Why is castling kingside more encouraged than queenside? I often hear that you should castle kingside first, rather than queenside. What are the advantages of castling the king-side as opposed to the queenside? Sometimes I like castling queenside, because when I do, my rook ends up on an open file.

It's very difficult to answer without a specific position, but here are a few general thoughts:

Kingside

It is almost always faster to castle kingside because only two pieces need to be moved out of the way, and those two pieces have very natural squares (Nf3, Bb5/c4/e2).
The kingside pawns are usually left on their starting squares so the king is usually safer on the kingside than it would be on the queenside.  This is in part because the a file can be weak after long castling.
In many positions, the move c3 (...c6 for black) is useful to support a d4 (...d5 for black) push.  c3 is much safer after kingside castling.  After queenside castling, c3 makes the b1-h7 diagonal weaker.
After short castling, it is possible to push the a and b pawns to try and gain space on the queenside without making weaknesses around the king.  For example, the move a4 is frequently useful in the Ruy Lopez and the Slav.

Queenside

Usually white is the one to castle queenside because white gets to move first.  White can use the initiative to develop faster and start an attack.  Almost all opposite castling games feature white playing O-O-O and black playing ...O-O.
The biggest advantage of queenside castling is that the rook comes immediately to d1 (d8 for black).  This means that queenside castling basically saves a move over kingside castling (no need for Rfe1).
Often white will need to play Kb1 to better protect the king (black can play ...Kb8).  This is another tempo that must be "wasted" after castling long.
The king is often exposed on the c1-h6 diagonal because the d pawn is usually moved early in the opening.  Kb1 mitigates this danger, but this is still something that must be considered.

Additional Thoughts

If you want an attacking game, castling to the opposite side of the board than your opponent is the easiest way to do this.  The reason is that then the pawns in front of your opponent's king can be pushed forward to participate in an attack.
If you want a safe game, for example when your opponent has a lead in development, castle on the same side as your opponent.  If your opponent tries to push the pawns on the same side as the kings, you will frequently be able to counter-attack.
When in doubt, kingside castling is almost never "wrong", but queenside castling is sometimes a grave error.  In illustration, I present Boden's Mate:

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "28"]
[Event "simultaneous exhibition"]
[Site "Budapest"]
[Date "1934"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Esteban Canal"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B01"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 c6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bf4 e6
7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Bb4 9. Be2 Nd7 10. a3 O-O-O?? {Incredibly, castling queenside turns out to be a blunder which at the least loses the queen. In another book, Reinfeld writes, "Black mistakenly thinks that [11.axb4] is out of the question. But White, seeing further ahead and relying on his excellent attacking position, has a stunning surprise continuation." Iakov Neishtadt writes, "Black is convinced that his opponent cannot take the Bishop. This would indeed have been the case if he had played not 10...0-0-0, but 10...Ngf6." Seirawan and Minev advise, "Motto: Think twice before castling on the Queenside!"}
11. axb4!! {If a6, b7, and c6 are unprotected by black pieces, then Boden's Mate would be possible, so White starts to deflect the black queen from guarding these squares by force.}
11... Qxa1+ {If Black plays 11...Qb6 in order to protect a6, b7, and c6, then (besides already being a piece up) White could continue to attack the black queen with 12.Na4 [12...Qxb4+? 13.c3 Qb3 14.Ra3], and the queen will run out of safe squares to protect a6, b7, or c6.}
12. Kd2! {Another deflection. Black is doomed now, for after capturing the white rook at a1, Black loses the last chance to protect c6, and the black queen is unable to stay on the a-file to protect a6.}
12... Qxh1 {Reinfeld writes, "Microscopically preferable was 12...Ne5 13.Bxe5 Qxh1 14.Qxf7 Rd7 (amusing would be 14...Ne7 15.Qxe6+! Rd7 16.Bg4 Rhd8 17.Qd6! forcing mate) 15.Qe8+ Rd8 16.Qxe6+ Rd7 17.Qe8+ Rd8 18.Bg4# !"}
13. Qxc6+ bxc6 14. Ba6# {[%draw arrow,a6,c8, red][%draw arrow,f4,b8, blue]} 1-0


How to go about beating chess engines? I play regularly long games (60min each) with Droidfish/Stockfish the depth is always close around 21.

From time to time I overlook taktical flaws in my moves, obviously playing on worse positions against an engine makes no sense, so I take my move back. Technicaly the engine does the same, when it changes the evaluation.

That being said I most of the time end up in endgames that are drawn.
With black I have trouble drawing the game but I eventualy will.
With white I might have a edge, but the engine just always can hold a draw, somehow blockading the position to force a repetition.

I am a very positional player and i guess that is the reason I get these draws, because I mostly avoid taktical positions. NOTE: I am not going for totaly closed positions, I am playing normal positional chess.

I do not think I can beat the engine with black that would be asking for to much but I will try with white.

I play the Benko Opening wih white (1.g3).

If you are curious here is the last  game I played with Droidfish:

[fen ""]
1. g3 d5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. Bg2 c6
4. O-O Bf5
5. d4 g6
6. a4 Bg7
7. b3 O-O
8. Bb2 e6
9. Nbd2 Nbd7
10. c4 Re8
11. Rc1 Rc8
12. Nh4 Bf8
13. Nxf5 exf5
14. e3 Qa5
15. Nf3 Ne4
16. cxd5 cxd5
17. Ne5 Rxc1
18. Qxc1 Qd8
19. Nd3 Bd6
20. Ba3 Ndf6
21. Bxd6 Qxd6
22. Qc2 Qa3
23. Rc1 h5
24. Qb2 Qd6
25. Ne5 Kg7
26. b4 Re7
27. f3 Ng5
28. Kf2 Ne6
29. h4 Rc7
30. Rxc7 Qxc7
31. Bf1 Nd7
32. Nd3 Nf6
33. a5 Ne8
34. Qc1 Qxc1
35. Nxc1 Nd6
36. Nd3 Nc7
37. Ne5 Ne6
38. Nd7 Nf8
39. Nc5 Ne6
40. Bd3 b6
41. Nd7 bxa5
42. bxa5 Nb7
43. a6 Nbd8
44. Ke2 f6
45. Kd2 Kf7
46. Kc3 Ke7
47. Nc5 Nc7
48. Kb4 Nc6+
49. Ka4 Nd8
50. Bb5 Nde6
51. Bf1 Kd6
52. Kb4 Nf8
53. Bd3 Nfe6
54. Bb5 Ng7
55. Nb7+ Ke7
56. Bd3 Nge6
57. Nc5 Kd6
58. Nb7+ Ke7

It went some moves on but ended in a repetition.

I am not really a fan of 1.e4 or sicilian type positions.
I kinda got the opinion that you can not really beat the engine in a long positional game in contrast to human players because the engine makes very few inaccuracies.
I guess the most chances are in a complex middle game. (I would still like them to be positional, maybe mixed with taktics)

I couldlnt really find any good (human vs engine) games where the engine was in trouble.
I will take a look now at recent engine games stockfish lost maybe that will give me a clue how to beat an engine beast.

Maybe in the mean time you will have some usefull ideas, because that is what we are the best in (for now).

While it is extremely difficult for a human to beat the top chess engines, many of the mobile engines (like Driodfish) are still beatable.

I will consider Driodfish 1.53 since that's the one currently installed on my Android phone and is similar to the one the OP is using.

Engines are very good at tactics, so humans cannot realistically hope to beat them there. However, engines don't "understand" strategy. The top engines can cope with this because they simply think way too deep and can tactically compensate for lack of strategic understanding. They also have good evaluation functions. However, the weaker mobile engines still lack in this area.

So the way to beat these engines is to achieve those kind of positions where strategically you have an edge at the cost of some temporary tactical disadvantage (like material). Engines can often be lured into such positions. For instance, consider this game I just played with Droidfish 1.53. At the cost of a pawn (temporary tactical disadvantage), I was able to secure a very strong advantage for myself many moves later. The computer failed to see this when it went for the material advantage -

[FEN ""]
[White "Wes"]
[Black "Droidfish 1.53"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Nxg4
8. Rg1 h5 9. h3 Qf6 10. Be2 Nh6 11. e4 Bb4 12. Bg5 Qg6 13. Bd3 dxc4
14. Bxc4 Qh7 15. O-O f6 16. Bxe6 fxg6 17. Nxg5 Qg6 18. f4 Bxc3
19. bxc3 Qf6 20. f5 Nf8 21. e5 Qe7 22. Bxc8 Rxc8

Droidfish 1.53 itself now evaluates this position as a clear advantage for White.

As great a player as Garry Kasparov himself employed this strategy in some of his games against the top engines of that time.

Garry Kasparov vs Deep Junior 2003, Round 1, 1-0

  [FEN ""]
  [White "Garry Kasparov"]
  [Black "Deep Junior"]
  [Date "2003"]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dc4
  8. Bc4 b6 9. e4 e5 10. g5 Nh5 11. Be3 O-O 12. O-O-O Qc7 13. d5 b5
  14. dc6 bc4 15. Nb5 Qc6 16. Nd6 Bb7 17. Qc3 Rae8 18. Ne8 Re8 19. Rhe1 Qb5
  20. Nd2 Rc8 21. Kb1 Nf8 22. Ka1 Ng6 23. Rc1 Ba6 24. b3 cb3 25. Qb3 Ra8
  26. Qb5 Bb5 27. Rc7

Garry Kasparov vs X3D Fritz 2003, Round 1 1/2-1/2

  [FEN ""]
  [White "Garry Kasparov"]
  [Black "X3D Fritz"]
  [Date "2003"]

   1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Bb4
   8. Bd2 Qe7 9. Rg1 Bc3 10. Bc3 Ne4 11. O-O-O Qf6 12. Be2 Nf2 13. Rdf1 Ne4
   14. Bb4 c5 15. cd5 ed5 16. dc5 Qe7 17. Nd4 O-O 18. Nf5 Qe5 19. c6 bc6
   20. Bf8 Kf8 21. Ng3 Ndc5 22. Ne4 Ne4 23. Bd3 Be6 24. Be4 de4 25. Rf4 Bd5
   26. Qc5 Kg8 27. Rgf1 Rb8 28. R1f2 Qc7 29. Rc2 Qd7 30. h4 Qd8 31. g5 Ba2
   32. Re4 Qd3 33. Rd4 Qe3 34. Rcd2 Qe1 35. Rd1 Qe3 36. R1d2 Qg1


How well does Elo rating estimate a player's strength? Edit (3 March 2014):

Proposal: strength is the real and rating is the model that estimates it.

Question: How well does Elo rating estimate a player's strength?

Bonus question: What happens if you take the player's rating curve into account?

It's not clear to me whether you are asking a philosophical or a quantitative question.

My answer to the philosophical question is that the Elo rating is predictive; that is, it is designed to make accurate predictions about the outcomes of chess games. To that extent, it measures strength by estimating the likelihood that a player will win against another player. It does this by using the player's past results, and it does the best it can given that information.

