What is the worst opening move in Chess960 for White? Is there a first move for white in Chess960 in which white can immediately blunder a piece or lose a significant advantage (say -2.0 or so)?

This calls for some scripting, so here's my first hasty attempt at it ;)

Here's a quick way you can do the search on your own in python, using stockfish 10 and only the python-chess package. All open-source and free-software!

Briefly, what the script will do:

Consider all 960 positions, one at a time
For each position, it scans over all legal white moves
For each move, it evaluates the position with a engine ponder time given by user (e.g. 1 second)
If the evaluation is below the given threshold (e.g. -2.0) then it shows the board, the FEN, the move and the evaluation.
At the end everything will be saved in a text file, so you don't need to log the printouts in the terminal.

Examples found running the script for first 5 chess960 positions

Let's showcase it for the first 5 chess960 positions where:

The evaluation threshold is set to -1.0
The ponder time is 1.0 second per move.

Here are the found cases: (below is the saved results in a textfile, first column is the chess960 position FEN, 2nd column the move whose evaluation fell below the threshold, and the 3rd column is the corresponding evaluation)

bbqnnrkr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BBQNNRKR w KQkq - 0 1    g4  -2.19
bqnbnrkr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BQNBNRKR w KQkq - 0 1    g4  -1.51
bqnnrbkr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BQNNRBKR w KQkq - 0 1    g4  -1.66
qbbnnrkr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/QBBNNRKR w KQkq - 0 1    g4  -1.35

1.g4 seems to be commonly the worst move among the first 5 setups.

Not so surprising, since in all the so far considered chess960 positions, namely the first 5, the king stands on the usual kingside (specifically, on g1).

Thus, 1.g4 is a highly weakening move with the king on g1.

Here are the positions (updated, 3 more examples found by running script longer):

 eval = -2.19

 eval = -1.51

 eval = -1.66

 eval = -1.35

 eval = -2.8

 eval = -2.07

 eval = -2.12

Continue the search on your own using the script

To go over all 960 positions takes a lot of time and computational resources. So I leave it up to you and other if they are interested, to run the script for longer ponder times, to scan all 960 positions, and to play with the evaluation threshold of interest. To do that on your own, here's the python script, using Python 3.7.4, python-chess 0.30.1, and Stockfish 10 (place the engine file in same folder as the script):

import chess
import chess.engine
import os
import sys

arguments = sys.argv
pondertime = float(arguments[1])
evalthreshold = float(arguments[2])
#here we assume the engine file is in same folder as our python script
path = os.getcwd()
#Now make sure you give the correct location for your stockfish engine file
#...in the line that follows by correctly defining path
engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci(path+'/'+'stockfish-10-64')

lsfens = []
lsmoves = []
lsevals = []

numberofpos = 960

for i in range(numberofpos):
    board = chess.Board.from_chess960_pos(i)
    print('Currently analysing the position below')
    print(board)
    print('--------')
    for el in board.legal_moves:
        info = engine.analyse(board, chess.engine.Limit(time=pondertime), root_moves=[el])
        t = str(info["score"])
        if t.startswith('#'):
                print(str(board.san(el))," eval = mate in ", t)
        else:
            if round(int(t)/100.,2)<evalthreshold:
                print('Starting 960 position index: ', board.chess960_pos())
                print('Position FEN: ',board.fen())
                print(str(board.san(el))," eval = ", round(int(t)/100.,2))
                lsfens.append(board.fen())
                lsmoves.append(str(board.san(el)))
                lsevals.append(str(round(int(t)/100.,2)))
    print('--------------------------------------')

engine.quit()

with open('FoundPositions_Pondertime_'+str(pondertime)+'_threshold_'+str(evalthreshold)+'.txt', 'w') as file:
    for i in range(len(lsfens)):
        file.write(lsfens[i]+'\t'+lsmoves[i]+'\t'+lsevals[i]+'\n')

How to run the script:

Copy paste the code into a textfile and save it with a name like 960evaluator.py
Make sure you have python3 installed, similarly for python-chess module (see here for installation) and have downloaded the stockfish binary for your OS.
Place the engine file and the script in the same folder, and open a terminal in that folder
Run the script with the command python 960evaluator.py 1.0 -2.0
Note the first argument you give after the script name is the ponder time per move in seconds. The higher the ponder time value, the more accurate the evaluation.
The second argument is the evaluation threshold: that is, all positions with 1st move evaluations below the given value (in this example -2.0) will be printed in terminal and saved at the end (you could do the saving while running so you can crash the script without losing the so far found cases).
Again, the found cases will be printed in terminal as they are found, but also saved in a text file placed in same folder as your script.

