Why was this stalemate? I'm new to chess and I don't have much knowledge. But I was playing a game as Black, and I was up by a lot of material and played Nxc4 to capture White's last bishop. The game ended in a stalemate, even though the king was trapped, I think.
[FEN "2qk1b2/4n2p/1n3p2/3p4/b1BK4/5r2/7r/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxc4

Can anyone explain to me please why this happened and why I didn't win?

Stalemate

Stalemate is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move. ... In popular usage, the word stalemate refers to a conflict that has reached an impasse, and in which resolution or further action seems highly difficult or unlikely.

In the above position, your opponent had no legal moves but was not on check hence stalement. The objective of chess is to;

The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent; this occurs when the opponent's king is in check, and there is no legal way to remove it from attack. It is never legal for a player to make a move that puts or leaves the player's own king in check.

So if this is not achieved there is no winner unlike in checkers where you can win if your opponent has no legal move


How to calculate corresponding squares I saw this question, but it does not answer my question. I was following a Dvoretsky endgame manual and came across this diagram.

Now, I understand why c5 and c7 are corresponding squares and also the same for d6 and d8. I also understood how d6 and c5 intersect at d5 (going from those squares through files and ranks by straight lines and find intersection square) and how d8 and c7 intersect at c8, so the conclusion is that d5 and c8 are corresponding squares.
A few pages later, Dvoretsky introduces this diagram:

I understand why d2 and f3 are corresponding squares and the same for e3 and c3. But Dvoretsky then concludes that based on those 2 pairs of corresponding squares we can conclude with an intersection that c2 and f4 are corresponding squares. How is that? d2 and c3 do intersect at c2. But how do e3 and f3 intersect at f4?

I think the term 'intersect' is not really intuitive here.
From c2, the white king can go to d2 and c3 in one move.
That means the black king must find a square from which it can reach f3 and e3 in one move. That square is f4; this would be true for e2 and f2 as well, but then the black king is outside the pawn's square and it can run to promotion.
It doesn't matter that it's not the same geometrical shape on the chessboard. (Actually, it is the same geometrical shape if you switch to the Chebyshev distance metric, but I digress.)


Longest sequence of forcing moves? What is the longest fixed consecutive series of moves for one player such that the other player's response is forced every move? Assume draw rules must be obeyed (threefold repetition, 50-move rule, etc.).

Note that the moves are only forced for the opponent or 'forced' player; for the forcing player, there is no requirement their moves be forced (as in Longest sequence of mutually forced moves). The forcing player's moves need only be a fixed predetermined sequence to which every response of the opponent is forced.
The sequence ends when a) the forced player plays their final forced response, such that whatever the forcing player does next move, the forced player will have a choice of multiple replies; or b) the game terminates (checkmate, stalemate, draw by threefold repetition, draw by 50-move rule, etc.).

The longest possible series of forcing moves that I have cooked up is 3108 moves long, abusing the 50 move rule to its fullest. Throughout the entire sequence, Black has only one legal move as stipulated.
Firstly, we start with this position.
[FEN "1N6/3r4/3p1p2/3B1n2/5b2/4QNPk/PPPPPP1P/R1B1K1nR w Q - 0 1"]

1. Nxg1+ Kg4 2. Qxf4+ Kh5 3. Qxf5+ Kh6 4. Nxd7 Kg7 5. Qxf6+ Kh7 6. Be4+ Kg8 7. Nb6 d5 8. Bxd5+ Kh7 9. Bg2 Kg8

White sets up the Black king's moving zone. It comes with captures to gain 8 extra moves. Next, White makes a pawn move or sacks a piece on g8/h7 every 50 moves. Getting rid of the light-squared bishop, both rooks and knights, and five promoted pieces, from the a2 through e2 pawns, allows for 10 50-move rule resets. Promoting these pawns allows for 5*6=30 more resets. Thus, there are (10+30)*50+8=2008 moves already.
Afterward, this position is reached. During the 49 move intermission before the next reset, White moves the Black king.
[FEN "6k1/8/5Q2/8/8/6P1/5P1P/2B1K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bb2 Kh7 2. Ke2 Kg8 3. Qg6+ Kf8 4. Qh7 Ke8 5. Qg7 Kd8 6. Qf7 Kc8 7. Qe7 Kb8 8. Qd7 Ka8 9. Ke1 Kb8 10. Be5+ Ka8 11. Qc6+ Ka7 12. Bc3

Here, White has 4 pieces to sacrifice along with 17 more pawn moves. This allows for 17+4=21 more resets. As such, the total is now (21*50)+2008=3058 moves. There are no more resets after this.
Finally, White merely plays around for 50 more moves. Black then claims a draw by the 50 move rule. It is important to note that sacking the queen actually loses a ply, as then the position is a draw to the "Dead Position" rule. Checkmating and stalemating also lose the essential last Black ply.
[FEN "8/k7/2Q5/8/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kf1 Kb8 2. Kg1 Ka7 3. Kh1 Kb8 4. Kh2 Ka7 5. Kg2 Kb8 6. Kf2 Ka7 7. Ke2 Kb8 8. Kd2 Ka7 9. Kc2 Kb8 10. Kb2 Ka7 11. Ka2 Kb8 12. Ka3 Ka7 13. Kb3 Kb8 14. Kc3 Ka7 15. Kd3 Kb8 16. Ke3 Ka7 17. Kf3 Kb8 18. Kg3 Ka7 19. Kh3 Kb8 20. Kh4 Ka7 21. Kg4 Kb8 22. Kf4 Ka7 23. Ke4 Kb8 24. Kd4 Ka7 25. Kc4 Kb8 26. Kb4 Ka7 27. Ka4 Kb8 28. Ka5 Ka7 29. Kb5 Kb8 30. Kc5 Ka7 31. Kd5 Kb8 32. Kd6 Ka7 33. Kd7 Kb8 34. Kd8 Ka7 35. Ke8 Kb8 36. Ke7 Ka7 37. Ke6 Kb8 38. Ke5 Ka7 39. Kf5 Kb8 40. Kf6 Ka7 41. Kf7 Kb8 42. Kf8 Ka7 43. Kg8 Kb8 44. Kg7 Ka7 45. Kg6 Kb8 46. Kg5 Ka7 47. Kh5 Kb8 48. Kh6 Ka7 49. Kh7 Kb8 50. Kh8 Ka7

At last, we have our total sequence of 3158+50=3108 forcing moves.


Term for sacrifice that causes opponent to block an escape square? A decoy or deflection typically lure an opponent's piece away from a square. What is it called when you sacrifice in order to lure/force an opponent to a certain square in order to prevent another piece escaping?

Here is a bad example that I've made that shows the idea. The reason it's bad is because the lure isn't actually needed since d8 is already attacked by the black rook.

[FEN "3r1rk1/ppp2ppp/8/2b5/4P1RP/5q2/PPQ5/RN2KN2 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rd1+ 2. Qxd1 Qf2#

What you are looking for is called "attraction". That is, you attract a piece to a specific square. One of the most famous types of attraction is seen in this example:

 [FEN "r1b2rk1/pp2pp1p/1qp3p1/4Q3/1n1N4/1P6/PBP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qg7+ Kxg7 2. Nf5+ Kg8 3. Nh6#

Here is a nice link with another example.

This is also exactly a deflection since you deflected the queen away from f2. By the way, 1...Bf2 2. Qxf2 Rd1 also the same.

Here are two examples of what Rewan Demontay described as "self-blocking" below. In the first, a study by Nimzovich, it is what I believe the OP is asking for. The other is another type of self-blocking move, but it is not the opponent that forces it. This is more common in some endgame tactics to draw where one side walls the king in so it will be a stalemate.

 [FEN "5rn1/2N1npk1/R7/4P3/8/4P3/Q7/K6R w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rg6+ $3 fxg6 (1... Nxg6 2. Qxf7+ Rxf7 (2... Kxf7 3. Rh7#) 3. Ne6#) 2. Qf7+ $3 Rxf7 (2... Kxf7 3. Rh7#) 3. Ne6#

Here is the other self-block, but for another reason.

 [FEN "8/r6k/3r3p/5p1K/5P2/p6P/Q7/8 w - - 0 0"]

 1. h4 Rd1 2. Qf7+ Rxf7 {Stalemate}


Pawn Structure Change in the Pirc - dxe5 or Nxe5? As black I reached this position in a recent game

[White "Somebody"]
[Black "Ian Bush"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B07"]
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "23"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 c6 5.f3 b5 6.a3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.Nge2 Qc7
9.Ng3 Bg7 10.Nce2 e5 11.O-O O-O 12.dxe5 dxe5
    ( 12...Nxe5 )

On running it through the Lichess analysis it reported 12 ... dxe5 as a blunder. This, to say the least, somewhat surprised me, but on sticking it through Stockfish on my own machine the semiconducting monster does indeed markedly prefer Nxe5 - taking with the Knight it puts at ~-0.4 and taking with the pawn +0.25, so over half a pawn swing. I preferred taking with the pawn to avoid having a potential weakness on d6, and also thought his pawn on e4 so well defended that the half open e file was little use to me, so I am struggling to understand why 12 ... Nxe5 is so much better. Can somebody enlighten me? Is it simply to get the white squared bishop for the knight, or is there a deeper strategical meaning? I do understand that taking with the pawn is more unbalancing, and so what I would definitely prefer if needing a win, but I just can't see why it is intrinsically so much better.

More generally this kind of decision is not uncommon in the Pirc and some related openings, are there any general pointers as to which should be preferred?

It comes down to the VERY poor placement of the white pieces, in particular, that the Bd3 is vulnerable to being trapped by the advancing black queenside pawns. Taking with the knight also allows you to open the center with d5 in some lines (which also will make the Qd1 uncomfortable since it lacks space), taking advantage of your better-placed pieces, and Nxe5 also stops the desirable move c4 by white immediately.

In one of the lines I give below, which sums it up, I wrote: "Black is better developed, and all of his pieces are nicely placed. By comparison, the Bd3 is horrible, the Ng3 is worse, and the Ne2 is no prize horse. The Qc1 is also worse than the Qc7."

