows to search games with given moves (with tight limits), but
 does not allow to search for Elo.

Can anyone help ?

The only games I could find meeting your criteria are

Ivanchuk - Giri, Leon Masters (rapid) 2013
Short - Caruana, London Classic (rapid) 2013


Which chess rules cover Internet play? From FIDE Laws of Chess:

  FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.

So, which rules cover Internet chess play?

Each individual site will have their own rules, although many of them will be the same.

I haven't played online in years, so I can't list specifics, but I know the rating systems are different from site to site.


program to output features in a position is there a program available that will take a position as input and output the features in that position such as: bad knight on H3, good bishop on g2, knight outpost on E5, passed pawn on c6, etc.  It would be ideal if it took FEN string and operated from the command line?

It's possible (statically) but you may need to do some works. Let's take a look at Stockfish.

In the terminal, start Stockfish and type eval.

Stockfish knows about your passed pawns, king safety, good knights etc. Your job is to pull it out from the source code.

Let's study Stockfish's evaluation. The source file is at: https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/evaluate.cpp

Let's try two examples: bad knight and passed pawn.

Bad knight

The line:

pos.attacks_from<Pt>(s)

gives you the attack bitboard for your knight. The PST table for the knight is in psqt.cpp.

{ S(-144, -98), S(-96,-82), S(-80,-46), S(-73,-14) },
{ S( -83, -69), S(-43,-54), S(-21,-17), S(-10,  9) },
{ S( -71, -50), S(-22,-39), S(  0, -7), S(  9, 28) },
{ S( -25, -41), S( 18,-25), S( 43,  6), S( 47, 38) },
{ S( -26, -46), S( 16,-25), S( 38,  3), S( 50, 40) },
{ S( -11, -54), S( 37,-38), S( 56, -7), S( 65, 27) },
{ S( -62, -65), S(-17,-50), S(  5,-24), S( 14, 13) },
{ S(-194,-109), S(-66,-89), S(-42,-50), S(-29,-13) }

Do you see -29 for the h1 square?

Passed pawn

The line:

ei.pe->passed_pawns(Us)

gives you passed pawn information for a colour.


What is the name or origin of this opening for Black? I was playing online, and I noticed some players go for this opening and I don't know its name or if it's a move order to another opening for Black.
[fen ""]
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 d6 5. f3 Nbd7

Is it a sideline in the Modern, Kings Indian, Hippo, or Neo-old Benoni Defense? Or is it a new opening? In the Neo-old Benon,i Black doesn't fianchetto the bishop, and in the Hippo Black doesn't commit to c6 at an early stage like that.

There is no name that I can find. However, I can identify some factors of this opening.

White has a Samisch setup

Black has played a type of Gurgendize modern defence.

Perhaps this opening is a move order in the Samisch where Black delays ...Nf6 and ...e5.


What is perfect play? What exactly is perfect play? Can there can be multiple perfect plays, which sounds quite contradictory? If perfect play is known for all openings then why would a player play anything other than that?  Such a thing would make all high level games futile because then players would intentionally divert from perfect play in order to just create a show or something similar.

In the context of game theory, perfect play involves playing truly optimal moves.  Specifically, if the game state is a (theoretical) win for the player to move, perfect play would be a move that both preserves that state (eg keeps the game a winning state) and minimizes the number of moves remaining until victory.  If the game state is a draw, perfect play preserves the draw.  If the game state is a loss, perfect play cannot improve the theoretical outcome, but instead maximizes the number of moves until defeat.
Perfect play is, by definition, known for solved games like Tic-Tac-Toe.  Chess is not yet solved, so in most board positions, perfect play is not known.  For some situations, for example positions with 7 or fewer total pieces on the board, we have endgame tablebases which have perfect play recorded.  Also, for positions with forced checkmate in sufficiently few moves, engines can calculate perfect play on-the-fly by simply looking at all possible moves and responses and choosing one that gives checkmate the fastest.  Perfect play is not (yet) known for chess openings.  If chess were solved and perfect play were widely known, then it is possible competitive chess may die.
There can be multiple perfect moves for a given board position.  For example, if there are two different moves that immediately checkmate the opponent, both are perfect.  Playing around with endgame tablebases, it is fairly common to find positions where multiple moves lead to checkmate in (say) 18 moves.  If the game is a theoretical draw, often many moves preserve the draw.  All of these moves are perfect from a game-theory perspective, though some may give better practical chances than others.