The terminal printouts will look like:

Currently analysing the position below
b b q n n r k r
p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P P
B B Q N N R K R
--------
Starting 960 position index:  0
Position FEN:  bbqnnrkr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BBQNNRKR w KQkq - 0 1
g4  eval =  -2.19

Have fun scanning, though do so with caution: running chess engines for long times on personal machines is bit risky as it quickly heats up!


Can almost anyone become a grandmaster if they devoted their life from age 6? I hope that some stronger players have some insight or that their are some quotations from notable chess players that relate to the question.

If you look only at the number of people that are obviously intelligent and put a lot of effort into their chess, and then look at the tiny fraction that achieve the level of national master or Candidate master (never mind the higher levels of FIDE masgter, International Master and Grandmaster) then it would seem that the answer is no, not everyone can become a Grandmaster.

But this begs the question.  We do not know what made the difference. Was some of that effort and intensity wasted in the wrong sorts of study? Is some mental skill present in those that succeed that could have been developed in anyone if we only knew how? Does luck play a part? [Being in the right place, finding the right coach, stumbling on the right books, scoring highly your first tournament]. Or was it genetic?

The Pólgar experiment tells us nothing. It does not disentangle genetics from environment. László Polgár would have done well to learn something about designing experiments before he started. Then he might have adopted a child or two and compared their chess development to the biological children so as to exclude the genetic influence. Even then the results would not have been conclusive: a handful of subjects do not produce a statistically significant result.

Achieving excellence in chess is no different than achieving excellence in anything. There might be a genetic component. Where you live and are raised makes a difference to your opportunities and the quality of your training. Hard work is mandatory (even if some prodigies would prefer you to believe that it all came to them easily without ever having to work hard - because that is a myth).

What is the answer to your question?  It is simple.  It is the answer to many questions. It is not one that is popular. It is the reason for interminable debates and arguments, for cherry picking and for much opinion dressed as fact.

WE DO NOT KNOW!


Struggling with my moves I play Scotch or Closed Sicilian (or 2. c3) as white and Scandinavian as black. Against d4 I sigh. I am still struggling to find a proper way to play the closed positional games. Any suggestions?

It seems to me that the Slav defense is what you are after.

It has similar pawn structure to the Caro-Kann / Scandinavian defense, and no weak pieces ( Black gets ...Bf5 early ). Notice that it is theoretical, and that it can be dodged with clever move order, like 1.c4 c6 2.e4! d5!? 3.ed cd 4.d4! when you have Caro-Kann ( Panov-Botvinnik attack ).

You could also try King's Indian defense, as pawn structure is similar to White's in Closed Sicilian (there White goes for f4, light squared bishop is fianchettoed, d3+e4 center formation, here you aim for ...f5 and bishop is also fianchettoed, d6+e5 center formation ).

It really depends on your style, please tell us more about your criteria for defenses against 1.d4 so we can offer better answer ( closed/open game? highly tactical/positional? space advantage/counter-attacking? ).

Sorry for posting this as an answer, but the content is too big to fit inside a comment.

I will transform this into answer, if it solves your problem, or if you update your post with more details as I have said above.


What should you do after blundering during a game? Let's say you are playing a game. Then suddenly, you make a bad move and e.g. blunder material. How should you react afterwards? What mind-set should you have? Can you even benefit from the blunder?

After a blunder, it helps to look objectively at the position once again and forget the history. You might have been better or worse; but that doesn't matter now after the blunder. What matters is how you go from here.

There could be many possibilities of salvaging a draw or even snatching a win by making the position very complicated and causing your opponent to blunder (I sometimes jokingly call this a "counter-blunder"). The least you want to ensure is to not make it psychologically easy for your opponent to win after your blunder. Make it difficult for the opponent. Play good moves. Do not be gloomy lest you blunder again.

Yes, there are times when you can even benefit from a blunder. A blunder may often give a player a kind of "license to thrill"! Now that you've blundered and your game is lost, you've got nothing more to lose! So why not embark on a nice sacrificial attack on the opponent's king (for example) and see if the opponent cracks under pressure? (A friend of mine actually tried this after blundering a piece and he won the game. Too bad I don't have the game).