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. f3 $6 {After this, it is really difficult for white to develop the pieces since the Bf1 does not sit well on d3, and the Ng1 and Bf1 fight for e2.} b5 6. a3 $6 (6. Qd2 Nbd7 7. g4 {Is better, postponing the decision about the Bf1 and Ng1.}) 6... Nbd7 (6... Bg7 {Why not this move that you know you must make? You should make moves that you know you have to make first, since circumstances may change for the others.}) 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. Nge2 Qc7 (8... a6 $1 {Idea c5, and you are already better as the misplaced Bd3 is not well-developed.}) 9. Ng3 $2 {Where is this piece going?} (9. Qd2) 9... Bg7 10. Nce2 e5 11. O-O O-O 12. dxe5 dxe5 $2 (12... Nxe5 $1 {This also stops c4!} 13. Qc1 (13. Qd2 c5 $1 14. c3 (14. Bxb5 a6 15. Ba4 Nc4 16. Qc1 Nxe4 $1 17. Nxe4 Bxb2 18. Qb1 Bxe4 $19) 14... d5 $17) 13... Rfe8 14. Bh6 Bh8 15. Kh1 d5 {Ripping the center open. Black is better developed, and all of his pieces are nicely placed. By comparison, the Bd3 is horrible, the Ng3 is worse, and the Ne2 is no prize horse. The Qc1 is also worse than the Qc7.}) 13. c4 {White is better on the queenside here, and this immediately exposes it to the major pieces of white with either Rc1 soon. White could also try to play against the weakened c5 square with Qe1-f2, and Nc1-b3. That Ng3 still is an ugly piece.} a6 14. Qc2 Rfc8 15. Rfc1 $14


Two knights can move to e7, but the move is only specified as Ne7 In the diagram below, Black makes the move denoted as “Ne7” which moves the black knight on g8 move to e7.
[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp3ppp/2n1p3/1BPpP3/8/4B3/PPP2PPP/RN1QK1NR b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... Ne7

The problem is, based on my limited knowledge about chess, “Ne7” should be ambiguous in this case since also the black knight on c6 can also move to e7.
How come we need only to write this move as “Ne7”? Is it simply a wrongfully written move?
I found this PGN online, so I have not written/played them myself. I would rather not go in and correct the moves myself, and I would rather find a way to disambiguate them correctly.

The c6 knight is pinned by the bishop on b5. Note that if the c6 knight were to move it would leave Black's king in check, which renders any such move illegal.

Therefore it is ok in this case to write "Ne7" instead of "Nge7", since the pin means that there is no ambiguity as to which knight moves.


The difficulty of finding the winning idea in this knight versus bishop endgame I recently finished a tournament game on chess.com as Black that ended in a draw. It was a knight (me) vs. bishop endgame with pawns strewn across the board. Here is the entire game.
[Title "jasonhaller-RewanDemontay, NARWHALS Winter Daily Tournament! - Round 1, chess.com, 1/21/2020"]
[FEN "6k1/1pn3p1/p1p1p1p1/2Pp4/PP1P4/4P3/1B4PP/5K2"]
[startply "55"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Nf6 6. e3 O-O 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. Bd3 Qe7 10. c5 a6 11. b4 Na7 12. O-O Bb5 13. Re1 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 c6 15. Nd2 Nb5 16. a4 Nc7 17. Bb2 Rfe8 18. Nf3 Rab8 19. Ne5 Nd7 20. f4 Nxe5 21. fxe5 f5 22. exf6 Qxf6 23. Rf1 Qg6 24. Qxg6 hxg6 25. Rae1 Rf8 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Kf7 29. Kf2 Kf6 30. Kf3 Ne8 31. Kf4 g5+ 32. Kg4 Kg6 33. g3 Nf6+ 34. Kf3 Ne4 35. h3 Kf5 36. g4+ Kf6 37. Bc1 g6 38. a5 Nc3 39. Bd2 Ne4 40. Be1 Kg7 41. h4 Kh6 42. Bg3 Nxg3 43. Kxg3 gxh4+ 44. Kxh4 g5+ 45. Kg3 Kg6 46. Kf3 Kf6 47. e4 Kg6 48. exd5 exd5 49. Ke3 Kf6 50. Kf3 Kg6 51. Kg3 Kf6 52. Kf3 Kg6

During the game, I thought that was a draw from the moment the rook were exchanged, as I knew I would able to enable a blockade on the kingside, and that White couldn't do much with a bishop that was opposite the color of my pawns. It was be a bit of fight to me, since I had somewhat bad doubled pawns in my opinion, but I managed to pull it off.
However, after the game, I checked the game with the engine, and it reported that my move 34... Ne4 was it mistake that drew that game! Instead, my only winning move, and the best move as well of course, was 34... Kf5!. This is a complete surprise to me. As far as computer analysis goes, it seems that Black is able to bust through White's camp, and the rest is an easy endgame. (By the way, I played 35... Kf5 to provoke White to check me with their pawn, which they did.)
The fact that it was a knight vs. bishop endgame seems to be muddled my thinking. What could I have missed in the position to let such as easy win slip? What should I do to be able to find such winning ideas more easily and calculate them out? Additionally, was there anything else that I missed during my game, and how corectly did I play it?

Note: This is an analysis of the position at move 34. Obviously, White's play in the beginning of the endgame was poor and he should never have entered such trouble.

Black's advantage is clear and long-lived because he has the better minor piece, a knight vs a bad bishop with a locked center. Whether this advantage is enough for a win requires analysis, of course.

Black has a great stronghold on e4, and your reflex to place the knight there seems very natural, but... this is rather the right plan in the middlegame, not in the endgame !

In a minor piece endgame, the best piece to place on a central stronghold is not the knight anymore (as in the middlegame, or in most multi-pieces endgames with rooks), but the king ! As long as it remains safe, the king on the stronghold is centralized, attacks the pawns around it, and often threatens to invade the enemy camp.

This principle is very often applied in isolani endgames. Imagine Black has an isolated pawn on d5. If we still have rooks, White will gladly place his knight on d4, blocking the pawn and controling a bunch of important squares, and try to generate play down the c-file. But what happens if rooks are exchanged and Black has no control of d4 ? The winning plan usually becomes Nd4-e2, Kd3-d4, Ne2-c3, and Pd5 will soon fall. The king, not the knight, makes the decisive threats from d4.

This applies to your game. Just place the bK on e4 and you will see that White is doomed to passive defense of Pe3 and of the entry squares d3 and f3. That's why the right plan on move 34 is to try and gain access to e4 for your king.

34...Kf5 threatens 35...g4+ followed by ...Ke4, so 35.h3 seems forced. However, you then make use of your doubled g-pawn to open the way with 35...g4+ 36.hg4 Ng4 and there are three plans to expel the wK from f3:

bring your second g-pawn to g4. Then you can reach a position with Ke4, Pg4, Nf5 vs Ke2, Bf2 that is actually a zugzwang with White to play. How to give him the tempo, however, is not obvious. Most probably you will have to go for e6-e5, dxe5, Kxe5, Kd3, and try to gain access to the fourth rank again. Some winning chances, but my feeling is that White will hold if there is no refinement before ; I will stop the analysis here for now.

With an animated diagram:

[Title "jasonhaller-RewanDemontay"]
[FEN "6k1/1pn3p1/p1p1p1p1/2Pp4/PP1P4/4P3/1B4PP/5K2"]
[startply "67"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Nf6 6. e3 O-O 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. Bd3 Qe7 10. c5 a6 11. b4 Na7 12. O-O Bb5 13. Re1 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 c6 15. Nd2 Nb5 16. a4 Nc7 17. Bb2 Rfe8 18. Nf3 Rab8 19. Ne5 Nd7 20. f4 Nxe5 21. fxe5 f5 22. exf6 Qxf6 23. Rf1 Qg6 24. Qxg6 hxg6 25. Rae1 Rf8 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Kf7 29. Kf2 Kf6 30. Kf3 Ne8 31. Kf4 g5+ 32. Kg4 Kg6 33. g3 Nf6+ 34. Kf3 Kf5 35.h3 g4+ 36.hxg4+ Nxg4 37.Bc1 Nf6 38.Bd2 g5 39.Bc3 g4+ 40.Ke2 Ke4 41.Be1 Ng8 42.Bf2 Ne7 43.Bg1 Nf5 44.Bf2 e5 45.dxe5 Kxe5 46.Kd3

try to check with the knight, keeping Pg7 on place. If you can get a similar position with Ke4, Nf5, you are certainly winning because you have spared yourself tempo-moves with the Pg7. It means that White has to prevent such plan by playing g4 himself when his king still stand on f3, but then the Pg4 himself will become a weakness.

If White waits passively:

[Title "jasonhaller-RewanDemontay"]
[FEN "6k1/1pn3p1/p1p1p1p1/2Pp4/PP1P4/4P3/1B4PP/5K2"]
[startply "67"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Nf6 6. e3 O-O 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. Bd3 Qe7 10. c5 a6 11. b4 Na7 12. O-O Bb5 13. Re1 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 c6 15. Nd2 Nb5 16. a4 Nc7 17. Bb2 Rfe8 18. Nf3 Rab8 19. Ne5 Nd7 20. f4 Nxe5 21. fxe5 f5 22. exf6 Qxf6 23. Rf1 Qg6 24. Qxg6 hxg6 25. Rae1 Rf8 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Kf7 29. Kf2 Kf6 30. Kf3 Ne8 31. Kf4 g5+ 32. Kg4 Kg6 33. g3 Nf6+ 34. Kf3 Kf5 35.h3 g4+ 36.hxg4+ Nxg4 37.Bc1 Nf6 38.Bd2 Nh7 39.Bc3 Ng5+ 40.Ke2 Ke4 41.Be1 Nf7 42.Bf2 Nh6 43.Bg1 Nf5 44.Bf2 g6 45.a5 g5 46.g4 Nh6

then Black wins a pawn and the game.

But if White reacts with g4:

[Title "jasonhaller-RewanDemontay"]
[FEN "6k1/1pn3p1/p1p1p1p1/2Pp4/PP1P4/4P3/1B4PP/5K2"]
[startply "67"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Nf6 6. e3 O-O 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. Bd3 Qe7 10. c5 a6 11. b4 Na7 12. O-O Bb5 13. Re1 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 c6 15. Nd2 Nb5 16. a4 Nc7 17. Bb2 Rfe8 18. Nf3 Rab8 19. Ne5 Nd7 20. f4 Nxe5 21. fxe5 f5 22. exf6 Qxf6 23. Rf1 Qg6 24. Qxg6 hxg6 25. Rae1 Rf8 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Kf7 29. Kf2 Kf6 30. Kf3 Ne8 31. Kf4 g5+ 32. Kg4 Kg6 33. g3 Nf6+ 34. Kf3 Kf5 35.h3 g4+ 36.hxg4+ Nxg4 37.Bc1 Nh6 38.Bd2 Nf7 39.g4+ Kg5 40.Kg3 e5 41. dxe5 Nxe5 42.e4+ Kf6 43.exd5 cxd5 44. b5

White has some counterplay and should draw.

So the most dangerous plan is probably to gain even more space with e6-e5-e4, place the king on g4, and target Pg3.