The answer to the quantitative question is that the "expected value" of a game between two players is correlated with the difference in their Elo ratings. For example if player A's Elo rating is 200 higher than that of player B, then player A would be expected to go about 76-24 over the course of a 100-game match.

Note: The question has changed since I answered it, so my answer makes less sense now. The title of the question used to be Does the chess rating represent a player's strength?, and the question was "I notice that somehow, we chess players associate the chess rating with strength. But is it a measure of strength? To what extent?" Please take this answer as a response to that question, not the one it has been changed to.


How to setup a chess engine to play itself? I'm participating in some engines-on correspondence games at ficgs.com.  To assist in my analysis of my games, I'd like to set up a chess engine (probably Komodo9 which I own) to play moves against itself after a certain time interval.  Do any of the UI's like SCID or Arena support this? (Droidfish on my phone does but that won't do)  And if so, what are the steps to achieve this?

Yes, Arena can do what you want.

Download Arena 3.5

http://www.playwitharena.com/?Download
Adding Komodo (or any other engine) to Arena:

On the menu select Engines -> Manage
Open the Details tab
Click the new button
Point it at the executable
Select Ok
If you want it to play itself from a certain position you can set up an
engine tournament using an epd file to set the position
you want the engine to play from, and then in the settings for the tournament
if you hit the level button you can set a fixed time intveral, or fixed depth
for the engine to play. To create an epd file, you can copy the position from
Scid using Edit->Copy to FEN, and then in Arena using Position->Get FEN from
Clipboard, and then EPD->Save Position in EPD Format. This file would then
passed to the engine tournament dialog.

There might be a way to get it to play itself from a position without using
the engine tournament, but I'm not that familiar with the interface.
If you want to have it analyze a game that has already been played, or what
has been played so far can use automatic analysis under the Engines menu.

Arena seems to have a pretty thorough help file, so most of your questions will
probably have answers in there.

Edit: It was pointed out in another question that the demo button in Arena will
      have the engine play itself. So you can just set up the position, make
      sure komodo is loaded, Go into Level->Adjust to set the time interval you
      want for moves, and then hit the demo button.


How to delete all annotations excluding variations in Fritz Suppose I load a game.

Now I want to delete all annotations only (excluding variations). What is the way to do it?
If I select, 'Delete All Commentary'

It removes both annotations and variations. Check screenshot.

How to remove annotations only or vice-versa?

I want to delete all annotations only (excluding variations). What is the way to do it?

The simple and obvious way to do this which works in all chess engine GUIs which support PGN is to save the game as PGN. PGN files are just text so you can then edit the file with a text editor and manually remove whatever you like, save it and then open again with Fritz or the GUI of your choice.


Positional chess understanding in the early game As Black, when given a choice of taking the White's pawn, for what reason should I consider taking d5 pawn with e6 pawn? Wouldn't this open up the king's file and put it at risk of being attacked in the future?
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/2p1pn2/3P4/3P4/2N1P3/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1"]

The main point of the engine recommending exd5 is because it opens up the diagonal from c8 to h3. By playing an early e6, the bad light squared bishop is really weak and has terrible scope, which is why taking with the e pawn could be followed with developing your bishop onto a square on a more open, free diagonal in the future. As long as you castle and don't open up any kingside files, you should be good. As long as your king is safe, an open e file won't do much damage, as his e-pawn is stuck on e-3 (notice white's dark squared bishop; it's basically stuck).
fyi: The whole point of the Slav Defense is to decline the Queen's Gambit with a pawn without playing e6 to block your light squared bishop.


PGN database with games of players with ELO 1000 - 2000 I do the research on a difference of players' behaviour on different levels. There is no problem to find games with players rated over 2000 ELO but I lack those below 2000. Does anybody know a source with such games?

You can find a large collection of games played on FICS archived from the superb site: ficsgames.org Here you can find downloads of games based on rating category and type of games.

Edit: Now we also have LiChess giving out all games! Check out database.lichess.org. Even though it is not already categorized into Elo, you can easily do it via a pgn parser program.


What to consider before making a move? What questions do you ask yourself before making a move?

Do you have a mental check-list that you go through before deciding on which move is the best move in the current position?

The move does not have to be a candidate move because most beginners are not thinking in terms of candidate moves.

Before playing a move, I like to think I pay attention to the following :

Is some piece of mine undefended ? If a few aren't, then I should bay a particular attention to them not being forkable, with anything (by a queen, mostly). If it is the case, I might decide playing something that safens this matter.
Is my king safe enough ? All checks my opponent can administer should be benign.
Is my move achieving something ? Better have a wrong plan than no plan at all.
What move am I expecting my opponent to play ? A handful of possible moves is fine, as long as it's not “well, anything, basically”. Ideally, I see how neither of these moves are a problem to me.
Tactics : Often enough, there is about one square of interest on which both players' pieces concentrate : is this square defended enough times, by the right pieces ? (i.e. defending with a rook and a queen a pawn that my opponent attacks with light pieces is not going to help) Is the checkmate I am defending from still not working ?

Of course, once I thought enough about all of these, I'd expect not to lose any game, but 4. and 5. still leave the door open to surprises if one doesn't read variations into enough depth, “how many is enough ?” still being an open question :·)


How to blunt the Albin Counter Gambit? I dislike open, highly tactical games. I wouldn't mind them so much if I won them, but that isn't what happens.

I was recently destroyed by the Albin Counter Gambit. I'm curious if there is a known effective way of declining the gambit, blunting black's counterattack, or otherwise maintaining a closed position?

The Albin Countergambit is not to be feared, particularly.  White does quite well after the simple 3. dxe5.  My chess database of master games shows that white wins or draws 80% of the games after 3. ... d4 which is Black's best response.

Now, before I go down the rabbit hole, please bear in mind that strong masters probably don't visit this site.  For amateurs, almost anything is playable.  In any of the games we play, a master could win either side on any move as long as the game isn't blatantly lost.  The moves are there.  So temper everything I say regarding what is and isn't playable.

This is one frequently played variation:

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6

It yields a generally fun time for White. Tese are, statistically, Black's best moves.  However, there seems to be a trap of sorts: 5. g3 is White's most common response but there are 7 games with the uncommon Black response of 5. ... Bg4.  From 7 master games, Black wins or draws 5.  I'd avoid g3 :-D

Here's a sample game where White did not.  Nathan Birnboim v. Itzhak Veinger, Munich 1987. ECO D09.

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3 Bg4 6. Bg2 Qd7 7. O-O O-O-O 8.  Qb3 h5 9. h4 f6 10. exf6 gxf6 11. Rd1 Bh3 12. Bh1 Bc5 13. Nc3 Qg4 14. Na4 Bd6  15. Kh2 d3 16. Rxd3 Nge7 17. c5 Bxg3+ 18. fxg3 Bf1 19. Bf4 Bxe2 20. Rxd8+ Rxd8  21. Bg2 Kb8 22. Re1 Rd3 23. Qc4 Rxf3 24. Bxf3 Bxf3 25. Qe6 Qg6 26. Qc4 Bd5 27.  Qc3 Bxa2 28. b3 Qf7 29. Qd2 Bxb3 30. Qd7 Ne5 31. Qd8+ Nc8 32. Ra1 Qc4 33. Bxe5  Qe2+ 34. Kg1 Qxe5 35. Rf1 Qxg3+ 36. Kh1 Qxh4+ 37. Kg2 Bxa4 38. Rxf6 0-1

Everything looks normal until move 7, where Black's Queenside castling pretty much declares he's uninterested in a draw.  Such games are generally razor-sharp.  On move 8, Black announces he's uninterested in a long game.  He believes White's King's position is weak and he's exploiting it now.  9. h4 hurt my face. I had to invoke Stockfish which didn't have a huge problem with (or particularly like) 8. ... h5 9. h4. Stockfish didn't have a problem with 12. Bh1, either.  At move 12 White is ahead a little, but Black has chances.  Black's playing aggressively but White solves the problems. Stockfish didn't care for 13. ... Qg4 and considered 15. ... d3 a blunder.  If I can read the tea leaves, after move 15 Stockfish considers White up by about 2 pawns.

To this point Black has had the initiative and has aggressively posed problems for White. Both players have erred between moves 15-19 but White has increased his advantage to the point he'll probably win.

But a won game is sometimes hard to win! White starts to falter on move 24. Whites 24th, 25th, 26th, 28th, and 29th moves are poor.  Black plays well and erases White's advantage completely.  It's a horse race again!

So where are we?  on move 30, Black has a glaring back-rank weakness but the Knight on e7 protects c8.  White's Kingside pawns are slightly better but the backward g pawn negates most of the advantage.  White's Queenside pawns dropped like flies. Black's 3-to-1 advantage will eventually be worth a piece.  Black's Knights aren't aggressively placed but defend very well. Black's queen can rampage and is otherwise uncontained.  White's Knight is looking silly there on the rim but his Queen and Rook are well placed.  White's biggest problem is his exposed King.  While I couldn't foresee the position when he played 9. h4, I can't say I am surprised.  Black is always going to have a 'get out of jail free' card as long as Queens are on the board.  White will be better off if that Black Bishop is removed; the Bishop's mobility is devastating with the White king being so exposed.

White loses the game on move 32. Ra1 is a terrible blunder. Here's what Stockfish recommended instead.

[fen "1knQ4/ppp2q2/5p2/2P1n2p/N4B1P/1b4P1/7K/4R3 w - - 4 32"]

( I can't get the replayer to work: Here are the moves: 1. Nb6 axb6 2. cxb6 cxb6 3. Qh8 Bc4 4. Rxe5 fxe5 5. Qxe5+ Ka7 6. Qb8+ Ka6 )

We see White start a combination that culminates in the destruction of the Black King's safety.  White counters his biggest problem by sticking Black with the same problem.

Back to the main line, the ghastly 32. Ra1 sort of hits a7 while defending the misplaced Knight.  White loses tempos bigtime.  Black's 32. ... Qc4 is menacing in itself, but now we see the Knight on e5 is a monster.  If it makes it to g4, it's going to be lights-out for White. f3 a good square too.  White kills the Knight but then gets a demonstration of a Zwischenzug - an in-between move.  Instead of the knee-jerk recapture with the f pawn, Black checks with the Queen, snags the Bishop, and forks the Rook and g-pawn.
Black threatens something like 1. ... Qxg3+ 2. Kf1 Bc4#  When White prevents this with Rf1, Black scoops up both reminaing Kingside pawns then scoops up the Knight on a4.
  Brutal.

Backing waaaay up now, I'd choose a different move that 5. g3.

Instead, I'd consider the prophylactic (and most common White move behind 5. g3)  5. a3
Black's best response is 5. ... Nge7.  18 games featuring other responses yielded -0- wins for black.  Ouch.  This seems to be one of those cases where both players have chances but one side (in this case Black) has to play much better to achieve a good result.

The first 10 moves are straight out of theory; there was no deviation in the master games.

I'll present the last games to amuse us - I have no more time for running the engine or providing b-player analysis.