What is the most popular chess app for android? What is the most popular chess app for android that is used for playing against other Human opponents?

Every good chess website has its own app. Such as chess.com, lichess, chess24, ...
Just lunch play store and enter your favorite chess site name, you will find its app. They usually have human mode or computer mode with various time controls. With chess.com app you are also able to challenge particular opponent by his user ID and in lichess it's even easier, create a challenge and send a link of challenge to your opponent.

It turns out some people here cannot get what is the most popular app to play against other humans in android even w.r.t my answer that I put some of those apps in order. It's clear that app is chess.com app, as the number of members of chess.com is way more than any other website and if someone still says this is not related to app, then 1M+ downloads of this app on play store compare to 10K+ downloads of other apps clear's everything.


Do Grandmasters think using algebraic notation? Is algebraic notation used just to communicate chess moves in written and spoken form, or should players strive to use it during their thinking process as well?

In Dan Heisman's excellent The Improving Chess Thinker, which examines the thought process of chess players as originally studied by Adriaan de Groot, Dan asks chess players to verbalise their thought process using algebraic notation. He includes several transcripts from beginners through to masters, including that of Max Euwe translated from descriptive notation, which looks like this:

  [A short extract from Max Euwe's analysis of the “de Groot A” position]:

  “1. Nxd5 Nxd5 2. Bxd5 Bxg5 – no, nothing then, 3. Rxc6 is a cute move but at the end of it all everything remains hanging. Something else:
  2. Bxe7 – he just takes back. 1...exd5 is very favourable (for me); he won't do that; it needn't be investigated...”

Do Grandmasters assess candidate moves by thinking “I take there, they take back with the knight” or “Nxd5 Nxd5”? Is the notation that appears in the transcripts a direct reflection of the actual thought process, or merely a vocalisation of what they're thinking in order to communicate their ideas to the researcher or coach?

Or, put another way, is it beneficial for chess players to think in algebraic notation (because it's quicker to think in “the language of chess”, perhaps?), or is it purely an aid for communication?

I wrote to Dan Heisman to get his take on the question. Here's his reply:

  “Everyone is a little different. The book is algebraic so others can
  read and understand it. In practice some just think in pictures; no
  verbalization is accompanying. Others might think more "If I go
  there..." Sometimes algebraic is helpful to clarify in your own mind
  what you really mean.”


Why is the queen considered lost? In this game, white just moved the queen from b7 to c6, and the computer marks this as a "critical blunder" (and suggests that the bishop should take the knight). In this position it considers the queen lost, but it doesn't say much how. It says black should move their rook to c8, but then it seems to me the queen can go to b5, and from there on it's hard to take it.
The black rook can then move to b8 and the queen can go back to c6. If the rook doesn't move, it seems to me the queen can escape: if the white queen moves then it becomes a queen trade, and if the black knight moves then the queen can play a4 and then escape to c2 (for instance).
How can the black take the white queen in this configuration? (black to move)

r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 Rb8 3. Qc6 Rb6!

Now white's queen is trapped.
As @Joffan has pointed out in the comments and as many have probably seen, immediately trapping the queen is not the end to this game:
r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 Rb8 3. Qc6 Rb6 4. Qxc5 Bxc5 5. Bxc5 Rxb2 6. Bxf8 Qxf8

A more convincing alternative seems to be sacrificing the rook for the knight.
 r2q1rk1/p3b1p1/2Q1p2p/2npp3/4P3/2PPBN1P/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1

1... Rc8 2. Qb5 Rxf3 3. gxf3 Rb8 4. Qc6 Rb6 5. Qxc5 Bxc5 6. Bxc5 Rxb2


Unknown old FIDE players I am interested in the History of chess and looking at old FIDE ranking lists I am a bit puzzled by the lack of information about some very good players.

For instance, in the list of July 1972:

Shmit, from Soviet Union, and ranked #95 in the world with 2480 Elo https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Shmit.html
Zurakov, from Soviet Union, and ranked #275 in the world with 2415 Elo
https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Zurakov.html
Abaharov, from Soviet Union, and ranked #285 in the world with 2410 Elo
https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Abaharov.html

Does anyone know them?

The complete list offers other examples
https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo197207e.html

I am also looking to know more about a player called Donnelly, from Ireland, and ranked #416 in 1970 with FIDE rating of 2240 (a very decent rating at that time!)
https://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Donnelly.html

I found one in Big Database 2016.  Anatoly Shmit, born 1941 in Latvia, with 157 games between 1959 and 1989, all played within the USSR.  Many strong Soviet players never got the chance to play outside the Soviet Union, and Shmit does not seem to have ever been awarded a FIDE title, although he was undoubtedly a very strong player, having beaten a number of well known players including Mikhail Tal.