It looks promising:

[Title "jasonhaller-RewanDemontay"]
[FEN "6k1/1pn3p1/p1p1p1p1/2Pp4/PP1P4/4P3/1B4PP/5K2"]
[startply "67"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Nf6 6. e3 O-O 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. Bd3 Qe7 10. c5 a6 11. b4 Na7 12. O-O Bb5 13. Re1 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 c6 15. Nd2 Nb5 16. a4 Nc7 17. Bb2 Rfe8 18. Nf3 Rab8 19. Ne5 Nd7 20. f4 Nxe5 21. fxe5 f5 22. exf6 Qxf6 23. Rf1 Qg6 24. Qxg6 hxg6 25. Rae1 Rf8 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Kf7 29. Kf2 Kf6 30. Kf3 Ne8 31. Kf4 g5+ 32. Kg4 Kg6 33. g3 Nf6+ 34. Kf3 Kf5 35.h3 g4+ 36.hxg4+ Nxg4 37.Bc1 e5 38. Bd2 {38. dxe5 Nxe5+} e4+ 39.Kg2 Nh6 40.Kh3 {40.Be1 Kg4 41. Bf2 Nf5} Nf7 41. Bc3 Ng5+ 42.Kh4 Nf3+ 43.Kh3 Kg5 {Ng1}

Black's winning chances are very serious. This third plan would be my favorite choice.

Computer analysis will refine this and probably prove me wrong more than once, but it also spoils all the fun of searching for the truth...


Thinking to solve the puzzle I came across a puzzle on lichess.org, (Black to move) , I was unable to solve it. But I know the solution now,

I don't wasn't the  solution or analysis. I just want to know how should one think while looking at this position to find the correct path since there are so many options to choose.

]1

Spoiler: solution below

You should always think how the last move played by your opponent has weakened his position.

In this game, f5 limits the mobility of the White king forcing it to stay confined in the g and h files.

That gives black a chance to checkmate using the rook and the queen. If the queen is moved the king can get to the f file and then it would be much more difficult to deliver checkmate. So you move the rook, and the solution is clearly the best choice because it forces white to exchange the queen to not get mated.


Position from the Dutch Defence / Blackmar-Diemer gambit In the Dutch Defence, the following gambit isn't very popular anymore.

[FEN ""]
1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 (3... fxe4 4. Qh5+)

The same position can arise from the Blackmar-Diemer gambit if black plays the rare 3... f5.

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 f5

Scheerer, on pages 62-68 of his book the Blackmar-Diemer gambit, analyses 4.Bf4 and seems to like white's compensation.

What is the true evaluation of the position?

If it's good for white, why isn't the 3.e4 gambit against the Dutch Defence more popular?

If it's good for black, why isn't 3... f5 played more often to counter the Blackmar-Diemer gambit?

You raise a very interesting point - you're absolutely correct in saying that 3...f5 is not a common response to the Blackmar-Diemer gambit. However, the gambit can be reached in another way where Black doesn't have the option of playing this move:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3

In the Dutch, Black can sidestep White by playing this move:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6

Your question as to why it isn't played more in the Dutch/more against the Blackmar-Diemer is a bit difficult to answer. Aside from the examples above where White or Black can sidestep this line, it can be reached in the main line of the Dutch against 2...d5 and the mainline of the Blackmar-Diemer with 2. e4. It should be better for either White or Black, so why don't we see it more often?

In my opinion, I think that White has sufficient compensation for the pawn due to the weak e5 square and the possibilities of playing f3, undermining Black's pawn structure. If we go with this assumption, then we're looking at the first scenario in the Dutch Defense. I believe that there are more common replies to 1...f5 such as 2. g3 and 2. Nf3 which tend to score better than the gambit line outlined in the question.

On the flip side, I noticed that Black actually scores better with this line in practice, so I'm rather quite torn. I believe you've hit upon something rather original, and I encourage you to do a bit of studying into the lines yourself and arrive at your own conclusion :) maybe you have found a new main line!


Why are doubled pawns in this case particularly devastating? There is a case where the opponent can inflict a double pawn on us

[FEN "4k3/ppp2ppp/3p4/4p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P2PPP/4K3 w KQkq - 0 1"]

Why is this kind of double pawn particularly devastating for white? I see white is okay, white can try d4 pawn break, or Rb1.

Or am I wrong? Can somebody explain why this position is not favourable for white?

This pawn structure can also arise from Nimzo Indian

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

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3

I first need to note that there is a fairly large difference between the structure in your first diagram and the one reached in the Nimzo-Indian line: in the first diagram, white has not yet played d4. This gives him the option of playing c4 and c3, which is actually quite a strong structure as the d4 square, which would normally be weak with pawns on c4, d3 and e4, is defended by the c3-pawn.

That being said, I don't agree with the assessment that this is an uncommonly bad case of doubled pawns for white. While doubled pawns are, in general, unfavorable for the side that has them, their existence is usually not enough to significantly change the evaluation of a position. In fact, the second line gives us an approximation of how much opening theory thinks that white's structure has been crippled: about the difference between a bishop and a knight.

I wrote the above and then realized that I may have misinterpreted your question. You may be wondering why white's structure in the first diagram is worse than black's.

The doubled-pawn structure is a slight disadvantage and has both plusses and minuses which may be exploited in a given piece configuration by either side. One plus would be the possibility which I mentioned in the first paragraph. Your idea of putting a rook on b1 is another option, although that may be mitigated by black playing b6. White pushing d4 is also an idea, although it may not be so favorable here because a capture on e5 would leave the c-pawns isolated.

Black's structure is better, though, because each of his pawns on the queenside has the potential to be defended by another pawn rather than a piece. White, by contrast, will always have two pawns not defended by pawns: the a-pawn and at least one c-pawn. The attention that white's pieces will have to use defending the pawns on average will outweigh the other considerations.


How to objectively explain a positional advantage is worth a sacrifice (re: a specific example) I was given the below position in the US chess magazine. Author said this position is "hopeless for black". Lichess engine says 1.5 advantage for white.

Why? I understand "piece points" are only a rule of thumb, but I also don't have any other heuristics to judge why white side is better. I assume that even though white is down material, she has a "positional advantage," but I don't know how to objectively discern why that is.

Why would people say white has an advantage here?

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. c3 a6 5. Ba4 Bg7 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 exd4 8. cxd4 Nge7 9. d5 Na5 10. Bd2 Bxb2 11. Bxa5 Bxa1 12. Nc3 Bxc3+ 13. Bxc3

EDIT

The real question I meant to ask is this: why are all "these positional things" (space, development, castling rights, etc) worth a material sacrifice of 3 pawn points!? I know these principles are good, but how am I supposed to personally know they're that good that I should be willing to sacrifice a major piece for a minor piece?

White has a lot of compensation for the sacrificed exchange, specifically:

more space: the white central pawns are perfectly placed to limit the movement of the black knight and bishop
play on the dark squares: black has considerably weakened the dark squares on the king side and does not have a dark-squared bishop anymore; White can easily take advantage of that by operating on these squares with bishop, knight and queen.
lead in development: Basically white only needs to activate the rook, while black really struggles to free himself. Also black will be forced to move the rook on h8 (castling seems too dangerous), losing another move for development and leaving the king in the center for some more time where it will be under attack.

This suggests that white can make use of these elements, before black can recover.

Somewhat concrete lines:

Black's rook h8 is under attack and has to move. Three options:

1...0-0 looks very dangerous for black. White could just play something like Qd2, Qh6, Ng5 and if necessary h4, h5. I don't see what black could do to avoid getting mated soon. Note that black cannot play something like f6 soon because of the discovered check from the b3 bishop.
1..Rg8 or 1..Rf8. Here white has basically two ideas, which can be combined in various ways. a) play d6 which prevents black from playing d6 himself (freeing the bishop on c8) and allows white to activate the queen (via d6-f6). Also, with the white queen on d6 and the white bishop on f6, white would basically bind four black pieces (Qd8, Ne7, Ke8, Rf8) to very passive positions. b) play Ng5, which hints at an attack on f7 and also on re-routing the knight via h7 to f6.

So overall, yes the position is pretty hopeless for black.

Regarding your general quesion (Why are these things worth three pawn points? And how do I know when they are worth that much?):

You should realize that material is only one of many factors relevant for judging  a position. Admittedly, in many games, players have somewhat symmetric positions, are developed equally well, etc and in this case, material becomes a major factor. So yes, in quiet normal positions material is often very important.

However in highly unbalanced positions like the one in your example, material count becomes less important and is easily trumped by activity. There is no strict rule to know when this is the case. In fact this is among the more difficult aspects of chess and can basically only gained by experience. I would strongly discourage you from trying to assess such unbalanced positions by summing points for "piece activity", "weak king"... Chess just does not work this way.

Computers do something like this in their evaluation function, but they do this for many (lots) positions many moves down the line (not only the current position) and then it does make sense. Furthermore computers have a more fine-grained number for "space", "piece activity", etc.

Anyway, humans lack the power to do all this and basically need to rely on experience, intuition and (occasionally) calculating some more or less forced concrete lines.

As a very rough guideline (don't follow this strictly) you can sacrifice:

a pawn: to gain a lead in development/piece activity or central control, for at least a short amount of time, often with a potential to regain the pawn easily if needed (see e.g. Queen's gambit). Sacrificing a pawn is not a major deal as many positions are still a draw +- a pawn.
up to three pawns or an exchange: if you get a major long term positional advantage through it; often you end up with a very strong minor piece vs. a not-so strong rook (e.g. in somewhat closed positions). Here you really need to have something concrete.
more than three pawns or an exchange: rarely, typically in direct mating attacks only


Preparations for chess tournaments So I'm participating in a chess tournament in a few days (FIDE rating) and I'm in a fix as to preparation methods. I'm doing as many puzzles as I can and preparing many openings. I'm also playing few precursor tournaments for practice. But is there any specific approach I need to take? Like I need a 1500 plus rating for my next year's pocket money so is there anything you need to do to get to get an extra edge over the competition?

Sleep well and hit the gym.

Over the board is hard physically as well as mentally. And physical condition has big contribution to playing strength.

So in short, don't get tired before your opponent, be the last man standing.


Was Paul Morphy a slow player? In Milan Vidmar's book Goldene Schachzeiten he writes that the brilliant Paul Morphy was known to be an extraordinarily slow player, who would probably have had a hard life if time control were part of the chess battle.

I was shocked to read this because earlier I had always read that Morphy was an exceptionally fast player. Can anyone explain this controversy with access to reliable sources?

My item here does not "explain the controversy", but for a contemporary tournament comment concerning Morphy, see top of page 90 here: https://archive.org/details/bookoffirstameri00fisk

From the First American Chess Congress book, quoting an article in The Chess Monthly:

  Mr. Morphy is rapid in his moves and quick in his combinations, his
  time on any move never having reached a quarter of an hour; Mr.
  Paulsen is exceedingly slow, some of his moves having occupied more
  than an hour and several in succession having exceeded thirty minutes.

On page 246 and 248, specific listings of moves longer than 5 minutes for two of the Morphy-Paulsen games are given, and a similar comment on page 255.


32 pieces protected once: How many moves? From the orthodox starting position, how many moves will you need to have the 32 pieces protected exactly once? (The answer is astonishingly low.)

A friend of mine says... 8 moves are enough. He doesn’t want to spoil the solution. I have 10. Back to the blackboard!