This is an ECO D08.  White is Anatoly Karpov and Black is Rustam Kasimdzhanov - two heavyweights, to be sure.  This encounter is from the Keres Memorial at Tallinn on January 8th, 2006.

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. a3 Nge7 6. b4 Ng6 7. Bb2 a5 8. b5  Ncxe5 9. Qxd4 Qxd4 10. Bxd4 Nxc4 11. Nfd2 Nd6 12. a4 Nf5 13. Bc3 Bc5 14. e3 O-O  15. Nb3 Bb6 16. N1d2 Nd6 17. Nc4 Nxc4 18. Bxc4 Re8 19. O-O Ne5 20. Be2 Be6 21.  Nxa5 Rxa5 22. Bxe5 Bb3 23. Bf4 Rxa4 24. Rxa4 Bxa4 25. Ra1 Bb3 26. Bf3 Bc4 27.  Rb1 Bd3 28. Rb3 Be4 29. Bxe4 Rxe4 30. Rc3 Rb4 1/2-1/2

The game is blown wide open.  If Karpov can stand it, you can too.

Here are two more samples with the same 10 first moves.  The viewer may not show it but White wins both.

Fernando Peralta v Manuel Perez Candelario, Nov. 8th, 2006.

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. a3 Nge7 6. b4 Ng6 7. Bb2 a5 8. b5  Ncxe5 9. Qxd4 Qxd4 10. Bxd4 Nxc4 11. e3 Nd6 12. Nbd2 Bd7 13. a4 f6 14. Be2 Ne7  15. O-O Nd5 16. Rfc1 c6 17. bxc6 Bxc6 18. Bc5 Nf5 19. Nb3 Nb4 20. Bb6 Bd7 21.  Bxa5 Nc6 22. Bb6 Be6 23. Nc5 Bxc5 24. Bxc5 Kf7 25. Rcb1 Na5 26. e4 Ne7 27. Nd4  Bd7 28. Nb5 Ng6 29. Nd6+ Ke6 30. Bg4+ 1-0

And one more.  Mihajlo Stojanovic v. Branko Tadic, March 12th, 2007.

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. a3 Nge7 6. b4 Ng6 7. Bb2 a5 8. b5  Ncxe5 9. Qxd4 Qxd4 10. Bxd4 Nxc4 11. e3 Nd6 12. Nbd2 Bd7 13. a4 f6 14. Bd3 Bf5  15. Be2 Ne4 16. g4 Nxd2 17. gxf5 Nb3 18. fxg6 Nxa1 19. Bxa1 Bb4+ 20. Kf1 hxg6  21. Kg2 O-O-O 22. Rc1 Kb8 23. Nd4 Rh4 24. Bd3 Bd6 25. h3 Rdh8 26. Bxg6 Rxh3 27.  Nf3 R3h6 28. Bd3 g5 29. Rc4 Rd8 30. Bf5 Re8 31. Bc3 b6 32. Rg4 Reh8 33. Re4 Rf8  34. Nd4 Rh2+ 35. Kf3 Kb7 36. Ne6 g4+ 37. Rxg4 Rh5 38. Be4+ Ka7 39. Nxf8 f5 40.  Rg8 1-0


Can anyone please explain why this position isn't a draw? I was watching this game on lichess.
Both of the players have the same resource i.e., the king and only a bishop. The bishops on the board are of the opposite color. But the game was continued and one of the players flagged on time.

I ran a full computer analysis and the engine has shown the position as a draw. But, since the computer allowed the player to continue the game with that resource, my question is whether it is possible to win a game with "ONLY" a bishop, provided your opponent only has the same? If yes, then what should be the checkmate position? and will the result be different if your opponent has the same color bishop?

[FEN "8/1k1b4/8/2B5/8/K7/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

  5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’.

The game position you show is not a draw because there are series of legal moves ending in checkmate for either side.

[FEN "8/1k1b4/8/2B5/8/K7/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb3 Be6 2. Kc3 Kc7 3. Kd3 Kd7 4. Ke3 Ke7 5. Kf4 Kf7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7. Kh6 Kh8 8. Bd6 Bg8 9. Be5

Of course black's moves were stupid. That doesn't matter. They were all legal moves and so were all white's moves. A similar set of moves could be constructed to allow black to checkmate white. The sensible thing to do is to agree a draw in this position, particularly if there is an increment.

If there is no increment and the player with more time wants to be spiteful then they can play on and try and flag the other player. Of course they shouldn't do this if they are playing Gata Kamsky GM FFL :-)

With same colored bishops this is not possible. The opposite colored bishop is required to block one of the king's escape squares.


Why not 6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein? [fen ""]
[Title "6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein"]
[Startply "11"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3

What is so obviously wrong with the move 6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein? I ask because I have two "complete Black repertoire" books on the French Rubinstein and this line is not even mentioned. Other two books which deal with the French Rubinstein (not from any particular side) also fail to mention this line. But this move is played by my opponents in online blitz and I can find nothing evidently wrong with it.

There must be a reason why the the professionals writing books are so blind to it. Any idea?

Usually when a move in a relatively positional setup such as this is omitted, it doesn't mean that it's a clear mistake. It only means that the author doesn't view the move as a critical move that challenges the opponent's setup as much as other moves. Therefore, it may not be the move to prioritize, as other moves can be more challenging.

It could also be that the author doesn't know really what the plans are, and tries to make him/herself look more certain about their topic than they are.

One question though, which needs to be answered by you: Does this move give you many difficulties in your games? If that is the case, you will be forced to look up some statistics and see if the move is a legitimately challenging line, or if you just don't know how to play against it. In this case, you will need to study games played in the variation and learn important ideas by yourself if you want to be more successful. It may be a difficult thing to do, but sometimes chess isn't very easy.

I've taken the liberty to consult my personal database, which for the moment lacks some games due to my negligence with database maintenance using TWIC these last weeks, and I found this:

6.Ng3 is likely not a bad move. It has a 55% score, with roughly 600 games played in the line. The highest rated player who played this had a rating of 2535. The move is not to be scoffed at, if you face it a lot.

HOWEVER

There are better moves in the position:

The main line, 6.Nxf6+, has a 63% score in roughly 4400 games, with the  highest rated player having a rating of 2838;
The second most popular alternative, 6.Bd3, has a 62.5% score in roughly 1800 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2851;
The third most common alternative, 6.Bg5, has a 57% score in roughly 1600 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2851.

The top rating is due to Kasparov in all the lines, but all the top players in the world have used at least one of these three main moves when faced with this position.


Is there a site with preparation ideas for opening tabiyas? I deal with this problem every time. I have some 'default' repertoire and when preparing against concrete opponent, I find that it is highly probable we will reach some concrete well known position and I want be the one to come with system he can't expect me to play. Ok I can use book, engine, games to create interesting system myself, but it takes soooo much time. People already made thousands of preparations like this, coming with a sharp forcing idea hard to refute over the board, playing new move with completely different approach compared to main lines... Is there somewhere something like market of these ideas? Just pgn with 20 lines, for example. Or text. Anything that is good for titled players, computer checked lines, dangerous surprises for one game etc.

The SOS ("Secrets of Opening Surprises") books and articles (in New in Chess magazine) can be good references.  Once in the USATW I was paired up against a 2450 rated player.  I found references with a quick online search that he played the Caro-Khan.  I walked in the bookstore and looked in an SOS book and found a line Kasparov used in blitz a lot.  After 10 minutes of preparation I was armed  to get my well booked opponent out of his element and I won my best game of the tournament.
I've done such things with the Chess Informants a lot including preparation against Yermolinsky in the US Open.  I would say Chess Informant is best if you have the time and money.


Why is the f6 pawn break in Advanced French so important for black? I am new to the French (so forgive me if the question seems elementary).
I've just come across the pawn break ...f6 for black in the French advance variation, and I find the pawn break quite dubious for me for several reasons:

When we are attacking the opponent's pawn chain, we are told that to attack the pawn chain, the best way is to attack its base. But in this case, black seems to be voluntarily giving up his pawn chain, as the base of the f7-e6-d5 pawn chain is at f7. Isn't black self-destructing his pawn chain in advancing the f-pawn, as white can now attack the e6 pawn?
After the inevitable exchange of the pawns (exf6 Rxf6), to me, black is left with a backward pawn (e6) and it is easily exploited by white. My question is: how is the backward pawn favouring black's position, and why is gxf6 not played, as black can get rid of the backward pawn by playing e5 on the next move.
If it's argued that f6 develops the black light-squared-bishop by the manoeuvre Bc8-d7-e8-h5, why can't black just play b6 and fianchetto the bishop or even play Ba6?

Thanks in advance.

I am new to french (so forgive me if the question seems elementary) I've just came across the pawn break f6 for black in the french advance variation, and I find the pawn break quite dubious for me for several reasons

You must understand one whole new concept of chess modern strategy : Weakness is not a weakness if it can not be exploited.

And another thing: Opening theory chooses only the strongest moves as mainlines.

These moves are the strongest moves known today, so if Black is willing to play with a backward pawn, then be sure he has very good compensation for that!

So you have a backward e-pawn, so what? What are the other features of the position?

Can you get active piece play for this weakness?
How easy is for White to attack it? Does he have to give up "something" ( development/control of a key square/etc ) in order to attack it?
Can you sacrifice that pawn in the near future for strong pressure/initiative?
Is it really a weakness or is it simply ugly?

Once you change your point of view like this, you will see the other potentials that you have totally neglected or simply underestimated.

  When we are attacking the opponent's pawn chain, we are told that to attack the pawn chain, the best way is to attack its base. But in this case, black seems to be voluntarily giving up his pawn chain, as the base of the f7-e6-d4 pawn chain is at f7. Isn't black self-destructing his pawn chain in advancing the f-pawn, as white can now attack e6 pawn?

Can White really attack the e6 is the question here that is important. The modern practice proves that White can not do this advantageously. I have provided an explanation why, and have posted some examples below.

  After the inevitable exchange of the pawns (exf6 Rxf6), to me, black is left behind with a backward pawn (e6) and its is easy to be exploited by white. My question is: how is the backward pawn favouring black's position, and why is gxf6 not played as black can get rid of the backward pawn by playing e5 on the next move.

Black has clear math behind this:

White has lost a tempo with e5 by playing twice with a pawn;
White is passive and for now only maintains space advantage;
Because of #1 and #2, White needs time to finish development so he can "cash in" his space advantage;
White pieces are slightly misplaced -> Nb1 belongs at c3 but the pawn is there, Bc1 should go to g5 or e3 but is hindered by ...Qb6;

Now the important part:

If Black removes d4 + e5 chain then his superior development will be felt and he will get mobile central phalanx -> mobile center phalanx + superior development/piece placement = high chances to win.

This is very stressful moment for White, and he needs accurate play just to survive. He needs to finish his development but his strong pawn chain is gone. That is why he has no time to attack e5, it is just too dangerous.

So you see, Black will follow ...f6 with ...c5 in order to get his central pawns rolling, and since he will get his pieces ideally placed, the initiative he obtains might be decisive.