Why this move is good here but not few moves ago? [FEN "r1bq1rk1/p2p2pp/1pn1p3/5p2/1PP1n1P1/P4N2/1BQ1PP1P/R3KB1R b - - 0 1"]

Here, 1... fxg4 gives White an advantage. But 1...Nxf2 2.Kxf2 fxg4 is equal. Why is that?

The main point is that 1...Nxf2 draws White's king out to the vulnerable f2-square; this allows Black to hold the balance. After 2.Kxf2 fxg4 3.Rg1, Black can give a perpetual with 3...Qh4+! 4.Ke3 (4.Rg3 can be met with 4...exf3, as Rxg7+ is impossible) 4...Qh6+ 5.Kf2 Qh4+.

Meanwhile, 1...fxg4? 2.Qxe4 gxf3 3.Rg1 (hitting the g7-pawn) 3...Rf7 4.0-0-0 gives White a serious initiative. His king is safe enough on the queenside, and his pieces are pointed at Black's king. Also, note that Qxc6 is threatened, winning a piece, since on ...dxc6 White has Rxd8+.


Is there a term for an attack - similar to a pin or skewer - on pieces of equal value? "Pin" and "skewer" are fairly common terms in chess:

A pin is a situation where a piece cannot move without exposing a more valuable piece to attack. For example, the Ruy Lopez Opening features a black knight pinned (against the black king) by a white bishop after white's third move.

A skewer is when a piece is attacked and moving it would expose a less valuable piece to attack. An example would be a black rook attacking a white queen along a file with a white rook on the same file behind the queen.

However, I am unaware of a term applying to a similar situation in which the attacked piece is of equal value to the piece it is shielding, whether because they are two pieces of the same type (e.g. rooks) or the same value (bishop and knight, using "conventional" values of 3 pawns/points for both knights and bishops). Does such a term exist? If so, what is it? Or do we just use "pin" (or "skewer")?
The diagram shows an example with a white bishop attacking two black rooks along the same diagonal.  (The black pawn is to rule out the possible responses Ra5 and Rb5, which distract from the point of the example.)
r7/1r2k3/8/1p1BK3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

I'm not aware of any terms. Maybe it is helpful to think instead of the purpose of the move:

pin: preventing a piece from moving by threatening to attack a piece behind it
skewer: forcing a piece to move, in order to attack the piece behind it

So whether you call a situation with a knight in front of a bishop (or rook in front of a rook like in your board) a "skewer" or a "pin" depends perhaps on what the primary intention is.
In your board position, I would say that the A8 rook is skewered and the B7 rook is pinned.


What is counterplay? I hear this term in online commentaries.

I have a vague sense of what it means: you earn yourself some good moves by ignoring a portion of the board and focusing on more promising parts of your play. It's as if you are telling your opponent: Sure you are threatening, but I am going to ignore it for I can also threaten you. So the players now try to prove whose threat is stronger.

Consider Anand-Andreikin for example. Andreikin found a draw by evaluating that his queen side was stronger. He chose to ignore Anand's strong king side. Or Anand-Carlsen, where Anand found a draw by finding counterplay with 44. Qh1. I am looking for heuristics/ rules of thumbs in this theme of playing.