Why does White play 13. f3 and not 13. f4 in the Modern Benoni, Classical Line? In the classical line, the book Starting Out: Modern Benoni by Endre Vegh recommends 13. f3:

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "26"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. e4 Bg7 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Nd2 Na6 11. Kh1 Nc7 12. a4 b6 13. f3 (13. f4)

This is what the author says of 13. f3:

  the centre is thereby strengthened and will not be easily undermined.

But given that White would like to push with e5, why not support it with 13. f4 beforehand?

I played this position many times with white and f3 is really good move here.

It is not only about what white wants, but also about what black wants. You have more space and so you can choose easier from more plans. You can play for Rb1 b4, you can play for g4, you can play for f4 and e5. Black has not that much space and can't choose from many plans.

Now look at the position. Who will be happy to see f4 and potentially e5? Probably you in the beginning, but then also Qd8, Re8, Nf6 and Nc7. That is quite a body count. They don't have much work now but will have plenty of job after you weaken the centre. What about your pieces? Both knights will lose part of its mobility as they will have to protect pawn on e4. Bishop on c1 will hate you. Maybe you will help Rf1, while Qd1 and Be2 will see also slight improvement of their chances, but simple adding pros and cons of f4 action compared to f3 should lead to clear NO!. You won't loose the e4 pawn just by playing f4 or anything like that, but by this overextending on part of board where you really are not stronger, you achieve nothing positive at all.

The plan is good only when it helps you more than your opponent!

The f3 alternative with killing opponent's bishop immediately on c4 (f3 Ba6 Nc4 Bxc4 Bxc4 is the main line and for good reason, as black can't afford you to play b3 and retake on c4 with pawn!) saves you material advantage of bishop vs. knight, doesn't commit you to anything and then you can calmly go either for Rb1 b4 or some other stuff depending on black answer.


How does a GM calculate opening and how many moves in advance? How does a GM make his opening repertoire and how does he calculate his moves in advance.Can he calculate 20 moves in advance base on his opening?

They don't calculate the common openings, they know them by heart, at least the main lines, and the possible refutations, should the opponent deviate from the main line.

For the less common openings, they might remember things not as deep as the often playable ones. Still, it's like 10-15 plys for something obnoxious and could be as much as 20-30 plys for the most common ones.


When should I play f3/f6? For context, I've been playing chess for around two years now, and my rating on Lichess is ~1850.

When I first started playing, I learned a lot of heuristics for playing well, e.g. rooks are better than knights/bishops, castling is good (maybe better than you think, as a beginner), trade down when you're up in material. As I got better I started learning exceptions to these rules- a strong knight might be better than a passive rook, the king is better uncastled in the endgame, don't make "even trades" when they're not really even (e.g. if you have to make concessions to your pawn structure).

For all of these examples my intuition eventually caught up to the rules I was following blindly. To a beginner all rooks are better than all knights, because it's hard to judge when pieces are strong -- this instinct only came after watching many more in-depth analyses of games where one player sacrificed the exchange.

But there is one rule that I never learned to break, and that is "never play f3/f6" (at least when I'm castled kingside). To me it's clear why I shouldn't, sinc it
 often creates weaknesses in front of my king, and there have been many games in my past where pushing the f-pawn was the losing move. But it's never obvious when I should. For example, in some of my game analyses the engine says that f3/f6 was the best move, but I can't see the idea behind it. (When it's the only move to prevent getting mated or forked, it's a bit clearer, so I guess I'm asking about the positional ideas behind it.)

So, when should I play f3/f6? I'm specifically asking this without reference to any opening, as a rule of thumb akin to the ones I brought up above.

Note that it is also easier for me to move my f-pawn when it gives me another clear positional advantage. For example I might not mind the weaknesses that arise from capturing an e-pawn because I build a stronger center. This is a bit of a contradiction with the opening-agnostic viewpoint I'm trying to have, but I guess I am asking specifically about the case of "dry" positions with a lot of meandering and no clear path.

It's probably helpful to ask oneself why a move such as f3/f6 (moving forward, I will only consider f3, but it should work from black's perspective as well) would be useful in general. Why would I ever even consider making such a move? The very obvious reasons should be clear to most: if I want to reinforce/control/attack the squares e4 and/or g4, then of course the pawn move to f3 could be very useful. Another very obvious reason for making the move is of course the pawn being attacked.

For reasons a bit more subtle, the move could also prove useful if I for some reason wish to vacate the f2 square (for instance, to clear the h4-e1 diagonal for my dark-squared bishop if it were pushed back by a black pawn mass). Another subtle reason is that the move could be used in a pawn endgame in favour of the immediate f4 push for tempo-related reasons, or more generally to induce zugzwang.

I've now listed all good reasons for making the move that I've been able come up with. If you can think of another general scenario where specifically f3 is called for, feel free to suggest it; I'm having a difficult time coming up with any other good general reason to play the move.

Now for the fun part: Why would I not wish to play f3? This question is equally important to the first one if you want a good heuristic for when to play f3. The reasons for not playing the move that I can think of are the following:

It blocks the f3 square for the g1 knight. This is a major drawback of opening systems that make an early f3 push in the opening, see for instance the Sämisch system against the KID.
It begins opening up the a7-g1 diagonal. This is generally not great since white's king is often on g1, just waiting to be harrassed if this diagonal opens.
It weakens the control over the e3 square. This means that White's dark-squared bishop doesn't really have a safe haven on e3 anymore. This is a common way to lose as White in, say, the open Sicilian.
It blocks the d1-h5 diagonal for White's queen/light-squared bishop.
It creates a so-called "hook" for Black's pawns/pieces to attack in a potential kingside attack by Black.
It can be a waste of time if I'm in a pawn race (either literal pawn race in an endgame or a "pawn storm" race). Sometimes you can go ahead with the pawn push g2-g4 without even defending the square first; after all, if I'm aiming to use a pawn storm to soften up black's king on the kingside, removing the g pawn opens up the g-file for my rook. This last point is highlighted in many games in the open Sicilian, where White attacks Black's king on g8 while Black attacks White's king on b1; in these races, every tempo counts.

Again, if you can think of another good reason not to play f2-f3, then feel free to add it to the list. Know these reasons well, because some of them are not that immediately obvious why they are a big deal. For instance, giving up control over the e3 square may seem innocent enough, but in many cases it can be surprisingly detrimental to your position, especially if the position is not closed. Therefore you shouldn't make weakening moves such as f3 without a clear intention in mind.

While I haven't really heard the rule-of-thumb to "never play f3/f6", the above list of reasons not to play it seems like a good explanation as to why someone gave you that advice; most of the points I listed above are not easy for a beginner to fully appreciate, so it's simpler to just remember "don't play f3/f6" when you're still new to the game. After all, before you can break the rules, you have to understand them first.

Therefore, as you're now no longer a beginner (as indicated by your rating), I would propose this new and improved heuristic for the f3/f6 move:

Never play f3/f6 if the good reasons for playing it do not outweigh the negative side-effects of playing it.

As you can see, this advice would be pointless to give to a beginner, but for a player who is starting to learn things beyond the bare basics of positional chess it is much more suitable - after all, as you get stronger you will notice that every decision you make is a tradeoff between pros and cons of that decision. Even the obvious moves are decisions which are made easy by the fact that it's very clear what part of the pro/con list outweighs the other, but more difficult positional decisions may sometimes seem like a coin toss. In general, your chess ability is directly tied to how well you manage to accurately make up the list of pros and cons for given moves, and in the more difficult cases you will not be able to use the crutches that are commonly given to novice players to evaluate a decision with accuracy.


Alternative versions Are alternative chess rules/styles considered favourably by the main chess community? To be more specific I mean games like 3D chess (as seen in Star Trek) or landscape chess, as explained here:
http://intrepidis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/landscape-chess.html

Are there tournaments for chess variants?

The only variants I can think of that experienced chess players seem to have any interest in are Chess960 (aka Fischerandom) and Bughouse. Even Seirawan chess, which has the imprimatur of a grandmaster, has not really attracted any real interest.

Other variants are not looked on unfavorably but they are basically ignored.


Do people still play chess at Washington Square Park? Back in the past I know that it used to a pretty popular chess location. Fischer played there when he was young. I think Magnus went their once (a few years ago). I have seen videos with Maurice Ashley and some other famous chess players playing their as well.

I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are still a considerable amount of people that play there in 2016. If I went there could I find a game or would I be waiting for a while?

Less and less people are playing at Washington Square. Most people are moving to the Union Square (for business and money).

Check this article: http://thevillager.com/2013/08/08/chess-moves-most-players-are-now-at-union-square/

And also have a look at this great video. A favorite of mine where GM Maurice Ashley beats a trash talking Washington Square player http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/washington-square-park-chess-hustler-beaten-grandmaster-article-1.2534837


Is there any software that will analyse games offline? Usually I use Lichess to analyse games, but sometimes I am offline. Is there any software with the capability of providing offline computer analysis, giving the rate of inaccuracies/mistakes/blunders and the average centipawn loss for a given game?

There are a number of options:

Paid:

Hiarcs Chess Explorer
ChessBase
ChessOK Aquarium
Fritz
Shredder

Free:

Lucas Chess
SCID
Arena

For all of the above, you should download the latest Stockfish and install it as an engine and use it for analysis, as it will likely be stronger than anything which comes by default.

I use HIARCS Chess Explorer, mainly due to the nice interface. I've heard Fritz can provide natural language analysis which could be useful for those new to chess engines.


How much time on my clock do I have to lose before it is legal to stop notating? When I play in tournaments, I do not know when it is legal to stop chess notation. Also, if my opponent stops notating, is it okay for me to stop notating as well?

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

  Article 8: The recording of the moves

  8.4 If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then for the remainder of the period he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1.

Article 8.1 is the one that states that players need to keep record of the moves and what the players must and must not write to the scoresheet.

So:

  When I play in tournaments, I do not know when it is legal to stop chess notation.

You may stop notating when your clock shows less than five minutes and you get no increment or increment of less than 30 seconds. You have to start again at the start of the next period, that is, when more time is added to your clock (not the increment but for example at move 40).

  Also, if my opponent stops notating, is it okay for me to stop notating as well?

It makes no difference whether your opponent has to write the moves or not.


Why is coffee provided during big chess events when it contains a banned substance? Why is coffee provided for free during big chess events like the Olympiad despite the fact that it contains caffeine, which is a banned substance according to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA)?

According to FIDE's Anti-Doping Policy:

  The 2018 WADA Prohibited List and Monitoring Program can be found at:
  http://list.wada-ama.org/
  The most relevant banned substances for chess are:

  • Amphetamines – e.g. Adderall, Ritalin
  • Ephedrine and Methylephedrine – Prohibited by WADA when its
  concentration in urine is greater than 10 micrograms per milliliter
  • Pseudoephedrine is prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than
  150 micrograms per milliliter
  • Modafinil

  Substances not present on the Prohibited List but represented in the Monitoring
  Program:

  • Caffeine – Included in WADA Monitoring Program and relevant for incompetition testing only. Any urine test reading of less than 12 micrograms per milliliter poses no problem.
  • Codeine – A common ingredient in, for example, preparations used to treat coughs and stomach upsets. Any dosage is highly unlikely to be significant when taken in normal therapeutic quantities.