Furthermore, f-file + Qb6 + Nf6 + Bc5 make tremendous pressure at f2. There is thematic ...Nxf2/Bxf2 sacrifice with subsequent ...e4 that regains the piece but retains the initiative. You have never mentioned that you are aware of this plan! Without knowing these plans it is easy to look at Black strategy as bad. Now you understand why ...gxf6 is usually a mistake.

  If it's argued that f6 develops the black's light-squared-bishop by the manoeuvre Bc8-d7-e8-h5, why can't black jus play b6 and fianchetto the bishop or even play Ba6?

On b6 usually sits Black queen, so the plan you mentioned fails. She is so well placed there, while ...Ba6 would achieve little. With the pawn center rolling ( after Black plays ...c5-cxd4 and ...f6-fxe5 ) bishop will come into play just in time, and on a good g4 or f5 square with strong effect.

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF ABOVE STATEMENTS:

I will quote some theoretical lines form the Advance French just to show you above plans in action. The sample lines are quoted from J.Watson-Play the French 4th edition ( 2012 ) :

[Title "Black demolishes White pawn chain and obtains dynamic piece play"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.dxc5 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bxc5 6.Bd3 f6 7.Qe2! fxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxe5 Nf6 10.O-O O-O ( 10...Bd6 11.Qg5 O-O 12.Nc3 e5 13.f3 Be6 ) 11.c4 Ng4! ( 11...Qb6!? ) 12.Qh5 Rxf2 13.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 14.Kh1 Nf6 15.Qe2 Bb6

"and White has some, but not fully sufficient, compensation for the pawn."

Also notice that after 11...Qb6!? sideline if White plays 12.Qe2 Black plays 12...e5! threatening both ...e4 and ...Ng4.

Here is another example:

[Title "Black demolishes White pawn center and obtains equal position"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Be2 f6 7.O-O fxe5 8. Nxe5 Nf6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Nd3 ( 10.b4? Bxf2+! ) 10...Bd6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.f4 O-O 13.Nd2 e5 ( 13...Bd7! ) 14.fxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.Nf3 Bd6 17.Kh1 Bg4 18.Bg5 Kh8 19.Bxf6 Rxf6 20.Nd4 Bxe2 21.Qxe2 Bxh2 22.Rxf6 gxf6 23.Qe6=

The whole point of ...f6 is to demolish White pawn chain so you can start rolling your own central pawns and exploit your development advantage/better piece placement. After ...f6 make sure you can follow up with ...c5 and just open the game. You should be just fine after that.

This is the plan that was not familiar to you, but this plan is the one that "holds" this line "together". If you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.


Key indicators for deeper analysis I have trouble with managing my time in my games. I cannot determine if I need a deep analysis  or I am in a position where any good move would do.

So, what are good indicators to determine if a position needs a more deep analysis or to just play any good move?

If I see a position which can have multiple continuations, I will analyse each one and think everything through. Till then, beginning and end game should be pretty much the ones to take the least amount of time, because they can be learned.

Basically focussing on your question fully, if the positions seems complicated - analyse deeper and don't think about time. But once you chose that tactic, work your way through it and don't hesitate.

I might've misunderstood what exactly your question was, but I hope I didn't...


What are the advantages of the QGD over the Slav? I don't have an extensive knowledge of the opening theory of the two openings mentioned in the title. However, I do understand that, at a very basic level, in response to the Queen's Gambit the moves 2...c6 and 2...e6 have the effect of defending the d5 pawn as well as erecting a solid position for Black.

However, the move 2...c6 has a simple advantage: Black's queen bishop is more easily developed.

Why, then, is the move 2...e6 even played? What advantages does it have over 2...c6? It seems to me as though the move just impedes the development of a piece.

The same consideration applies to semi-slav type structures in which the queen bishop is still on c8. Why would one want to play e6 before playing Bg4 or Bf5?

It is not so easy to develop c8 bishop to f5 or g4 in any of these systems. You run into many tactics like Nh4 winning bishop on f5 for a knight, f3 e4 as in open Slav or Qb3 Ne5 stuff with bishop on g4. The bishop is often developed to b7 in both semislav and QGD. It is safe and effective square for him. It is better to have the bishop passive for a while than to go for long term disadvantage of exchanging it for a knight.

That being said, e6 is good developing move even with bishop on c8. Now you can look for differences in 2...c6 and 2...e6 systems. The advantage of c6 is that it threatens to win a pawn forcing white either to close the c1 bishop (meran) or to be prepared to sacrifice it (botvinik, moscow). The advantage of e6 is obvious, the active c7-c5 will be played in one move, it doesn't take c6 square from knight and it helps you develop kingside faster.


What was the best move for white? Could white have won? Could white have won this game? What was the best move in this position for white?
Or could Black have won?

What was the best move in this position for white?

QxQ is the best move. White is a piece up so the best plan is to try and exchange pieces. Once only the pawns and white's last piece are left the win becomes very easy. QxQ is a great way to start implementing that plan.

Could white have won this game?

White has more than enough material to deliver checkmate, so, yes. Obviously there is no immediate win. There are no real threats and no possibility of checkmate for a while but in the long run with reasonable play white should win.

could Black have won?

Again black has more than enough material to deliver checkmate, so, yes, black could win. However this would require white to blunder because white is material up. Anybody who has played much chess knows that blunders happen all the time. So at lower levels definitely worth while for black to play on.
Here, for instance, if white were dumb enough to play the moves Bc4, Ne2 and Kf1 then black could play Qd1 checkmate, so, yes, a black win is still possible although extremely unlikely.


Where can I find a list of mutual zugzwangs from Queen vs Rook? Is there a list of mzugs from KQKR?

In this particular endgame, there are no mutual-zugzwang-positions.

An overview over the positions is at

http://chess.jaet.org/cgi-bin/mzugs


What happens when both players are out of time in Blitz? What are the rules when the clock for both players has reached 0?
Are these rules different for digital clocks (where the clock shows who was the first player to flag) and analog clock where it might be unclear who flagged first?

I've had some games in blitz where both myself and my opponent were at 1 second and after my opponent moved, his flag fell and he pushed his clock flagging me as well. When wanting to claim the game my opponent claimed that I should have stopped the clock while I still had time on my clock and since now both of us were flagged the game was a draw. The arbiter agreed with this, but I can't find anything about this situation in the Fide rules.

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

6.11
a. If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then:
the game shall continue if this occurs in any period of the game except the last period.

b. the game is drawn if this occurs in the period of a game in which all remaining moves must be completed.

The only ambiguity is when the claim was made.  If your flag fell after you claimed the win--assuming that you had a possible win--you should have won.  The standard, tactful action is to call the game a draw, but the rules suggest that one should be declared the winner.


Can white do better versus the Sicilian Defense by avoiding an early d4? Given that 1.d4 is said to produce better results than 1.e4 and about half of all 1.e4 games involve the Sicilian Defense, could a simple idea like avoiding trading the d pawn for black's c pawn in the Sicilian be used to produce better 1.e4 results?  Perhaps after 20 or 30 moves the d pawn will come in handy after all!

All the main lines against the Sicilian are the open Sicilian.  This opening of the center gives white better attacking chances against black's lack of development.

Larsen claims that playing d4 is a positional mistake, allowing black to exchange a less valuable wing pawn for a center pawn.

Spassky played the closed Sicilian with great results.  And there are many anti-Sicilians which claims to give white the advantage.  The Grand Prix is the most fun, but I personally prefer the KIA.

The main difference between the open and closed Sicilians is the number of moves before the attacking begins.  The open offers more tactics right from the start.  The closed allows both players to finish developing before any attack really develops.

The real answer is that neither is necessarily good for white.  Since every line of the Sicilian is so heavily analyzed, the advantage goes to the player with the better knowledge and comfort in the positions.


What are the disadvantages of delaying c7-c5 in QGA? In main lines of queen's gambit accepted, sometimes White has the option of playing dxc5, and entering a certain type of endgames that Black might find unpleasant. Is there any disadvantage to delaying the push of the c pawn, and playing all the other useful moves first - Nf6, e6, a6, b5, Bb7, Nbd7, Be7, 0-0, and only then - c7-c5 ? Are there any top grandmasters who follow this approach?
For example:

[fen ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 a6 6. O-O b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. Nc3
Nbd7 9. Qe2 Be7 10. Rd1 O-O 11. a3 c5

I was looking thoroughly for the omission of ...c5 in many repertoire books ( Semko & Sakaev-Queen's Gambit Declined 3rd ed., Iakov Neishtadt-The Queen's Gambit Accepted, James Rizzitano-How to beat d4,Raetsky & Chetverik-Starting Out The Queen's Gambit Accepted ) and found absolutely nothing about the pros and cons of delaying this move!

This is rather disappointing as the idea is quite reasonable, and can come to any player rated from 1800 up to 2400 so it should be explained in repertoire books. However, after trudging through the ECO D 1987 I was able to find something:

[Title "Black delays c5 break"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 a6 ( 5...Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nc3 c5 ( 7...b6 8.Qe2 Bb7 9.e4 $16 ) 8.e4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Qc7 10.Qe2+/= ) 6.O-O ( 6.Nc3 b5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.O-O ( 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.a4 b4 10.Ne4 c5 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.dxc5 Qc7= ) 8...Nbd7 9.e4 b4 10.e5 bxc3 11.exf6+/= ) 6...b5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.a4! b4 9.Qe2 Nbd7 10.e4 Be7 11.Nbd2 c5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nc4 $16

In either case White can favorably open the game ( he will have more space and is better developed, also notice that his center is solid and your ...c5 will only free your game but will not give you sufficient counterplay ) and get good attacking chances.

In the main line in the above diagram, you seem to have solid position but do not be fooled. Yes, White has e5 square no more, but you are weak on the c-file since your b-pawn is on b4 where it does nothing useful. White was able to outplay Black by posting knight to c4, which is wonderful square for him. He can also attack on the kingside. Black on the other hand, has no viable counterplay and will probably have to weaken himself further with ...h6 at some point.

As for 6.Nc3 sub-line from the above, you can achieve typical position with isolated pawn after ...c5 at some point, but again White is just so superior in development and has typical space advantage. You lag in development, thus you will need time to organize counter-attack while White can already start creating problems to further delay you, like regrouping pieces for kingside atack.

As for 5...Be7 line, White also has superior development and wonderful centralization of his minor pieces. He has more space and his queen is well posted, unlike yours as she is prone to harassment with Nb5 ideas. You will need to play ...a6 at some point, further losing time which is dangerous if we take White's lead in development and space advantage into account. Black may get playable position but it will be a series of accurate moves and even then White will have at least small advantage.

It seems that this is the point of 5...c5, to ensure Black gets enough space in the center and hinder White from harmoniously developing his pieces, by forcing him to count on entering endgame or simplifications.

This is all I was able to find, if anyone has the latest ECO D I would highly appreciate the update on lines I listed above...

Hopefully this answer helped, as there is nothing else at this moment I can do. Best regards.