According to chessgames.com, his name was more accurately Anatolijs Šmits.  He won the Soviet Junior Championship in 1960, and was Latvian Champion in 1969 and 1975.  He died in 1998, aged 56.


Which common response against 1.e4 did Magnus Carlsen say is a bad opening? And what was Carlsen's exact quote? I remember that a year ago or two, Magnus Carlsen said that one of the response against 1.e4 was bad. I don't remember exactly which of them he was calling bad, but I think it was the French (or the Caro-Kann perhaps)... I'm not saying that I think the French is bad (I actually like it!), I'm just saying that I believe Carlsen said it was bad.

I would like to know which response to 1.e4 he was calling bad. And also I would like to know what was Magnus Carlsen's exact quote.

I think the answer is the French Defence.

A quote of Carlsen can be found here: http://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1do05q/annotated_chess_game_in_french_defence_by_carlsen/

I copied the quote:

  The French Defence. In my younger years I used to consider it at best a second-rate opening, and I once even lost a bet with one of my friends, and as a result had to play 1... e6 in all my games with Black in a Super-GM tournament. Fortunately my friend was greedy, and took money instead. I believe that both 1...c5 and 1...e5! are better choices, but since I desperately wanted to win this game (I was trailing the leaders Kramnik and Shirov by 1 point at this stage) I decided to try something new.

Carlsen wrote this quote in his comments of the game Karjakin-Carlsen, Wijk Aan Zee 2010. See annotations of the game Ivanchuk-Carlsen in following report:
http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/masters-final-r5-leader-ivanchuk-loses-to-carlsen-nakamura-beats-vallejo


Chess openings together with games played using this opening I am looking for a resource where I can get a list of chess openings (the more comprehensive the better) together with games that were played using this opening. Up till now the only good thing I was able to find is chesstool. It is really good in terms of the number of openings and also it has quite a lot of games for each opening. The only bad thing is that apparently it does not have games after 2010 year.

Alternatively is there a place where I can get all (ok, I know that all sounds ridiculous) but at least all fide rated chess games in PGN format?

Try TWIC, each week they release at least the top-rated FIDE games.

http://www.theweekinchess.com/twic


Scotch gambit: 4... Qf6 [fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Qf6

This move 4... Qf6 defends both the d4 and f7 pawns; now if 5. Bg5 to drive it away, 5... Qg6 and the bishop becomes a liability, preventing White from taking on d4; furthermore the e4 pawn comes under attack as well. How should White play from this position after 4... Qf6?

According to the 365chess database, 5. Bg5 yielded a 6-2-0 record for amateur players.  There were no master games.

The pawn on e4 isn't too much of a liability as long as Black's King is in the middle of the board.

Here's a game where White is a FIDE(?) 2095 player.  White's cute little combination on move 12 ought to tell Black he's in for a long day.

[fen ""]
1.  e4  e5
2.  Nf3 Nc6
3.  d4  exd4
4.  Bc4 Qf6
5.  Bg5 Qg6
6.  O-O f6
7.  Bf4 d6
8.  Nxd4    Bh3
9.  Bg3 Nxd4
10. Qxd4    Bd7
11. Bxg8    Rxg8
12. Qd5 Qf7
13. Qxb7    Rd8
14. Nc3 Qc4
15. Qxa7    Rc8
16. Rfd1    Qc5
17. Qxc5    dxc5
18. Nd5 Bg4
19. f3  Be6
20. Nxc7+   Kf7
21. a4  c4
22. a5  Bc5+
23. Kf1 Rgd8
24. a6  Rxd1+
25. Rxd1    c3
26. b4  Bb6
27. Nxe6    Kxe6
28. Rd6+    Ke7
29. Rxb6    Ra8
30. Rb7+    Kd8
31. a7  Rxa7
32. Rxa7    g5
33. b5


Is there any software that can be used for positional chess training? I am looking for a software that would help me in improving my positional chess understanding. Is there any such software or website?

Perhaps an engine something like Chess Position Trainer, depending upon your requirements (and system).
     There is some potential for an unexpected learning curve, at least within version 5.04.
     That being said, it is noted as working in both Windows & Linux.