Note that caffeine is not currently banned. It was banned during the period 1984 - 2004 but was lifted. I'm guessing that sponsorship via advertising from Coca Cola may have been an important factor.


Are there studies showing that descriptive notation is easier to use for blindfold than algebraic notation? What studies have compared effectiveness for thinking by chess players using descriptive vs algebraic notation?

If there are studies, they'd show descriptive to be the lesser of the two because in descriptive, all the squares have two names; in algebraic, just one. So if you're having to keep a game in your head, it's easier to do so with 64 identifiers to remember than 128, right?
If you practice playing blindfolded, you'll find that your only use for notation is transmitting the moves back and forth.


Where are the opening trends heading at the start of the decade? Nearly every era has its opening trends like at the beginning of the millennia the Berlin started to become the trend and so much that e4 was starting to be avoided. With the 2018 world chess championship and Carlsen scoring, numerous wins with it the Sveshnikov is getting into fashion again. Even in the old days of Capablanca and Alekhine practically only Queens Gambit declines and Ruy Lopezes were seen. My question is basically where are the opening trends going as we go into the new decade?

With e4, a few that come to mind are the Rossolimo Sicilian, often to avoid Magnus' Sveshnikov, and the Najdorf never goes away. The Italian game, and the Ruy Lopez is another that never goes away (Magnus has 180 games as white alone with it).

With d4, the Catalan is still popular along with the various Queen's Gambit lines.

Obviously, very few things every go totally out of style unless they are totally busted, but to come up with the list, I used ChessBase to do "dossiers" on Carlsen, Caruana, Ding, and So; and then I looked at what they played the most, and ignore openings with lesser quantities of games. They seem to mostly play very traditional openings that take direct control of the center.

EDIT: First, I think that the Berlin was on a level all by itself due to Kramnik's successes, and because every top player plays 1...e5 a lot, and because the Ruy Lopez is so difficult to defend. I just finished watching "The Method in Chess" Videos literally just yesterday, and in one of the last two, GM Dorfman made a comment about how the Ruy is just "statically worse", and that black is mostly confined to the last three ranks, and white can choose to play on the kingside, center, or queenside, meaning that black always has to be that much more vigilant about white's intentions in any of the three areas. The Berlin solved that at the cost of a slightly inferior endgame, and thus, it solved it for A LOT of elite players. Therefore, it also got played a lot more often than most other opening trends.

I looked through my New in Chess Yearbooks, which are basically surveys of opening theory, and it mostly confirmed what I wrote above. Here is a list of players, who have played each of the following openings.

What I did to get this information was plug in the position I knew was popular from reading about chess over the last few years, and the Yearbooks, and then clicked on the Reference Database (Mega 2020) in ChessBase, and then sorted by ELO rating, and paged down to see what elite players played it. If they played it just once or twice, I did not include them. Nakamura was on the edge for a few of them, but I noted that.

Rossolimo with white: Carlsen, MLV, Aronian, Nakamura, Anand, Caruana, and Giri. I sorted the following search to bring up Carlsen's games as black to show how they are trying to avoid his Sveshnikov (far right in the picture), but he also has played it against Radjabov, Gelfand, and Dubov, among others.

Sveshnikov as black: Carlsen, Caruana, Grischuk, and Radjabov.

Najdorf as black: Carlsen, MLV, Ding, Grischuk, Anand, Giri, Grischuk, and again, Nakamura dabbles.

The Italian Game with white: Carlsen (19 games), Caruana, Ding, So, MLV, Giri, Anand, Karjakin, Nepo, Aronian, and even Nakamura has played it a few times.

The Ruy Lopez with white, and all have played it A LOT...more than any other opening I could find: Carlsen, Caruana, So, MLV, Anand, Topalov (even as recently as 2015), Anand, Giri, and Nakamura some.

As you can see, while the top players may avoid one of the above, they are all very popular overall.


Website that decode chess moves? I am a complete beginner and have started learning chess one month ago. I play online on lichess.com. I lose a lot of games which is understandable too.

Many people advised me that I should analyze my own games. I have came across number of online websites(also lichess inbuilt analyzer) that tells me what is the best move.

But I want to know why that specific move is the best move, what are advantages of playing "X" move in comparison with "Y" move etc.

In short is there a website/engine that decodes the chess moves from me?

I was thinking if you were the author of https://decodechess.com, and posted here for self-promotion. "decode" isn't a common terminology here. What you're asking match exactly to the name of the site.

Ok. Please take a look at the site.
I personally don't use it as I found the analysis too simple/too naive. Maybe you'd think otherwise.


What chess endgame rules have few or no exceptions? I don't mean rules like "rooks behind passed pawns" that work a lot but also have a huge number of exceptions. Rather, I mean endgame rules that either have no exceptions, or else a sufficiently small number of exceptions that it's easy to memorise those exceptions.

For example, the rule that "in K+N vs K+P the knight can draw so long as it reaches the square in front of the pawn and can’t be immediately captured by the enemy king" has exactly one exception. The exception relates to the situation in which the pawn is on the seventh rank.

Here White is winning despite Black's knight being immediately in front of the pawn.

[FEN "n7/P7/2K5/8/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 1"]

Are there other useful rules with a similarly small number of exceptions?

Here are a few off the top of my head -

In K + B + P vs K endgames, the position is a draw if the pawn is a rook pawn and the queening square is on the opposite color of the bishop.

[FEN "7k/8/7P/8/4B1K1/8/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Kg5 Kg8 2. h7+ Kh8 3. Kh5 Kg7 4. Kg5 Kh8

In K + P vs K + Q endgames, when the pawn is on the seventh rank and the king can cover the queening square the game is either a draw or a loss depending on what column the pawn is on. The game is a draw if the pawn is on the a, c, f, or h files and a loss on the b, d, e, g files. There are certain exceptions to this case - the opposing king can be close enough to the queening square or he can advance using discovered checks.

These positions are draws as white can use stalemate tricks:

a file

[FEN "1K6/P7/8/8/8/8/2q5/7k w KQkq - 0 1"]

c file

[FEN "3K4/2P5/8/8/8/8/2q5/7k w KQkq - 0 1"]

f file

[FEN "6K1/5P2/8/8/8/8/2q5/7k w KQkq - 0 1"]

h file

[FEN "6K1/7P/8/8/8/8/2q5/7k w KQkq - 0 1"]


How to get out-of-print chess books? Seems that many chess books are out of print. For example I have been trying to get a copy of Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4 Volume 2 (Amazon) but many sites (Barnes & Noble, Quality Chess, ChessHouse, etc.) list the book as Out of Print, Sold out, etc. Most individual sellers (e.g. on Amazon or Ebay) sell the book for ridiculous amounts (100 dollars or so). What is the best way to get out-of-print chess books like this?

abe books

used bookstores
but you have to contact them as most have no online web site to order or check inventory


How is endgame theory developed? First of all, I am explicitly not asking for a list of endgame principles, nor am I asking for resources to study endgames from.

My question is: How does one develop endgame theory? The main motivation of my question is that I have been trying to study endgame theory for a chess variant (atomic chess, as it were) and there is precious little of it. I am quite literally writing new theory the deeper I study.

I'm looking for answers that could address either or both of the following points, in regular chess or in chess variants:

How endgames (regular chess or any chess variant) were analysed, organised and codified over the decades until we have our present-day knowledge;
How to study endgames, but without access to any books or professional games (just a chess set, a brain, an engine, tablebases, and lots of patience.)

How do you want to do it?

I know that sounds flippant, but that's pretty much the only good answer to questions along the lines of "How do I create something that no one has created?"

Chess endgame theory developed by people starting from very simple positions and identifying commonalities among them. Typically, endgames get classified by the pieces involved (Rook endings, minor piece endings, etc.) so I'd start with elemental positions that are clearly won/lost, see what leads to them, try and see common maneuvers to create them, etc.

From simple positions you create the building blocks for understanding more complex positions.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

An example is pawn endings. We started with simple concepts like the queening square, moved on to techniques like opposition, and kept building until we ended up with a theory of co-ordinate squares, which covered all pawn endings. Opposition, Triangulation, all of that stuff boiled down to being special cases, subsets within that theory. But it all started with atoms, from which we built molecules, and so on until we eventually arrived at an impressive, comprehensive, edifice.

There's no single uniform best way to approach something that's never been done. You try something, if it seems helpful you keep using it; if not, try another way.

By definition, there is no mapped out course to get you safely through uncharted waters.


Is the chess problem a dead form? Or, to ask the question a bit less opinionatedly, "what new ideas have been introduced in chess problems over the last 20 years?"  I imagine many problems have been composed in that time, but it seems like all of the stipulations (model mates, selfmates, etc.), all of the structural elements (pinnings and unpinnings, interference, and so on) and all of the tasks (Phoenix tasks, etc) have been long since sussed out.  The only relatively recent development that I'm aware of are various 'Babson cycles' that have been composed by Peter Hoffmann (see Wikipedia's page on the Babson task for details).  Are there any other relatively recent developments of note in chess problems?

An unsorted list of arguments for the vitality of chess problems (probably my answer is a little bit biased because I am an enthusiastic chess composer ...)

Computers: A lot of new ideas have been developed during the last decades. One reason for it is the rise of computer programs which help to check the correctness of a chess problem. This simplified the chess composition dramatically, especially selfmates and helpmates with very complex and long solutions are now possible...
Helpmates: by the way help mates. This is an area I know a little bit and during the last 20 years there was phantastic progress. Here some non representative samples
http://kobulchess.com/en/problems/originals2013/321-chess-problem-helpmate-viktoras-paliulionis.html
or http://www.yacpdb.org/#320933
or http://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp. Study the solutions and look for other problems of these authors (and other like Caillaud, Mazlar ...) to find other good help mates ... also there are still  many open themes which are not realised. such as the '100$ theme' , the 'Oudot theme' or a helpmate with more than 27 moves...
Specialisation:  Chess compositions branch in many different ways. Some "theoretical" knowledge on certain themes is restricted only to a very small group of composers. So for example if you ask for the development of some themes for three movers (mate in three) the current state of the art is probably known only to a very small group of composers (probably less than 100 people world wide). I am definitely sure they know exactly how their field developed during the last years. And definitely they will argue for a good progress in their field of work. But from "outside" the progress seems very modest (of course I don't want to blame the three mover community but this is an area I know almost nothing  :-)... There is a similar situation in mathematics or other scientific areas where the current state of development is often only understood by a small group of experts...
Fairy chess: If you think of chess problems in the broader sense of generalized chess the we come to fairy chess. This is the genre where the chess rules and the stipulations are extended far beyond the orthodox setup. For example new varieties of chess (varieties of circe chess, ghost chess ,... et.al.) and many many different pieces have been developed during the last decades and all of them help to represent new ideas in chess problems (or can you think of triple check or ...). For much more on fairy chess look at juliasfairies.com
selfmate, retro problems ...: There are a lot of other areas where chess problems develop. For example look at  the (german) retro blog http://www.thbrand.de/retroblog/ where you can learn a lot about retro chess (if you are aware of german)...