How do I activate ChessBase 12 with a serial number? It keeps saying "SerialNumber already used" My old PC died, so I bought a new PC.

I tried to re-install my chess softwares on the new PC.

I successfully re-installed Komodo 8 as well as Houdini 3 and activated them with my serial numbers. They work perfectly.

But there is a problem for ChessBase 12. I re-installed it successfully, but when I try to activate it with my serial number (File > Activation > Activate) it doesn't work.

Here is a screenshot of the problem:

So apparently "ChessProgram 13/14", "Engine: Houdini 3 Pro" and "Engine: Invalid" (no idea what "invalid" means) have been activated successfully.

But "CBase 12" (ChessBase 12) was not activated successfully.

I have re-tried to activate it many times, but each time the message says "SerialNumber already used", and then it also says "You can now open database files by double-clicking them in Windows". And "CBase 12" stays at "No".

So how do I solve this problem?

And don't answer me "buy another ChessBase serial number"... I have already bought ChessBase a few months ago, it costed a lot of money (around €370 I think), and I don't want to lose even more money...

I've had serial number issues in the past whe moving to new computer and after upgrading to a new version of windows without deactivating the serial number on the old computer. When that happens, I've contacted ChessBase support through the support form on their site.  http://en.chessbase.com/support

They have always responded within 24 hours and resolved the problem.

I'm pretty sure they have to resolve it on their end since they have to update it on their licensing server. Just explain that you are moving to a new computer and the issue you are having.


How to play in a Closed Position? In lower level chess matches I often find myself in closed positions where black and whites knights are restricted, bishops can't be used for attack, and rooks are locked behind your pawn structure. What tips do you have to play in this position, or is it better to play more aggressive and avoid this position all together.

I interpret Closed Position as being, where major pieces are developed behind the pawn structure, where both players prioritized positional plays.

This is an example using the Pirc defense

[FEN ""]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 a6 5. Be2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. h3 b5 8. a3 Bb7 9. e5 Nfd7 10. Bf4 Nc6 11. Bg3 Nb6 12. Bd3 d5

Where the next best move would be for to take the e pawn, but black decides to advance the d-pawn.

It would help to see a specific example of your games.

Normally closed positions refers to positions with a closed center where the central (e and d pawns, sometimes also c and f pawns) pawns are blocking each other. It is unusual that all 8 pawns are blocked. In this case the normal plan is to attack the center by pawns from the side. For instance in the advance French black is attacking the center by a pawn from c5 and later also from the other side with f7-f6.

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5

The technical term for this is pawn break and you can see other examples in the wikipedia article on pawn structure. (Search for "break").


Chess clock android app I play chess using my board with friends from time to time. I don't have a clock.
Since I don't play chess that much with friends, I'd rather not to buy a clock, I mostly play online.

Lucky me I found some android app that does the trick, I install it, put the phone between me and my opponent, I do the move and press a button, he does another button from his part.

All is great, until some dude decided to call me :) the clock reset, I had to set it again. The same dude decides to knock on my door and there was no way to pause the clock!

My requirements are:

Android chess clock app that you can pause, and that pauses itself when someone calls you.

The chess.com Chess Clock app has a big pause button right smack dab in the middle of the screen and pauses itself when someone calls. (Just tested it to verify)


End game King an Rook - Beginners In different ocasions I find my self in a very dificult situation (for me). The only pieces on the board are: Mine - King an Rook ; Oponnent - King.

It is very dificult for me to check mate... Can somebody give me the main lines to do so, or where can I find this information?

Here's one way:

Use the Rook to restrict the opponent's King to one part of the board.
Use your King to gain the opposition (Kings facing with one space between them, and it being your move)
Use the Rook to take a rank (or file, as appropriate) from the opponent's King.
Repeat until checkmate.

[Title "Checkmate with K+R vs K"]
[FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/8/6K1/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Ra4 {Now the king can't access half of the board.} Kc5 {He chases the Rook. Don't get fixated and let him take it! #guilty} 2. Rh4 {Keep the Rook away from the enemy King} Kd5 {The opponent will not want to leave the the 5th rank.} 3. Kg3 {This move is actually a little tricky, but the concept is key to quickly winning this ending. We must not allow the opponent to gain the 'opposition'. Whenever there is one space between the two Kings and they are lined up (even diagonally), that is, when they _oppose_ one another, the player on move has the advantage. Thus if we played Kf3, Black would have the opposition and we'd waste moves.} Ke5 {Keeping in the center, the best defense.} 4. Kf3 {Note this position - your King between your Rook and the enemy King. Now the enemy has 2 choices, charge or run. Might as well charge...} Kf5 5. Rh5+ {Absolutely fundamental here is that you gained the opposition (the Kings had one space between them and it was your move). In this position, you take the row away from the opponent's King.  This is what this checkmate technique is all about.}  Kg6 {Never give up. Maybe White will make a careless error...} 6. Ra5 {Nope. The Rook runs.} Kf6 {chases!}
7.Ke4 {Now if the enemy King chases, White gains the opposition again...} Ke6 (7...Ke7? {when defending, do not surrender space} 8. Ra6! {Gobble that rank!}) 8. Ra6+ Kf7 {Black knows he's doomed.} 9. Ke5 {Other moves allow Black to get the opposition. Do not allow it.} Kg7 {He runs because he knows what happens if he goes the other way.} 10. Kf5 Kh7 11. Kg5 {almost there...} Kg7 {what else??} 12.Ra7+ {Forces the King back} Kh8 {Kf8 is better but I have to go to work!} 13. Kg6 {will gain the opposition next turn. Not Kh6? which allows the king to escape to g8. Then you'd have to chase him to the other side of the rank. Go ahead and try it, it's annoying.} Kg8 14. Ra8#

One thing about your Rook when checkmating like this - never give up a row once you take it. Never loosen your grasp.

Another thing is that your King should be between the opponent's King and your Rook. If he chases your Rook anyway, you'll get him in opposition and force him back. If he does not chase your Rook, then he'll run out of room to run and you'll gain the opposition. Sometimes, you'll need to move your Rook one square to 'waste' a move. If you do, don't surrender the rank! Keep the king contained. See the 2nd diagram.

You can use the opposition in lots of endgame positions to force your opponent to make a move he does not like. Learn it, love it.

Per the note above. In this case it is White's move. But the natural Kh5 and Kf5 give Black the opposition which means the game will be extended. The horrid Kg6 allows the King to slip the noose. So White needs to put black in Zugswang (which means to make him make a bad move.)

[TITLE "It Happens."]
[FEN "8/7k/R7/6K1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rb6 {Now Black has no good moves.} Kg7 2. Rb7+ {There we go, we're back on track.}


Is a timed game less strategic than a non-timed game? I'm somewhat new to chess. I've been playing on and off for years but it is only in the last few months I have been playing with an increased frequency and learning about openings, tactics and such.

I've never liked playing with a clock. I hate the extra pressure and feel like I don't have enough time to think things through. I think this is especially true for blitz type games, which I don't even consider playing.

It seems to me that when you play for speed, you are relying on rote memorization rather than overall strategy. This would seem especially true for the blitz type games, where a player will choose the best move from memory in response to the move the opponent made.

Without the timer you have a chance to consider the overall board, possible moves your opponent will make and a greater opportunity to play strategically.

Is there any truth to this type of thinking? Is it just a matter of opinion? Are blitz games more than just rote memorization?

As far as I know, clock was introduced to combat abuse regarding time. So it's a needed thing. You say you don't like to play with a clock. And you immediately add about blitz. So it isn't clock that's the problem. It is that certain limited amount of time that makes you uncomfortable. To deal with this, I suggest you to just play longer games (though, with clock). I believe I understand your problem, since in some situations I feel exactly your pain: I am a slow thinker and I feel extremely stressed when I try to play chess with 10 minutes per game, but it becomes OK as soon as I get at least 15 minutes per game.

While clock is a stress factor, as you correctly point out, it also has positive consequences. One of them is that when you think about a move - you "float" less between estimating the same variant over and over, thus wasting time. You learn to be disciplined and estimate each variant only once (and have a final look over the one you choose just before making the move on board).


Longest DTM in the endgame KQPPKQ What is the longest DTM in the endgame queen and two pawns versus a queen (KQPPKQ? This position is a mate in 167 moves.
[FEN "8/k7/6K1/1Q6/8/P6q/7P/8 w - - 0 1"]

Are the DTC and/or DTZ records also known for this endgame? Please do not only submit the number of moves, but also the position.


What are pros and cons around banning castling? Vladimir Kramnik has proposed on chess.com that castling be banned for the good of the game.

What are the kinds of objective points that might be made for & against this idea? Based on these, do you think that Kramnik's idea can succeed?

I am keen to avoid this becoming merely opinion-based. But it's such an interesting idea that it must be worth discussing. I do have a perspective, but am keen to hear others' ideas first.

It would certainly allow for more attacks due to kings being stuck in the center, but fundamentally changing the game, which in a way dumbs it down, is not good. It would be less complex.

I also do not want to think that I spent 40 years of my life studying something only to have it changed. I do not want the rug pulled out from under me like that.


What is the earliest known appearance "Fool's Mate"? A quaint question I had lately; what is the earliest known appearance to "Fool's Mate"? I refer to both the name and/or the move sequence.
A quick search with Google Books revealed a reference dated to 1672 in "The famous game of chesse-play" by  Arthur Saul and John Barbier.
Here is a screenshot of the relevant text portion.

In reference  @Rewan Demontay's answer, I know that Augustus, Duke of Brunswick published Das Schach- oder Königsspiel under the pseudonym Gustavus Selenus in 1616. I can't confirm that this work actually mentions Fool's Mate (I don't speak German, and I can't find the full text in online references) or that there is no earlier reference.


Is there any benefit at all to a rooks' pawn opening? Many beginners open the game with moving their a or h pawns.
Is there any benefit at all with this opening?

Apart from the fact that you can develop your rooks (which isn't good so early in the opening, because your rooks might become vulnerable), the only other "benefit" I can think of is that a4 (more likely than h4) can be useful after some transposition to a normal opening, e.g. stopping black from playing b5.

That being said, black can comfortably choose (thanks to your gift of a tempo) an opening where a4 is useless.

The other move 1. h4 is even more problematic because castling kingside is much more frequent than castling queenside and h4 weakens the pawn shield in front of your king.

So I don't think it's worth calling these possibilities benefits at all.


Pushing central pawns I would like to know what factors I need to take into account in a general position before pushing a central pawn, exchanging it if possible or simply moving another piece.

As usual, I will provide an example of one of my games. Please try to give advices for this particular position as well as other suggestions for any other situation (I know it is difficult to generalize but try to tell me what to avoid and what to look for). In cases like the one below, I always feel I have not the foggiest idea of what to move and in this case, I should have moved d4.
 If my opponent had pushed one of their central pawns I still am at loss. I do not know if the benefits for my opponent of pushing them are better than the disadvantages. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot tell if I should exchange that pawn or push my thereatened pawn.
Hopefully, someone can help me out to never be at loss again (or at least, in few cases).