Komodo 8 also gets some recommendation.

Chessimo has at least one detractor, who showed a preference for Convekta, this latter offering both downloadable and online games (their online play permits Windows, iOS, Android, & Web Interface).

Basic Positional Ideas "...is a supplementary program [that] can only be run if [sic] Fritz 8...". The description indicates that the program is for learning "...[how] to achieve the desired position on your board...".
     The use of Fritz indicates that it should run on Windows, but that you might need Wine in order to run it within a Linux environment.


Both flags fallen: Draw? Suppose both players have 0 seconds left on the clock, but the clock indicates that the flag of player B has fallen first, which is claimed by Player A. Player A has enough material to mate his opponent (but also no time left, that is the point!) – has he just won the game?

The rules tell us (emphasisis by me):

  (6.11) If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then:

  The game shall continue if this occurs in any period of the game except the last period.
  the game is drawn if this occurs in the period of a game in which all remaining moves must be completed.

Therefore I think Player A has won. Sadly enough the rules do not explicitly tell what happens if is possible to establish which flag fell first (or at least I was unable to find that paragraph).

If your question is under standard time controls, then player A wins, because it is not the sole responsibility of player A to claim the win; in fact it is the duty of the arbiter to immediately declare the win (so in some sense, it would be unfair not to award player A a win simply because the arbiter was not around when player B's flag fell first), which is the main reason why the clock will indicate which flag fell first.

(If I recall correctly, when Carlsen lost on time against Topalov recently at the Norway 2015 event, it was the arbiter that pointed out the flag fall, without any claim by Topalov.)

On the other hand, in a rapidplay or quicker setting, you need to have at least one second on your own clock to claim a win on time, otherwise either player may claim a draw if both flags have fallen; the arbiter (and certainly any outside observer) will refrain from pointing out a loss on time for either player--even if both flags fall and one player gets mated (or resigns), the win result will stand if neither player notices the other's loss on time.


Using a Linux UCI Engine with a GUI (eg. Fritz 15) Is there any way a Linux UCI Engine (such as StockFish 8) be used with Fritz 15? Will this involve customizing the source code and rebuilding to implement things like hash size, tablebase locations, and the like, or can those engine settings be set as BASH environment variables?

I have used a program called InBetween.exe before, to act as a conduit between the GUI and the Linux engine. However I have yet to be able to get InBetween.exe to pass  UCI environment variable commands to the engine.

If someone can post an answer to these questions, I would be most appreciative.

I think you can do it using this tool ChessBridge. There's also netChess, but the website is down, so use the mirror at Archive.org.


A difficult rook ending I need help. In the below endgame, Stockfish and Fat Fritz are optimistic on Whit's winning chances , but Mueller disagrees. What happens with perfect play?
[FEN "R7/6p1/P3p1k1/7p/8/5PPP/r7/4K3 b - - 0 1"]

This answer is intended to expand upon my comments, and give some concrete lines. Let's discuss the position as I (mistakenly) first thought it was presented:
[fen "R7/6p1/P3p1k1/7p/8/6PP/r7/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

This position is a draw, no matter who is to move. If White doesn't play a7, then Black's rook will have the option to pick off one of White's pawns on the kingside. So we may as well assume that White is to move, and plays 1.a7. After this, Black will be able to play 1...Kf7, to guard the pawn on e6. Let's examine the resulting position:
[fen "R7/P4kp1/4p3/7p/8/6PP/r7/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

Note that this position would have been losing for Black if it wasn't for the pawn on g7; if there were no pawn on g7, then White would win by replying with 2.Rh8 followed by 2...Rxa7 and 3.Rh7+, picking up Black's rook. But this plan is not possible at the current moment. So White has two different plans to try out: 1) march the king to b5 to free the rook on a8, or 2) create a passed pawn on the h-file, and try to remove the pawn on g7 by means of playing h6 at some point.
The first plan always fails, since Black will keep their rook on the a-file, and when White's king reaches the 4th rank, Black will place their rook on either a1 or a2. Then, if White plays Kb5, Black will give check with ...Rb1+, chasing the white king around until it decides to come back to the fourth rank, after which Black will once again play ...Ra1/Ra2.
The second plan also fails, since if White manages to create the passer on the h-file, and manages to play h6, then Black doesn't have to respond with ...gxh6, but can instead play ...Kg6 to contain the h-pawn. So the conclusion is that this position is indeed a draw.
Let's move on to the actual position you were asking about.
[fen "R7/6p1/P3p1k1/7p/8/5PPP/r7/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