I hope all this helps to believe in the vital functions. For much more infos check the websites I mentioned above


Is there a name for this common online trap in the Modern Defence? In online blitz and bullet, I often encounter Black trying to get an edge on the clock by premoving 1 .. g6 and 2 .. Bg7. A devious way to deal with this as White is to play 2. Bh6??, winning at least a rook if Black commits to their premoves.
[FEN ""]
[StartPly "3"]

1. d4 g6 2. Bh6 Bg7 3. Bxg7

Does this trick/trap/strategy of White have a common name?

In online chess, this is commonly referred to as the 'Lefong' inspired by FM Lefong Hua of Canada.  Here is a clip with Magnus referencing it.


Can playing too much chess affect your performance? I've noticed a pattern with myself and I'd like to know if someone else can relate. I have a score which fluctuates between 1200-1300 on chess.com and I've noticed that after a great day of defeating opponents (some even higher rated than me by as much as 200) I tend to play inaccurately for the next couple or days or so. It's like some days I'm really playing good and even giving the computer a hard time and other days I just mess everything from openings to mid-games. Is this common? I play a lot of online chess regularly and have noticed this fluctuation from time to time.

At least for some players, yes, although how many games, the type of games, and in what period of time, causes burn out, I would assume varies from player to player. I've been reading "Bent Larsen's Best Games," and he mentions how he was drained after playing several consecutive events, but after a month's vacation, came back refreshed.


Midgame Ideas in the Caro-Kann Most of the writing I've found on the Caro-Kann online simply makes vague assertions about how "Black's endgame is better" or how White should try [some dubious move or other] to get a good attack in club play.

Is that all there is to this opening? I've been trying it out, and I find myself unsure of how to proceed in the midgame, on either side of the table. As Black, should I really just try to trade down to an endgame immediately? As White, have I no alternative but to try something speculative to keep Black from getting to his desired ending position?

I see the Advance Variation (2.d4 d5 3.e5) most often, so let's restrict the conversation to positions arising from that line.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/2p5/3pP3/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

Most of the writing I've found on the Caro-Kann online simply makes
  vague assertions about how "Black's endgame is better" or how White
  should try [some dubious move or other] to get a good attack in club
  play.

That is not entirely true. This is the case when White overextends himself without any compensation which occurs only if he misplayed the position. In normal case both sides have good chances in an endgame.

  Is that all there is to this opening?

Definitely not!

  I've been trying it out, and I
  find myself unsure of how to proceed in the midgame, on either side of
  the table.

Caro-Kann has lots of typical middlegame positions that require creative thinking and good positional play from both sides in order to reach decent endgame.

Not knowing them "makes your life unbearable" and you will most of the time find your opponent crushing you seemingly effortlessly. Therefore you must learn typical middlegame plans for both sides. Only then, you can start thinking about endgame. And for the record, the endgame holds chances for both sides. Yes, White often overextends with pawns but gets active pieces, especially king, in return which compensates and sometimes matters more than a healthy pawn structure.

If you need help with these post a new question and notify me via comment. I will try to help.

  As Black, should I really just try to trade down to an
  endgame immediately?

No! Just trading down will not help. Who can guarantee that your opponent will accept the trade?

Against such policy I deploy a neat trick:

As soon as I notice that my opponent starts to offer exchanges too often I lure him into a won endgame for me. In a nutshell, the point is to accept the exchanges that are favorable for you as much as you can so he thinks that this will turn into an easy draw. Once he offers bad piece for your good one you just decline the exchange and now you are left with a better piece against worse one which results in an easy win.

This is a standard approach strong players use. Chess would be a poor game if equality could be reached by simply exchanging.

As Black, your main goals are to exchange 2 minor pieces and neutralize opponent's space advantage by performing c5 or e5 break. Those are the exchanges you seek in order to cripple White's attacking potential. Prefer to exchange bishops for bishops and try to leave the knights on. After that you need to evaluate when is suitable for you to enter endgame and when you can stay in the middlegame and start attacking opponent's weaknesses.

  As White, have I no alternative but to try
  something speculative to keep Black from getting to his desired ending
  position?

As White, you can steer the game to a better endgame for you as most strong players do.

It is highly unlikely that your attack will end with a mate against skillful defense but if you maintain pressure you can transpose into endgame where your pieces are more active which should give you a small but lasting advantage. Also, in most lines White has 3 vs 2 queenside pawn majority which ensures better pawn endgame for him. Active pieces coupled with this pawn majority usually win the game as Black needs high technique and precise play in order to hold this type of endgame. The benefit of this approach is that White can not lose the game, but Black usually draws with correct play.

  I see the Advance Variation (2.d4 d5 3.e5) most often, so let's
  restrict the conversation to positions arising from that line.

This variation sums up my previous statements very well.

First off, middlegames can be ultra sharp if White chooses Nunn-Shirov attack and "the last man standing" will have a won endgame most of the time. In this line tactical awareness and combinational skill are important. This is the line your resources referred to. If Black defends successfully the endgame is usually won for him. However, White can create such a strong pressure and choose to enter a better endgame.

Endgames where activity count the most involve rook and knight endgames. Especially in knight endgames space advantage is important.

Second, it can also become positional encounter if White chooses Short line and simply try to maneuver "around Bf5" in which case a complex struggle awaits both of you. Creativity and positional skill is important in that line. Both sides need to be carefull when entering endgame.

Since this topic is to broad to be covered here, I will provide brief explanations and recommend resources for studying at the very end of my post.

NUN-SHIROV ATTACK

White has 2 plans here:

Playing Nf4 at some point, planning a sacrifice on d5. The usual setup is O-O-O + Qe2 + Bg2.
White plays Nd4 preparing f4 and f5. This one is considered more dangerous than the above plan.

Both lines lead to very sharp struggle and one mistake on any side can lose the game.

SHORT LINE

One of the most dangerous tries for White. He simply plays naturally, organizing his pieces to exploit c5 break. If Black plays too slow he will be suffocated, yet if he opens the game White will have an advantage since he is better positioned and better developed. Still, Black players were able to find a way to reach full equality by preparing f6 instead of c5.

CONCLUSION:

Caro-Kann defense is a passive opening for Black that requires patient play in order to equalize. Black reaches full equality over time. White needs to do something with his greater space and aggressive pieces if wishes to win. He can opt for ultra sharp lines or play positionally, aiming for favorable endgame or simply smothering Black.

This is a vast topic to cover here but these books helped me when I needed to learn to play the Black side:

Joe Gallagher-Starting Out the Caro-Kann

Peter Wells-Grandmaster Secrets the Caro-Kann

Cyrus Lakdawala-The Caro-Kann move by move

Lars Schandorff-Grandmaster Repertoire 7 Caro-Kann

Start with Gallagher's book and then try one written by Lakdawala. Once you get some experience playing this opening with both colors you can read the rest.

Hopefully this helps. Leave a comment if you have a question or need further help.

Best regards and good luck.


Queen & Rook Middlegames Are there any general principles to playing middlegames with all of the minor pieces exchanged?

I often find myself in middlegames with two rooks and a queen on either side, with no clear idea of how to proceed. Are there any guidelines for how to proceed in such games? In general, I find that the initiative is much more important than being up a pawn or two.

A good example of such a position that I have reached is the following game (white to play):

King safety is a big issue for white in your position.  White would be much better if the f3 pawn were at g2 instead.

I would probably play kg2 and if the black queen checks along the g-file try to hide the king on e2 via f1.

As for general principles, I would say king safety is the first priority.  Then probably obtaining advanced supported passed pawns and active pieces are next most important quality.  Material balance is always important, but the key to winning these endgames usually comes down to queening a pawn and the more advanced one is the more dangerous one.


How to master 1.e4 repertoire from scratch I was a hardcore 1.c4 player. But, for quite some time, the popularity of Nakhmanson Gambit, Jerome Gambit etc. has encouraged me to experiment with 1.e4.
I have read 1.e4 with backup plan before. Now I am preparing myself to master the entire 1.e4 repository [ECO B00 - C99] for white, as well as for black. Since I am completely beginner in this line, I have the following questions:
How can I understand, which opening seeks more attention than others? Should I follow the database to find the most popular reply or it's better to stick with the ECO code serially? How can I link the connection between two openings? (eg., Scotch Gambit and Urusov Gambit)

The special feature of a 1.e4 repertoire is that transpositions are rare. You can have independent repertoires against each of black's replies. This is very different from 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 where moves can often be played in many different orders and you always have to watch out for transpositions between your various lines.
Then these are the "big four":
1...e5 -- The Open Game
1...c5 -- The Sicilian
1...e6 -- The French
1...c6 -- The Caro-Kann
Most of your time should go to those, especially the first three (the CK is also very good but not as popular at amateur level).
Then there is the rest, like
1...d5 -- the Scandinavian
1...d6 and 1...g6 -- the Pirc and Modern (there are transpositions between those)
1...Nf6 -- the Alekhine
And other lines that you can skip for now.
The reason for this is that 1.e4 puts an undefended pawn in the center, and the intended follow-up 2.d4 is hard to prevent as it will be defended by the queen. This is different from 1.d4 where 2.e4 is easy to prevent. That means all replies must immediately have some specific way to deal with that, and the different ways of doing that immediately prevent transpositions.
1...e5 -- black just does the same. 1...c5 -- black will exchange his c-pawn for the d-pawn if it arrives on d4. 1...e6 and 1...c6 -- black will also put a pawn on d5. 1...d5 black immediately puts a pawn on d5 but can't recapture with a pawn. 1...Nf6 -- black attacks the undefended e4 pawn. 1...d6 and 1...g6 -- black lets white play 2.d4 and intends to attack the center later.
Hope this helps.


What kind of semi-open file is better for your rook? What kind of semi-open file is better for your rook?

One where your pawn is on it, or one where the opponents pawn is on?

Generally when you read/hear something like "to put the rook on a semi-open file" it means a file where the opponent's pawn is on. The reasoning behind this is just piece activity, i.e. to maximize the available squares for the rook and also to attack something (the opponent's pawn on that file).

The only time where it makes sense (on general principles) to put a rook on a semi-open file where your own pawn is on, is if you want to support a passed pawn, typically with the rook from behind the pawn. However this situation would not be referred to as "putting the rook on a semi-open file".