I also attach the link to the game in case someone needs it:

https://lichess.org/DgwDB1ji/white#16

The example position would fall in the camp of hyper-modern theory.  This is where one side occupies the center with pawns and the other side attacks the center from a distance with pieces only to strike in the center when suitable.
In general you want to think of pawns in relation to pieces.  Does advancing hinder the enemy pieces and help yours?  What squares do you gain or weaken?

With pawns side by side you create a nice front, and in the position given there is nothing weak.  The pawns are dynamic and well guarded.  It is Black that wants to provoke their advance so they can leave holes or become over-extended and weak.  So, unless there is something of forcing benefit to White in pushing a pawn I would continue to develop pieces.

If pushing did not convince me, I would consider prophylactics:  Black can consider 3 pawn moves that attack the center - d5, f5, and e5.  I would analyse lines trying to thwart these moves.
In the present position d5 looks reasonable, but only concrete analysis can tell if it is good enough for a clear advantage.
I would probably play Qd2 here.


What are the rules for pawn wars? I ask about the exact rules for the chess variant known as pawn wars. The starting position contains only pawns which move exactly like in chess and the first to promote wins.

[FEN "8/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "The first to promote wins"]

But it should also be stated how to evaluate the end result when the side to move has no legal moves left. Is it lost or stalemated? I have been thinking about this game for years as a study tool for beginners but also as a philosophical research project into the game of chess for advanced players. I have found it recommended on several websites by kid educators.

I would like to write an engine to play this game but I cannot make up my mind on the best statement of the rules to maximize its practical relationship to chess. Are there any guidelines by experienced educators or existing environments to play this game? Any ideas how and why to fix the rules?

A situation like this, with Black to move, is a win for White:

[FEN "8/8/8/3pP3/3P4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Why? Well consider the case where White has been skillful enough to take all of Black's pawns and promotes easily. By definition, Black has no legal moves. From a training game we do not want to teach that losing all material leads to a forced draw. That would be a poor lesson to learn for building a knowledge of King and Pawn endings on.

A note on passing. It seems that to implement this in a program, a player with no legal moves is forced to 'pass', just in case a situation arises that allows the 'stalemated' side to have a legal move later on.


Alternative plan in the Caro-Kann I'm a Caro-Kann player who is coming up against the line 1. e4 c6 2. c4.

This line has a few names, such as the "Anti Caro-Kann" and the "Quasi Panov-Botvinnik".

The books recommend 2...d5. Afterall 1...c6 prepared 2...d5. But the line 2...d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Qxd5 leads to a move down variation of the regular Panov-Botvinnik, so the books recommend after 4. exd5 to play 4...Nf6 to eventually regain the pawn.

My question is, can black feasibly side-step these tricky variations with 1. e4 c6 2. c4 b5(!?). Does this reach a playable middlegame for black?

I noticed you posted you'd mostly found answer for yourself in the comments,  but...it reminded me of when I faced this while trying out the Caro-Kann.

It doesn't look like ...b5 works to me, either. If I were white I would play cxb5 and then let Black decide if and how to take back. There is no hurry to take on c6. The knight on b8 looks restricted, and a move such as ...a6 to force White to decide what to do with the b5 pawn wastes a move, and Black can't even get Benko-ish pressure on the a/b files unless ...c5 is played (which also gives up a move,) since White can just take back with bxc6. If black plays ...Qb6, then Nc3 (or even a4) defends the b5-pawn enough.

So from what I see Black doesn't get enough development for the pawn, and White has a pretty easy game with Nc3, d4, Nf3, etc.

When I played Black I found another pawn sac worked rather well: 4 ... Nf6 and while White can play Bb5+, Black can get it back. ...Bd7 5. Bc4 Qf7 6. Na3 Nxd5 as 7. Bxd5 Qe5 gets the bishop. This seems like a straightforward and low-risk way to equality.


What do you need in order to organize a chess tournament? We have a small local chess club group on Facebook and chess.com, and we want to organize a small event where all the members can play against each other. We will ask players who play for the national teams to join. If they do, it's going to be big, and therefore I need to organize it in a decent way.
There are 5 admins for the group. One is me, two living abroad and can't make it, another one who can't make it because of some other reason, and the fifth isn't active. I don't know if he's alive, to be honest. :)
So from the looks of it, it seems as though I will be responsible for organizing it. I might ask some members to help me since I'm disabled. I haven't joined any chess clubs because they are too far from my home, therefore I have basic questions.
These are my questions.

Do you buy chessboards for the players? Or, are the players responsible for getting them? If so, what happens if a player doesn't bring his board with him? And if it's my responsibility to buy boards, how many should I buy? Half the number of the participants, or a board for each one? What about the quality of the boards? Do they have to be made out of wood or decent plastic or would anything do?
Do I have to buy the score sheets? Or, are they not important for small friendly events?
Do I have to divide them into groups? What if I don't know their Elo? Do I let them play each other randomly 2500 vs 1200 Elo? :) or do I ask for age?
What is the ideal location? An internet cafe? a restaurant? or should I ask a local chess club to open the doors for us for 1 event, maybe that way, the boards, and everything will be ready. But what if they refuse, what's the plan b, outside of a chess club?
How many trophies are there usually? 3? I want to know so I can buy them.
Should I play or should I just be an organizer? What if there's a problem? Should members play the roles of arbiters, when they are not playing?
Is there a question I should have asked and didn't? Did I forget about something? Anything else I need to know?

Edit: I ust want to say that the vice president will take care of some details indicated in the answer below.

A few things should come first, others can come later.

One, what type of event do you want to run? Several of the later questions depend on how formal the event is going to be, and people need to know what kind of an event it will be before they know whether they want to come at all. You have zero experience and mention the word casual, so we'll go for very casual, fun, not formal at all.

Two, how many people can you reasonably expect? You need to know a minimum number (if fewer than this number of people have registered a week before the tournament, we'll need to cancel), and a maximum (we can't accommodate more than this number of people). This ties in with important question three.

Three, how long do you want it to take. Will this be a whole day tournament, only an evening? Are you thinking of blitz, or rapid, or standard? If it's standard, you can only fit one or two games into an evening, but a whole blitz tournament easily goes. The time control that most says "fun and casual" to me is 10 minutes per game.

Four, the venue. This differs by type of event (we're casual), and before you start looking for one you need to know roughly what size you want, and after you've arranged it, this decides the min and max people. You'll also need a very different venue if you want it for one day or for the evening. I would definitely contact the local chess club, because hey, they're the local chess club! They might even enjoy helping you out with all this stuff for fun (in my country anyway, these are purely amateur organizations doing chess stuff as a hobby). Other than that, when I think casual chess tournament with people I know from the Internet, I think lots of beer. Look for tables in local bars, or event rooms at local bars, that sort of thing.

You'll also have a date by now.

So now you can tell people, "We're doing a fun and casual, 10 minute / game rapid tournament, unrated, time X on date Y in venue Z. Please register if you want to come!"
No, wait, you can't -- you don't know yet how much it's going to cost!

Let's talk a little bit about systems. Formal competitive chess tournaments often apply the Swiss System. It's very fair, you play against people who have the same number of points as you have, you get more or less equal numbers of black and white, and often the best players wins. It's a nightmare to run correctly, mainly because you have to get all the results after each round, enter them all correctly into the computer (or do it by hand, let's not) and then print out new pairings and find out something has always gone wrong. And even if it goes perfectly, people have to wait until the last game of the round is finished all the time.

Let the players do the work. For groups up to around 10 players or so where everybody plays everybody, there are "Berger tables" with pairings for each round: http://www.tournamentdirector.co.uk/berger_pairings.html . Show the players the pairings table, and let them fill in the results on a form you have printed out beforehand. No work for you during the tournaments.

If you have too many players (too many rounds for the time you have the venue), there's the Amsterdam System: first put players in small groups, of 4 or 6 people. Make one player the leader of that group, and give him a form for it. Let them play a little subtournament. When all subtournaments are done, make a ranking of all the players based on the points they got, then make new groups based on that. A finals group with all the best players, second group with the second best, etc. The key is that during most of the tournaments, the players are doing the administration and it all goes a lot faster.

Oh yes, your questions:

Chessboards: You're not going to become a chess club, are you? Try to borrow some from the chess club, and otherwise let people bring their own. Let them bring clocks, too! White player has choice of set.

Buying score sheets: Not necessary in an informal rapid tournament.

Dividing into groups: Not necessary in an informal rapid tournament (and in the Amsterdam System, they end up in the right group soon enough anyway).

Location: mentioned some things already.

Trophies: More is always better. Prizes can be silly things, I've won Tupperware stuff at great chess tournaments. Bottles of wine always work well as top prizes, but the golden rule is that more than half the people should go home with at least a tiny something. Besides the obvious best junior, best female, best organizer, prize for the guy who came last, prize for the guy who came second to last and expected he didn't have to come up and collect a prize, player whose performance was least noticeable, etc etc. Prize givings like these are great memories for everyone, and any other kind is instantly forgotten. And don't do money prizes, you're a casual tournament.

Play yourself: You can, but you better have everything for pairings and results exactly planned out, and it's going to be hectic. Playing arbiters: formal arbiters aren't necessary in a purely informal tournament without money prizes, but if there are any actual arbiters or very experienced players in your group, that's very helpful to know. Make them the Committee of Appeal and let them handle people who argue.

And now I need to sleep. HTH.

(I still don't know about the cost. It's venue + prizes / number of players, but if the venue cost is fixed and you don't know the number of players, you have to fiddle it to prevent too much risk for yourself)

(Addendum: and don't do this alone. Some assistants when it gets all hectic are needed)


How To Get Chess Titans on Windows 8/10 I have noticed that the new Windows 8 and 10 do not have my favorite games, specifically Chess Titans. I really want it so, how can I get Chess Titans on my Windows 8/10 PC without getting a Windows 7 or earlier?

Go to http://winaero.com/blog/get-windows-7-games-for-windows-10/ and follow the instructions there. One thing I do not believe they mentioned is that once you get Mega, and download the file, go to the Mega file in files explorer. From there open the .exe file and continue with the rest of the steps.


If elite players prefer to play short draws in knockout competitions, why not skip them and go straight to tiebreaks? From the Chessbase article covering the Jerusalem GP:

After day one of the quarter-finals finished with disappointingly short draws on all boards, FIDE Press Officer Anastasiya Karlovich made a point of asking the players about the controversial decision to choose pragmatism over combativeness. Wesley So responded impassively, pointing out that "one of us has to win" in the end. This is simply a logical consequence of using the knock-out format in events with so much at stake. Or, as Maxime Vachier-Lagrave put it:
"I understand the frustration from the point of view of the spectators, but for me it's about something else, it's about qualifying for the Candidates, so for this one I cannot be entertaining, at least not if it diminishes my chances."