I feel my understanding of the term is still loose. So:

Could you explain what is counterplay with some instructive example?
How to evaluate the potential of counterplay, i.e. - how to decide under practical playing conditions whether to counter attack or respond to the threat?
I feel the term is related to the idea of 'complicating a position'. Is it? (I have Nakamura-Carlsen on my mind, but it may not be the best example).
I have also heard of players talking of prophylaxis to prevent potential counterplay. Again can you give some heuristics to decide, whether to get prophylactic in a winning position or not? This is the same question as 2, except from the other player's point of view.

Thanks!

This is actually quite a sensible question and it isn't about the English word 'counter' as JiK suggests, but about the English word 'play'. ;-)

To have 'play' in a position basically means that you are able to create threats. The possibility to create threats isn't really linked to how complicated a position is. But a position in which only one player can create threats usually isn't very complicated.
So there are positions with counter play that aren't very complicated, but going for counter play often complicates a position.

'counter' just means that your opponent had all the play before and only now you start to strike back.
You could say that 'counter play' is a defensive technique. You may not be able to parry your opponents threats, but by creating counter threats you can dissuade him from executing his threats.

I'll try to come up with some endgame example later …

No endgame, but very recent and a really nice fight - Adams-Caruana:

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 O-O 8. d3 d6 9. c3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. Nbd2 Nc6 12. Nf1
h6 13. Ne3 Re8 14. a4 Be6 15. h3 Bf8 16. Nh2 b4 17. Bb3 Rb8
18. Bc4 bxc3 19. bxc3 d5 20. Bxa6 Qa5 21. c4 Qxa6 22. exd5
Bxd5 23. cxd5 Nb4 24. Ra3 Nfxd5 25. Neg4 f6 26. Nf1 Rbd8
27. Ng3 c4 28. Nxh6+ gxh6 29. Qg4+ Kh8 30. dxc4 Ne7 31. Qh5
Ng8 32. Nf5 Qb7 33. Rg3 Qh7 34. Nh4 Ne7 35. Ba3 Nbc6 36. Kh2
Bg7 37. Bxe7 Nxe7 38. Rd1 Qg8 39. Rb1 Rb8 40. Rd1 Red8 41. c5
Rxd1 42. Qxd1 Rb4 43. Qd7 Rxh4 44. Qxe7 Rd4 45. c6 Qf8 46. Qb7
Rb4 47. Qd7 Rd4 48. Qb7 Rb4 49. Rc3 f5 50. Qd7 Rd4 51. Qe6 Rd6
52. Qxd6 Qxd6 53. c7 e4+ 54. g3 Bxc3 55. c8=Q+ Kh7 56. Qxc3 f4
57. gxf4 Qxf4+ 58. Qg3 Qd2 59. Qc7+ Kg6 60. Qb6+ Kh7 61. Qb7+
Kh8 62. Qa8+ Kg7 63. Qxe4 Kf6 64. Qf3+ Kg6 65. Kg2 Qa2
66. Qe4+ Kf6 67. Qf4+ Kg6 68. Qd6+ Kg7 69. Qe5+ Kh7 70. a5
Qg8+ 71. Kh2 Qf7 72. Qe4+ Kg7 73. a6 1-0

If you look at the position after 27.Ng3 it looks pretty depressing for white. Black has all the play, d3 is weak and white is lacking space. But 27…c4 gave Adams the possibility to create counter play against the black king, by sacrificing his knight on h6.

Concerning wisdom: I'm not sure you will have much luck searching for heuristics. Counter play and prophylaxis mostly rely on accurate calculation and maybe some alertness for tactical possibilities. Apart from that it is just an aspect of your positional feel for the game, to know how much play you can allow your opponent and when you have to throw a spanner into his works no matter what the cost.


What if threefold repetition occurs in WCC 2018? It is not allowed to draw till move 30. Are the players forced to find another moves in case of threefold repetition?

Draw by mutual agreement is not allowed before move 30. But a draw by threefold repetition can be claimed at any point if it occurs.