PS: Of course there are situations (like the latter example above), where it could make sense to put the rook on a semi open file where your own pawn is located. However I understood your question as asking about the general principle that rooks are supposed to be good on semi-open files. In that  case it would always be the semi-open file with your opponent's pawn.


Did Kasparov refute over the board Karpov's 1987 novelty? In the second game of the 1987 World Championship, Kasparov played an English opening. In the ninth move Karpov played a novelty that he had prepared for his 1981 match with Korchnoi (the usual play is 9. ... exf3). It is claimed that Kasparov's next two moves, 10. d3 and 11. Qb3 completely refute Karpov's surprise move, but in the end Kasparov lost this game (it is the famous one in which he forgot to hit the clock after playing his 26th move).

Then in the fourth game, Kasparov plays an English again and reaches the same position up to move 8! Clearly it was a provocation, but whether he could refute 9. ... e3 or not was not demonstrated, because Karpov avoided it and played the usual 9. ... exf3, only to get trounced (incidentally, this was the 100th championship game between the two).

  What is the novelty about, and how do Kasparov moves refute it?

For reference, here are the two games:

[Event "World Championship Game 2"]
[Site "Seville, Spain"]
[Date "1987.10.14"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Kasparov"]
[Black "Karpov"]
[ECO "A29"]
[FEN ""]

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ng5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Re8 9. f3 e3 10. d3 d5 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Qa3 c6 13. cxd5 cxd5 14. f4 Nc6 15. Rb1 Qc7 16. Bb2 Bg4 17. c4 dxc4 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19. Ne4 Kg7 20. dxc4 Rad8 21. Rb3 Nd4 22. Rxe3 Qxc4 23. Kh1 Nf5 24. Rd3 Bxe2 25. Rxd8 Rxd8 26. Re1 Re8 27. Qa5 b5 28. Nd2 Qd3 29. Nb3 Bf3 30. Bxf3 Qxf3 31. Kg1 Rxe1 32. Qxe1 Ne3 0-1

[Event "World Championship Game 4"]
[Site "Seville, Spain"]
[Date "1987.10.19"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Kasparov"]
[Black "Karpov"]
[ECO "A29"]
[FEN ""]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ng5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Re8 9. f3 exf3 10. Nxf3 Qe7 11. e3 Ne5 12. Nd4 Nd3 13. Qe2 Nxc1 14. Raxc1 d6 15. Rf4 c6 16. Rcf1 Qe5 17. Qd3 Bd7 18. Nf5 Bxf5 19. Rxf5 Qe6 20. Qd4 Re7 21. Qh4 Nd7 22. Bh3 Nf8 23. R5f3 Qe5 24. d4 Qe4 25. Qxe4 Rxe4 26. Rxf7 Rxe3 27. d5 Rae8 28. Rxb7 cxd5 29. cxd5 R3e7 30. Rfb1 h5 31. a4 g5 32. Bf5 Kg7 33. a5 Kf6 34. Bd3 Rxb7 35. Rxb7 Re3 36. Bb5 Rxc3 37. Rxa7 Ng6 38. Rd7 Ne5 39. Rxd6 Kf5 40. a6 Ra3 41. Rd8 Ra2 42. Rf8 Ke4 43. d6 Nf3 44. Rxf3 Kxf3 45. Bc6 1-0

I recall these games from his Modern Chess series. Logically, if Kasparov was willing to return to the same position, Karpov believed that it was likely that Kasparov had found a line that resulted in a favorable position for White. Indeed, the moves 10. d3 and 11. Qb3 give White some advantage and Kasparov had a rather pleasant position throughout. Karpov probably didn't want to revisit this line as he knew he got lucky in the first game.


Trying to locate an old problem A friend of mine showed me a great white-to-mate-in-three puzzle back in the late '50s or early '60s. Unfortunately he doesn't recall it. I can remember a few things: It was composed by someone from West Virginia. White had two knights at opposite corners of a 3x3 block. White's first move was not a check. Can anyone help me find it?

This is hit or miss.

No one can really know what puzzle your thinking about, so please don't down vote wrong attempts.  People shouldn't be penalized for trying to help.  It's only through trial and error we're going to help you find your puzzle.

Is this your puzzle:
HERE?


How to work out advantage? I was wondering if there is any internet resource that would tell me who has the advantage in a game of chess if I input the moves? I want to follow my son online in his chess matches but it doesn't mean anything to me and it would be nice to be able to tell how he's doing....

You're looking for a chess engine. A engine can give you the evaluation of the position - a value that relays whether white or black has the advantage. A positive evaluation means white is better - with a greater number indicating a larger advantage - and vice versa.

As for the online resource, there are many options available to you. I would recommend downloading a free graphical user interface client such as XBoard to be used in conjunction with a strong engine, such as Houdini (the free version).

To input the position of your son's game, you can either copy and paste the FEN of the position or the current PGN of the game. The former contains information regarding the position and the latter has the notation of all the moves up to the current position. From there, running the engine will return the evaluation.

There are many tutorials online on how to set up the chess software - here is one example specific to XBoard and Houdini.


Reference request: Books/Video series on prophylaxis I would like to imitate the prophylactic playing style of Aron Nimzowitsch, Tigran Petrosian and/or Anatoly Karpov. May I know if there are any books/video series that you would recommend?

There are YouTube videos covering these specific areas but I'm not convinced I could recommend them. Nevertheless, here are 3 for you to try and make your own mind up. They are at least free.
Mastering the Middlegame with Atul Dahale : Aaron Nimzowitsch : Prophylaxis! (link at about 15 minutes in because before that it is mostly irrelevant drivel)
Tigran Petrosian - World Chess Champion - Master of Prophylaxis - Kingscrusher Radio Show (not one of Kingcrusher's best IMHO)
Karpov's Prophylaxis with Karpov's Prophylaxis with IM Valeri Lilov (IM Valeri Lilov, who he?)
There are far better books if you are prepared to accept some fine games collections of these players.
Nimzowitsch:
Everybody is familiar with "My System" but "My Praxis" is probably better for stronger players. It is a collection of annotated games by Nimzowitsch with the intention of demonstrating "My System" in practice, kind of like the name suggests.
Petrosian:
Old school, perhaps, but I like PH Clarke's "Petrosian's Best Games of Chess 1946-63"
More modern (and with much deeper annotation) is Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors Part 3 Petrosian Spassky" roughly half of which is devoted to Petrosian and which includes a specific chapter on Petrosian's prophylaxis - "Miracles of Prophylaxis"
For Karpov there is more choice:
For a simple game collection there is PR Markland's "The Best of Karpov" but for in-depth quality annotations you can't beat the three books Kasparov wrote of the annotated games he played against Karpov:
Kasparov vs Karpov 1975 - 1985
Kasparov vs Karpov 1986 - 1987
Kasparov vs Karpov 1988 - 2009


Who were the first GMs, and how did they become GMs? In order to qualify for the title of Grandmaster, a player must achieve three Grandmaster norms. This is not the place to go into detail about what those are; the pertinent point is that norms can only be gained in tournaments that fulfill certain criteria, including the requirement that the entry must include at least three Grandmasters.

Therefore, it seems to me that it's impossible to become a Grandmaster if there weren't already at least three Grandmasters in existence. How did the first Grandmasters earn the title, and who were they?

In order to qualify for the title of Grandmaster, a player must
  achieve three Grandmaster norms.

That is not accurate. The regulations for the award of FIDE titles are given here.

There are two ways to become a grandmaster. Achieving norms and reaching a certain rating is one way but there are also Direct Titles. The FIDE handbook defines these like this:

  Direct title (automatic title) is a title gained by achieving a certain place or result in a tournament. For example, winning, or
  achieving a result ≥50 percent in a tournament. On application by the
  player’s federation and confirmation by the Qualification Commission,
  such titles are awarded automatically by FIDE.

The tournaments and achievements which qualify the player for the various titles are given in the Table for Direct Titles effective from 1 July 2017.

For the grandmaster title the following results give the player the right to the GM title:

Last 16 of the World Cup
Winner of the Women's World Championship
Outright winner of any of World S65, S50, U20 championships
Outright winner of Continental Individual Championship

But in any case these regulations are made by FIDE and they change with time.

  Who were the first GMs, and how did they become GMs?

The original FIDE grandmasters were awarded the title via a resolution of the FIDE general assembly in 1950. These players were:

The top players of the day: world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, and those who had qualified for (or been seeded into) the inaugural Candidates Tournament in 1950: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky, David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, and László Szabó.
Players still living who, though past their best in 1950, were recognised as having been world class when at their peak: Ossip Bernstein, Oldřich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Boris Kostić, Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin, Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan Vidmar.

In 1951 Efim Bogoljubov was added to the list via another vote.

In 1953 something similar to the modern rules was introduced with the world champion and players who qualified for the candidates having the right to the title (if they weren't already) being joined by a variation of the current norm based qualification.

These rules received major revisions in 1957, 1965 and 1970 and may have been tweaked on further occasions.


Is there a chess software that allows to generate and store engine evaluation graph for a chess game? A software like Fritz or Arena typically shows a graph for a game that is currently being analyzed/played. Fritz 5.32 also generates those graphs as it does automated analysis of several games in DB. But I want to keep those graphs available after I close a window, so that each game has a graph associated with it that I can easily retrieve. These are now getting available for live broadcasts like this one http://superfinal2012.live.whychess.com/, but I now want to do the same with my own games...

It turns out that SCID does this -
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/gui-to-make-analysis-graph


Why did Valery Salov quit competitive chess? Why did Valery Salov stop playing in chess tournaments in the last 15 years?

According to this article, it was because he was a pain in the ass and offended too many of chess' elite players. In fact, he seems unstable, not merely eccentric.

And more here. Looks like he decided he wasn't going to get along with people.


What would you do in this situation? After black moved his rook, what would you do as white? I did not find the best move according to the chess engine; I'm wondering what ideas you have.

[FEN "1r2k2r/p1Q5/3p1qn1/4npp1/7p/1B6/PP1B1PPP/R3R1K1 b K - 0 1"]

1... Rbd8

Black's queen is the only defender for the mate on f7 (the knight on e5 is pinned). This makes Bxg5 a very attractive move, as the black queen has nowhere to go (the only safe spot, Qf8, is met with Qxd8 and mate).

[FEN "3rk2r/p1Q5/3p1qn1/4npp1/7p/1B6/PP1B1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxg5!

Black can chase the white queen for a couple of moves but his position will collapse very soon.


Chess Tournaments Without Studying Theory? I have played chess since a very young age and my tactics are very developed in my opinion. However, I never bothered to read chess related books about opening or related theory. This often leads to interesting games as I don't follow well known openings which throws off my opponents. Would it be a good idea for me to enter a tournament with an entry fee in the hopes of winning prize money? Or would I get completely crushed by my opponents? I am roughly a 1900 ELO rated player - checked online.

There is nothing wrong in entering a tournament if you have the time and if you can afford the entry fee.