Elite players are unwilling to take risks to give themselves the best chances to qualify for the Candidates, so they play short draws. Okay (I'd even say it's quite logical).
But if they're going to play short draws, why bother with actually playing out the short draw on the board? Just skip the classical games and go straight to Rapid. Or if elite players play short draws in Rapid as well, skip that too and go straight to Blitz.
Conceivably some elite players might want to fight it out in classical games, but it doesn't sound too hard to accommodate them. Ask them before the match if they prefer to draw the classical games, and if either of them say no, let the match go ahead. But if they say yes, just save everyone the disappointment (not to mention the $$$) and play Rapid/Blitz, which sounds like a much more sensible use of time. One could even use the time freed up to, e.g., play more Rapid tiebreakers, get the players to commentate, or even give public simuls.
Why haven't elite tournaments done this?

It is because there are tournament regulations, including the format, which are published before the tournament starts. You cannot really change that after a certain point, like players accepting invitations.. In addition, although certain players are amenable to draw because they believe they are better at faster time controls, by FIDE rules, they cannot technically agree to a draw before the game starts.

Also, they might sit down at the board, and play some moves to see if they actually like how the game has started, and actually press on if they like what the see.

I think that what you are asking, if they tried to do it, it might be more complex in practice, and might also have unforeseen consequences, since everyone should play be the same rules. You cannot really have some players playing it, and others opting out since everyone should play the same tournament. Nevertheless, they could change the pre-tournament regulations and try it to find out if it works.


What is the best move for Black? [FEN ""]
[startply "25"]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 d6 5. h3 Be7 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Nxc6 Bxc6 12. Re1 Re8 13. Qf3

What is the best move for Black here, and why?

As stated in my comment, I don't think this is a puzzle because there is no clear decisive tactical sequences.

A good move would be 13...Qe7, putting pressure on the e4 pawn and prepare for ...Bxc3. If White did nothing, Black could then continue with ...Be5 and ...Qf6. Note that it's unlikely a bishop pair can be retained in this position, as White can start the exchange by 14.Nd5 Bxd5.


Where can I find good information on the ideas/themes behind certain opening lines? I'm looking for some information on the ideas or themes behind different opening lines.
E.g. Queens Gambit / Slav defence .. white tries to accomplish X and black tries to do Y without books of theory covering every variation. I'm just looking for general ideas e.g. White's black bishop is very strong - Black will try to trade it off ... or fight will be around isolated pawn etc etc.
thanks
(I'm a 1700 player)

I highly recommend the book Fundamental Chess Openings by Paul van der Sterren. It is a comprehensive survey of the chess openings with an emphasis on themes.

Understanding the Chess Openings by Sam Collins is a similar book and is also pretty good but FCO is more comprehensive.

The original book along these lines was The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings by Reuben Fine but it is very dated now (it was originally written in in 1943).


German chess composition glossary I'm trying to look through some puzzles at http://www.wenigsteiner.de/, but there are some abbreviations I'm not familiar with that I'm having a hard time finding through Google; I guess they are abbreviations for German words, but I don't know German. Is there a glossary with such words?
In particular:

I think VRZ just means defensive retractor, short for "Verteidigungsrückzüger", but what is VV VRZ? (Seen in Andreas Thoma's problems from 2018 preselection)
What is kBP 22.0 (I'm guessing "shortest proof game", but I'm not sure how)? (Seen in the First Prize problem from 2018)

VV is Vorwärtsverteidigung - if a position is retracted into where Black might interfere (by mating White himself ?!), he may. kbP is indeed SPG.
A translation source for many problem chess terms


Is there any chess engine that can show if one side has a forced draw? Is there any chess engine that has an analysis mode that can show if a position is a forced draw by either side?

It is common for engines to output evaluations of 0.0 when they detect a draw. But an evaluation of 0.0 can mean many things. For example, assuming it is white to move, an evaluation of 0.0 can mean:

The game is certainly a draw regardless of how either player plays (e.g. insufficient material).
Both players can force a draw. Neither player can hope to win if their opponent plays perfectly.
No matter which move white plays, the computer is 100% sure that black can force a draw if he wishes to. White cannot hope to win if black plays perfectly. A draw is the most likely outcome, but a deeper search might show that black can force a win.
The computer is 100% sure that white can force a draw if he wishes to. Black cannot hope to win if white plays perfectly. A draw is the most likely outcome, but a  deeper search might show that white can force a win.
The computer has not found a forced draw for either side, but the evaluation so far is exactly level. A draw is the most likely outcome, but a deeper search may later show an advantage for one side.

Just to give an example of when this might be useful, if white doesn't need to win and just wants to be as sure as possible of getting a draw then they might prefer to play a move with evaluation +0.0 and a known forced draw even though another move with a higher evaluation is available.

Another example is that if you need a win (i.e. a draw is just as bad as a loss) you might want to play a move with a slight negative evaluation to avoid giving your opponent the opportunity to force a draw. Even though this increases your chance of losing, it also increases your chance of winning.

Obviously there are positions where it is difficult or impossible to be sure whether a forced draw is available or not. But if the engine announces a forced draw then it must be possible to force a draw. False negatives are acceptable but there should be no false positives.

So in summary, I'd like to know for a specific position if one (or both players) have a forced draw available to them. Calculating the numerical evaluation of the position is not necessary, but if it also provides this at the same time, that's a bonus.

The short answer to your question is no, there is not a chess engine that can reliably show if one side has a forced draw.  For example, this locked position is quite clearly a draw to the human eye:

However, notice that the evaluation is 0.17, not 0.00.  Houdini also give 0.05 - ever so slightly good for white.  This is very important.  This suggests that the evaluation of 0.00 is reserved by these programs for a specific reason, and indeed it is.  Basically, even in an "equal" position, the computer will not ever say that the score is 0.00, instead it will give a minute edge to one or the other side.

So with that background, on to the specifics!  First, if the game is just a draw due to the position (i.e. stalemate, insufficient material, etc.) most GUI's will pop up a message that says "Game Drawn", or something to that effect.  That leaves the more complicated cases that you mentioned in your question.  In order to cover most of those, I'll introduce another position.  This is taken from Morphy-NN 1-0, New Orleans Blindfold Simul:

Notice that Morphy currently has mate in 6 starting with 18.b4+!.  However, if Morphy somehow missed that this was mate, he still had a forced draw by repetition, which the computer quickly sees.  By increasing the number of variations that the computer displays, it is possible to see that after white plays a move like 18.Qxc3+?, white can still force a draw, despite being down a rook and a piece.  The evaluation of 0.00 again tips us off that this is a special position in that the computer can calculate a perpetual check.  If the moves 18.Qxc3+? Kxd5 are made on the board, then the evaluation will be 0.00, indicating that white's best continuation is to force a draw.  Failure to do this will lead to loss of the game with best play.

So to summarize, no existing engine can say with exact certainty that a position is a draw.  However, the evaluation of 0.00 is special, and if that shows up as either the main score, or the score for a variation, that means that a draw is probably being forced in that specific line.  The easiest way to check is playfully called "spacebar analysis" - when the user hits the spacebar over and over again to force the computer to play the top recommended move.  Eventually you will get to a position that is obvious to a human as well as the machine.

And finally, to address your point about "contempt"

  Another example is that if you need a win (i.e. a draw is just as bad
  as a loss) you might want to play a move with a slight negative
  evaluation to avoid giving your opponent the opportunity to force a
  draw. Even though this increases your chance of losing, it also
  increases your chance of winning.

This is quite simply referred to as contempt among chess programmers.  Most engines will allow you to set the level of contempt in the settings.  A positive contempt setting (100 is usually a reasonable level for analysis) will tell the engine to try fairly hard (a pawn's worth) to avoid a draw.  A negative setting will cause the engine to seek a forced draw (i.e. insufficient material, stalemate, or perpetual).


How to see average game length for specific chess opening (number of moves)? How to see average game lenght for specific chess opening?

Is there some chess database which allow me to see specific opening game length?

For example:

Sicilian defense (average length is: 80.5)
Caro-Kann defense (average length is: 60.7)

I want to learn which opening lead to short, medium, long game.

It is easy to find white/black/draw statistics but hard to find length of games.

Chessbase has a function "Opening Report" which gives average lenght of White wins/Black wins/draws
Just setup che base position on the chessboard and right-click it


All-out attack or slow attack Today I was playing chess against somebody at my internship company. He went all-out attack in the begin and I was only defending. He actually made some mistakes and lost his queen, rook and bishop. I won in the end fairly easy. We had a discussion afterwards about the 'all-out attack strategy'.

Is it a good thing to go all out attack or should you attack slowly? What is the best way or is it different each player? I'm not really good and the other is just as 'good' as I am.

To me, the game you described was an absolute beginner game. It wasn't important how the attack was conducted, all-out or slow, you opponent was just blundering pieces and even the queen! It didn't matter whether you were defending or attacking or doing nothing, you'd have won easily in any case. Your opponent had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

At this level, it'd be better to focus on avoid giving away pieces.

But to answer your question, if I was to play your game, I'd go for the Scholar's Mate or launch a quick but dirty pawn-storm. I'd also move my queen out early and hope for some free pieces to capture. It'd be a diseaster against anyone experienced, but highly effective against a beginner.


What is the theoretical limit for the number of consecutive checks? The known record for the longest sequence of consecutive checks (i.e. white checks, then black checks on the next move, white checks next, and so on) in a legal position without promoted pieces, is 37. See this article on Tim Krabbe's site entitled "Check!"
Is there a theoretical limit for the length of such a sequence, or is a repetition possible, allowing checks forever?

Another way to get an infinite series of checks is by using a fairy piece. Consider this position, except that the black piece on e5 is not a knight but a camel (a (3,1)-leaper). Then the given sequence of four crosschecks restores the diagram position with White to move. (Unfortunately the PGN-viewer can't display it because of the fairy piece.)

[Title "Infinite series of checks"]
[fen "1k1b4/8/8/KN2n1r1/8/6B1/8/1R6 w - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

1. Nc7+ Cb6+ 2. Nb5+ Ce5+


Simplest chess engine to reach 2000 ELO? From what I have read coding a "vanilla chess engine" (c++ code for alpha-beta search over bitboard representation with simple hand-crafted evaluation function), will get you to 1500~1700 ELO on CCRL 40/4.

Q1: What is the minimal set of ingredients needed to reach 2000 ELO ?

Q2: What is the minimal set of ingredient needed, if no opening or closing book is allowed ?

I have found micro-max and the development log of zurichess as initial hints on how to reach ~2000 ELO. And I found jazz engine as proof that 2000+ ELO can be reach without opening/ending books. However I would like to heard the opinion of others on the matter.

Thanks a lot for your suggestions.

(ps: here "simplest" is in "how long it takes to describe the algorithm", not necessarily in lines of codes)

I'm the author of zurichess, the engine mentioned in your post. Here are, what I think, the most important things to get your engine to play +2000ELO. If it the terminology is not clear check https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ which is one of the best resources available.

Write a move generator. Make sure it's correct and passes all perft tests. Don't worry about the speed.
Start with an alpha beta and a basic eval such as piece counting.
Add aspiration window.
Improve move ordering: add killer move heuristic and order moves by mvv/lva. Alpha-beta works best when best moves are searched first.
Add quiescence search which solves the captures at the end of the search. This stabilizes the evaluation quiet a bit and removes much of the horizon effect issues.
Add null-move pruning (i.e. if I don't do anything can my opponent improve?). This effectively gives you +100ELO because you now cut huge parts of the tree.
Begin to add basic evaluation features such as: mobility, pawn position, king position, passed pawns.
Add transposition tables. Don't generate the moves if you already have a hash move (but the score was not accepted due to low depth of the hash entry). With this, move generation speed becomes a non-issue.
Extend search on check to avoid cases when the danger is pushed over the horizon. Don't extend everything, test several conditions.

By now your new engine should be over 2000. However, if you look at top engines such as crafty/stockfish/komodo, they all have something in common which most weaker engines do not: cluster testing.

Once your engine passes the 1500 ELO mark chances are that your changes are  losing on average more ELO than they are gaining. You need to build a serious testing framework with a good stopping criteria (LOS 99% works until 2000ELO, after that you need SPRT). I invested about 700$ and bought 6 ODROID U3 (each with 4 32bit cores) and build a cluster to test all of my patches that could affect search. If you look into the commit log of zurichess you'll see the gains for each patch. A month ago hardkernel released ODROID XU4, which is slightly more expensive than U3 but has 8 64bit cores.


Spielmann Nimzo-indian In the Spielmann Nimzo-indian, the position after this completely reasonable line makes the position seem that Black is winning. However, the engine evaluation gives the position as equal. What sort of compensation does White have that justifies the engine's decision.
[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 c5 5.dxc5 Nc6 6. Nf3 Ne4 7. Bd2 Nxc5 7. Qc2

Where Black has a dynamic advantage in the form of active pieces and more development.

Is Black really that much (or at all?) ahead in terms of development and piece activity?
Just counting, there are three minor pieces developed on each side, plus the White queen, while Black is to move and can castle. Pretty equal.
Black's three minor pieces surely are active at the moment, but are White's much worse? I don't think so.
Most importantly though, if we look a little bit ahead, White has much more straightforward moves to improve his position. A direct a3 will more or less force Bxc3, obtaining the bishop pair for White (with one of them on an open long diagonal to boot). The Nc5 is then in danger of being chased away by b4. Black can answer ...a5 or ...f5 (supporting e4 as a new outpost), but both moves create new slight weaknesses in a pawn structure that is already slightly weakened by trading away the "good" bishop.
Black cannot do much against moves like e3, Be2, 0-0 or Td1, either. Not breathtaking, but all very solid and natural. Meanwhile, Black's main break ...d5 is not without danger (for example, if it's played too soon after the exchange on c3, White may discover an attack on the loose Nc5 by cxd5 and Bxg7, netting a pawn).
I won't claim that White in turn has a real "advantage". If Black plays well, the game will still be about equal. But I'd actually prefer to play White.


Why do Grandmasters play different openings but engines not? Why do they change openings if engines only like one?

Engines

Engines usually have opening databases. Every variant in each opening has a pre-calculated score and according to the opponent's move, engines will choose highest scored move. So, sometimes you may feel they play as same as previous games.

But, that's not all, many good engines will choose a random move among a group of best candidate moves because their programmers don't like biased engines.

Grandmasters

On the other hand, grandmasters, they know lots of openings and they're incredibly skilled on some of them. Sometimes they persist on a specific opening to learning more. Sometimes they play different openings against opponents to make them surprised or confused.

Head-to-head matches between two grandmasters usually lead to a little number of openings. Because the white player tries to choose an opening based on his power and opponent's weakness.


Knight and King vs Queen and King Can the knight and king in anyway mate a queen and knight?
I was recently playing a game which I lost. The player with the king and queen was playing suboptimally. On the last move I captured a pawn with the queen since I was low on time.

No. The problem is that the queen covers too many squares.

Consider this (illegal) checkmate position with king and 2 knights vs king and queen:

[fen "kq6/2N5/KN6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

If you remove either knight then the queen can take the other one.


How to evaluate and comment moves in PGN format? I want, with Python-chess, to evaluate any movement of some game and generate the PGN with analysis, as Chess.com does in its analysis.

For example, i played one game with fools mate and they generate that PGN:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 f6 {INACCURACY (+1.03)} ({(+0.16) The best move was} 1... e6 2. d4 d5 3.
exd5 exd5 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bd6 6. O-O O-O 7. Re1 Be6 8. h3 Re8 9. Nc3 c6 10.
Ne2 Qc7 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. Qc1 c5 13. c3 c4 14. Bc2 Ne4 15. Bf4 f6 16. Bxd6 Qxd6
17. Nd2 Nxd2 18. Qxd2 Nb6 19. Ng3 Bd7 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Re1 Rxe1+ 22. Qxe1) 2.
d4 g5?? ± {BLUNDER (♔ Mate in 1)} ({(+0.93) The best move was} 2... e6 3. Bb5
Ne7 4. Nc3 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. h4 a6 7. Be2 d5 8. h5 gxh5 9. Rxh5 dxe4 10. Nxe4 f5
11. Nc5 Nbc6 12. c3 e5 13. dxe5) 3. Qh5# 1-0

I like to show the evaluation of any move (if its an good move, or excellent, blunder, book-move ...), like they do.

I know how to load any PGN game and process it, generating String from PGN, like:

import chess
import chess.pgn

pgn = open("game path")
board = game.board()
for move in game.mainline_moves():
    board.push(move)
exporter = chess.pgn.StringExporter(headers=True)

pgn_string = game.accept(exporter)
print(pgn_string) ## Here is the string with the pgn!

Basically: i want to generate a String PGN from an evaluated chess game.

Have you looked at python-chess-annotator? I think it does pretty much what you want, and if not, it might be easier to modify it than to start from scratch. It's based on python-chess, too.

I'll copy its usage example here to make this answer a bit more self-contained:

$ python3 -m annotator -h
usage: annotator [-h] --file FILE.pgn [--engine ENGINE] [--gametime MINUTES]
                 [--threads THREADS] [--verbose]

takes chess games in a PGN file and prints annotations to standard output

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --file FILE.pgn, -f FILE.pgn
                        input PGN file
  --engine ENGINE, -e ENGINE
                        analysis engine (default: stockfish)
  --gametime MINUTES, -g MINUTES
                        how long to spend on each game (default: 1)
  --threads THREADS, -t THREADS
                        threads for use by the engine (default: 1)
  --verbose, -v         increase verbosity

$ python3 -m annotator -f caruana-kasparov.pgn -g 15
[Event "Ultimate Blitz Challenge"]
[Site "St. Louis, MO USA"]
[Date "2016.04.29"]
[Round "18.1"]
[White "Fabiano Caruana"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "0-1"]
[EventDate "2016.04.28"]
[ECO "A05"]
[WhiteElo "2795"]
[BlackElo "2812"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[Opening "King's Indian Attack: Symmetrical Defense"]
[WhiteACPL "252"]
[BlackACPL "141"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]

{ Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT } 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 { A05 King's Indian Attack:
Symmetrical Defense } 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. b3 e5 7. Bb2 c5 8. e3
Nc6 9. Nc3 Bf5 10. d4 e4 11. Ne1 Re8 12. Nc2 h5 13. Qd2 h4 14. Ba3 $6 { -1.13 }
( 14. h3 g5 15. g4 Bg6 16. Rad1 Qe7 17. Qe2 a6 18. Ba3 a5 { 0.19/25 } ) 14...
b6 $6 { -0.04 } ( 14... Nh7 15. Nd5 Ng5 16. Bb2 Rc8 17. Rac1 Ne7 18. Nf4 h3 19.
Bh1 { -1.11/24 } ) 15. Rfd1 $6 { -1.15 } ( 15. h3 d5 16. g4 Be6 17. cxd5 Nxd5
18. Nxe4 f5 19. gxf5 gxf5 { 0.00/26 } ) 15... Bg4 16. Rdc1 Qd7 17. b4 Qf5 18.
Bb2 Rad8 19. Nb5 Bf3 20. d5 Ne5 $6 { -1.66 } ( 20... Nxb4 21. Ne1 Bxg2 22.
Nxg2 Nd3 23. Nxh4 Qh3 24. Bxf6 Bxf6 25. f4 { -3.14/25 } ) 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22.
Ne1 hxg3 23. fxg3 Bh6 24. Rab1 Kg7 $6 { -1.08 } ( 24... Qh5 25. Rb3 Rf5 26.
bxc5 dxc5 27. Rc2 Ng4 28. h3 Bxg2 29. Kxg2 { -2.48/24 } ) 25. Rb3 Qh5 26. h3
$6 { -3.08 } ( 26. bxc5 bxc5 27. Nxa7 Rh8 28. h4 Qg4 29. Nc6 Rh5 30. Qf2
Bd1 { -2.00/23 } ) 26... Nh7 $2 { -1.37 } ( 26... Rg5 27. Qf2 { -2.89/24 })
27. g4 Bxg4 28. hxg4 Qxg4 29. Qd1 $4 { -5.69 } ( 29. Qb2 Ng5 30. Nxd6 Qg3
31. Nf5+ gxf5 32. Kf1 Nf3 33. Qf2 Nh2+ { -2.30/24 } ) 29... Qg3 30. Qe2 Ng5
31. Kh1 Rh8 32. Nxd6 Kg8 33. bxc5 Bf8+ 34. Kg1 Nh3+ 35. Kf1 Bxd6
36. cxd6 Rf5+ 37. Nf3 Rxf3+ 0-1

(Note: I'm not the author or affiliated to this project in any way, so for further questions I suggest contacting the author via github.)


What are the techniques one can use to for chess board? What are the techniques one can use to keep all pieces   on a board ? It is like an n-queen problem

Is it a combination of n-queen

To address the edit to the question
If you're receiving the pieces in a random order and you don't have any information about future pieces, the way to arrange the pieces would be to give pieces the least amount of scope. For example, if I were to receive a queen on the first turn, I would place it in one of the four corners. Some more rules would be to keep knights close to each other and pawns stacked one on top of the other. All of these strategies are a bit obvious, but it's difficult to have a consistent strategy to use as there are so many potential combinations of pieces.

This seems to me as more of a programming question than a chess one, but it's interesting nontheless! After thinking for a bit, I would hypthesize that the best way to approach this problem would be to use the knights as a baseline. It's well known that the maximum number of knights one can fit on a board is 32 (simply placing them on all squares of the same color), therefore having this as your starting position is logical as this is the maximum occupancy you can have with an individual piece. This strategy extends itself to an N x N board.

Afterwards, I would use pawns as their attacking prowess is limited to forward diagonals of one square in scope. They can occupy every other column (not rows as this would be limited to 2, 4, and 6 if following conventional rules), and this will add N/4 more occupied squares for an NxN board. This generalizes to a total number of occupied squares to N/2 + N/4, or simply 3N/4 total occupied squares.

This is the result of around 5 minutes of consideration, so my algorithm may be flawed. I hope this helps answer your question!