However, I think you should really consider your first tournament as a discovery experience and enjoy the pleasure of chess and the atmosphere of the tournament rather than worry at once about winning prize money.

Whether you can win something depends a lot on the specifics of the tournament, the field, and of course your own level. I wouldn't put too much faith in online estimates of your strength: real-life chess is quite different. Playing your first tournament will actually give you a much better evaluation of where you stand vis-à-vis competition chess, and the experience will probably make you pretty stronger for your second one!

In a typical Swiss-system open tournament, you won't get crushed in all your games: whether your 1900-elo online estimation translates to real-chess 1900, or 1700, or 1500, there are many players of every level entering such events, and there will almost certainly be some opponents that you can beat. Probably you will get crushed in a few games, but not throughout the tournament, and you will have your revenge in others.

Some tournaments have prize money for unrated players. This may be a nice plus at the end, or a goal to aim for if your are well-placed before the last couple of games. But don't worry about it at the starting line, concentrate on your chessboard!

Finally, studying chess, reading books or training is up to you. It certainly doesn't hurt to play over some grandmaster's games collection, for instance. In any case, don't overestimate the importance of opening theory: it does help, but you wouldn't be the first tournament player to reach decent results without delving into it.

Welcome in the world of competitive chess and have a nice tournament!


Why can I not make an en passant capture? Here is part of a Lichess game where I tried make to make an en passant capture-but it's impossible. The question is this-Why? I am new to chess. I searched for the chess of rules on Wikipedia, but there was nothing specific about this case.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 a6 2.d4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Be3 Na5 7.O-O h6 8.Re1 Bf6 9.Qe2
b5 10.Rad1 b4 11.Nd5 Nc6 12.e5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Bb7 14.e6 f5 *

From Wikipedia (is this what you read?)

  When a pawn advances two squares from its starting position and there is an opponent's pawn on an adjacent file next to its destination square, then the opponent's pawn can capture it en passant (in passing), and move to the square the pawn passed over. However, this can only be done on the very next move, otherwise the right to do so is forfeit. For example, if the black pawn has just advanced two squares from g7 (initial starting position) to g5, then the white pawn on f5 may take it via en passant on g6 (but only on white's next move).

The opponent moved 14...f7-f5. There is no White pawn on e5 or g5.


Software for blind chess? I recently found a neat feature of Apple's Chess program that allows the player to speak moves, and the computer to speak back moves which makes blind chess very simple and comfortable.

There are a few quirks with the program though. I sometimes stutter when I speak and the Chess program too often interprets what I say as "Undo" with no auditory indication that it undoed. This leads to desyncs between the game the computer's playing and the game in my head.

Is there a program with similar speech-to-move functionality except more refined? I'm okay with the limited commands I can give but I can't deal with my games taking back moves with no indication I can observe. Note: Speaking my moves is very important because I'd like to lie down and relax without keeping my hands on the keyboard to type in moves.

Based on your title your question is not clear with regard to voice command for the blind. But Braille chess has been available for years. There are a number of groups specifically for this. The Braille Chess Association of Ireland

I am sure there are many US based as well.

The chess.com web site has a good article about the history of Blind Chess...
history of blind chess playing

I am sure there is further info on their site about software.


Which openings are playable at (pre-)FM level - IM level? Which defenses against 1. e4 and 1. d4 should a 2250-2300 FIDE player use to become an International Master, if he is:

Aggressive-minded
Tactically proficient
Keen on dynamics
Original/imaginative/offbeat but still positionally prudent

I mean, there are so many allegedly "playable"  openings but many of them have minus positional sides (Benoni, Benko, Budapest, Tarrasch etc).  What does Kasparov mean when he says that all reasonable (sound?) openings are playable?

What does his "reasonable" really mean? All over the internet, you find advice for all players except for players above 2200 FIDE ELO. It is assumed these players all know what they should do, but this is not the case I think.

There are books on opening selection (Giddins, Yermolinsky, Hans Bo Larsen, Dvoretsky, for instance), but they are too general.

So, to summarize, which openings are sound with black against 1.e4 and 1.d4, taking into account my stylistic preferences?

Opening advantages are fine things. Maybe you can even find an opening that lends itself to your 'style' of play. But what value does any of this have? Really?

Firstly, to become a master you must be able to play all sorts of positions well. Playing a limited set of openings directly contradicts the goal of practicing a wide variety of positions. Or does it? Really? You see, we're not masters yet, so our games are likely to be unpredictable and messy.

What this means is that until your middlegame and endgame skill is at the master level your opening choices matter very little. Think of it the other way; if you're playing a master and you've somehow managed an opening advantage the master will just dig in and outplay you in the middlegame or endgame. To become a master, you will also need to acquire these skills - so you'd better find ways to get opening-disadvantages as much as possible!

I guest the real point is that even heavily unbalanced positions often have excellent drawing chances for the disadvantaged player. A master will be able to make use of these to greatly reduce the chances of a loss. The difference in opening choices in this sense comes down to the master's goals for a particular game. Would they be happy with a draw? How much do they want to risk pushing for a win if complications might also favour their opponent? Perhaps they check a database and find that their opponent only wins 2% of games that feature a Queen-side attack when the dark-square Bishop is exchanged - interesting, maybe it's worth trying a Trompovsky as White and pushing c4 early?

This line of reasoning is just beyond being useful for non-master players.

So now we see what Kasparov means when he says that all openings are playable. In almost all cases openings are simply irrelevant. Masters might try to expose each other's weaknesses with them but even at the highest level, it is middlegame and endgame skills that decide games.


How to best respond to an early black Qa5 in the Smith-Morra gambit? I often play the Smith-Morra gambit.  Recently I've been seeing black play an early Qa5, such as

[fen ""]
1. e4  c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 Qa5 4. *

or

[fen ""]
1. e4  c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Nf3 Qa5+ 4. *

It seems to throw a spanner in the works as to how I'm used to playing this opening.  If met with 4. Bd2 then black can play 4... Qb6 hitting the unprotected b-pawn.  It seems like black can bring the queen out early without the possibility of white chasing it around the board.

  Question: How to best respond to an early black Qa5 in the Smith-Morra gambit?

Chess Opening Secrets Revealed suggests playing a later Bf4 depriving the queen on the c7 square, then play a3 followed by b4.  But this seems like an awful lot of non-productive moves to chase the queen around, especially when you can't fianchetto the dark squared bishop.

Crafty suggests 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 Qa5+ 4.c3 Nc6 5.b4 Qc7 but this seems to just weaken the pawn structure, and make the white's thematic Bc4 more difficult to play.

I don't see why you can't just ignore the Queen on a5 for now and play Nf3, followed by Bc4 and 0-0. Then, there is no pin on the c3 pawn anymore and he must take on c3, after which you retake with Nxc3 and you're back into a normal Morra gambit position with his queen oddly placed on a5. If he doesn't take on c3, then you just take back on d4 with a large center. You are not forced to stay in Morra gambit territory forever if there's a better line you can play.


Number of positions with specifically a number of pieces What is the number of legal positions in a chess game?

This is a question asked earlier on the site. Now I am wondering, what can be the number of positions for a certain number of pieces. Like 8 pieces for example.

Is there a top bar formula like in that case? Thank you!

This answer is extended from my comment to Ross Milikan's answer to your question Numerical FEN writing.

There is a website devoted to counting the number of legal positions up to equivalence with given number of pieces. Currently they have results for positions with 2 to 8 pieces.

2:                     462
3:                 368,079
4:             125,246,598
5:          25,912,594,054
6:       3,787,154,440,416
7:     423,836,835,667,331
8:  38,176,306,877,748,245

With their definition, a position is legal if:

It has exactly one white and one black king
There are no pawns on the 1st and 8th lines
Side to move is not giving a check

Note that with these definitions, some positions could be legal even if they cannot be achieved in a real game. Edit: As @Pimgd pointed out in the comments, an example is a position with white pawns on a2, b2 and a3.

Two positions are considered equivalent if they are essentially the same, in this case, one position can be obtained from another by combining the following operations:

Any position: Swapping the colours of the pieces, the side to move, and mirroring the position around the horizontal line such that the square a1 becomes a8 etc.
Positions with no castling rights: mirroring the position around the vertical line such that the square a1 becomes h1 etc.
Pawnless positions with no castling rights: mirroring the position around the horizontal line such that a1 becomes a8 etc.
Pawnless positions with no castling rights: Mirroring the board diagonally

Depending on the existence of pawns and castling rights, each "unique" position thus corresponds to 2 to 16 different positions.


Enter non-game moves in ChessBase One problem I have with ChessBase is that often I need to enter moves that are non sequential in a comment. For example, I might have a comment like "with the idea of g5 followed by Bb7". There is no way to enter these moves, I just have to type them in as text. As an extreme example of non-sequential moves, there is of course the chess game from "Through the Looking Glass" which features many out of order (illegal) moves.

The bizarre thing is that ChessBase has a "with the idea of" Informant symbol (the delta), but this annotation is useless, because you always use it with a non-sequential move, which you cannot enter.

Is there any way around this dilemma? Note that I am using ChessBase 9.0, so more recent versions may have additional capability.

UPDATE -------------------------------

I tried entering a null move according to an answer below, and this is the result:

So, this kind of works and allows use of the annotation symbol, but it does look a little kooky with the dashes.


Queen's Gambit Accepted with 3. Nf3 According to wikipedia in the main line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted White's 3rd move is: 3.Nf3:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3

Doesn't that pretty much turn the opening into a real gambit? Black can now hold on to the c-file pawn since the usual trap (with Qf3) is no longer possible and b4 can be safely played by Black to prop up the c-file pawn.

Doesn't that pretty much turn the opening into a real gambit?

No.

  Black can now hold on to the c-file pawn since the usual trap (with Qf3) is no longer possible and b4 can be safely played by Black to prop up the c-file pawn.

No he can not. White will regain the pawn and get huge advantage.

Here are the most relevant lines, the rest can be easily found with an engine:

[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 b5? 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.b3 cxb3 ( 6...Be6 7.bxc4 Bxc4 ( 7...bxc4 8.e4 Qc7 9.Qa4+ Qd7 10.Bxc4 ) 8.Na3 Qc7 9.Nxc4 bxc4 ( 9...Qxc4 10.e3 Qc6 11.Ne5! Qb6 12.Qb3+/- ) 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.e3 c3 12.Bb5 e6 13.Ne5 Ngf6 14.Bc6 Rd8 15.Qxa7+/- ) 7.Qxb3 Qb6 8.e3 b4 ( 8...Bd7 9.Ne5 e6 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Qxb5+/- ) 9.Qd5! Bb7 ( 9...Qb7? 10.Bb5+!+- ) ( 9...Nc6 10.Ne5+-) 10.Bb5+ Bc6 ( 10...Nc6? 11.Ne5+- ) 11.Ne5+-

Best regards.