This is also a draw, although not as trivial (I originally assumed that White was winning here, but I missed a simple idea that maintains the balance). Here White has an extra f-pawn, but this doesn't really make a big difference in the long run. Black will use the exact same strategy as before, putting the king on f7 and shuffling the rook along the a-file, but here Black has to be a bit more careful with the winning plan that White tries. As before, the plan of bringing the king to b5 for White is not going to work. Neither is an attack on the pawn on e6 very likely to succeed as long as Black's king is left on f7. So White only has two feasible winning plans:

create a passed pawn on the f-file, and run it to f6 to remove the pawn on g7, or
create a passed pawn on the h-file instead, with the same intention.

The first plan is not going to work well, since White will have to at the very least trade the g-pawn for Black's h-pawn, and then trade another pawn for Black's e6 pawn. At the end of the line, we will end up in the following scenario if White tries winning plan 1:
[fen "R7/P4kp1/5P2/8/8/8/r7/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

Note that if Black just sits on the position and refuses to take on f6, then White can't really do anything to make any sort of progress (this is what I missed initially); taking on g7 just reduces to a trivial draw, and marching the king to the queenside is a lost cause, as always.
Plan 2 is actually the more dangerous one, and here Black needs a bit of precision to stay out of danger:
[fen "R7/6p1/P3p1k1/7p/8/5PPP/r7/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1.a7 Kf7 2.g4 hxg4 3.fxg4 Ra3 4.h4 Kg6! {This move is absolutely necessary if Black wants to draw. The point is that White was threatening the simple idea of h5-g5-g6+, after which Black is completely lost. Black needs their king on h7 to face this idea.} 5.h5+ Kh7! {Black can also place the king on g5, but then White still has some tricks to look out for. This drawing idea is by far the simplest one.} 6.g5 {with the intention of playing g6+} 6...g6! {This is the point of transferring Black's king to h7; if it were on f7 instead, then White could simply play h6-h7-h8Q, with a completely winning position.} 7.hxg6+ (7.h6= {and Black draws by shuffling the rook along the a-file, chasing White's king away whenever it tries to support the pawn on a7.}) Kg7!= {Black draws by moving the rook along the a-file, and chasing White's king away whenever it tries to support the pawn on a7.}


How likely am I to beat a grandmaster through random play? Understatement of the week: Grandmasters are good at chess. I am not.

I was wondering because of this how likely it would be through complete random play to beat a grandmaster, and whether or not it was more likely for me to beat one through random play than out of my own skill set. (I am about 1400 FIDE, and therefore probably actively discount a lot of moves which would actually be quite good.
So my questions are:
1. How likely am I to beat a GM through random play?
2. Is this more likely than through my own skill?

The chance is absolutely zero. Not just against grandmasters, but against anybody.

In fact, it would be hard to win a game with random play against someone actively trying to lose, after all you would just as likely remove your pieces from the vicinity of the opponent's king than play the checkmating move, if the opponent finally managed to get to a position where mate is possible.

Everybody who knows the rules and has some sort of goal in mind plays much better than random play.


White openings for counter-attacking players I would like to get suggestions of openings for white that suits a counter-attacking player. As black I really enjoy playing the alekhine and the modern. As white, lately, I started playing 1.g3, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it, especially since I found absolutely no theory on that opening. I'd like to have suggestions of other (decent) openings I could play as white that would suit my counter-attacking style.

Thanks!

One might call the Reti a counter attacking opening for white.
White allows black to grab some space with a big centre and then tries to tear it down.

[FEN ""]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 e5

There also should be quite a lot of theoretical information about it. The main problem might be that black isn't easily goaded into overextending. Most players like to play it safe with black, making a counter attacking game with white less likely.


Are chess engines too briliant to play good endgame? I watched some Komodo endgame play and what he is capable of is just horrible. From nice advantage with pawn up and activity he gives up two pawns ending in some miracle fortress position. Who can blame him when he knows everything about the endgame (7 man position for example using 6man tablebase) in a few seconds, knowing it is 0.00 everywhere, but still, is this the best chess engines can do with technical endgames? I see no imagination in his endgame play, no problem creation for oponent, just random moves not making his position worse in theoretic terms. Clearly he would lose many points playing this way with any human being incapable of precise play. Playing another perfect oposition they don't lose anything but still not sure I like such a design.

As far as I understnad engines, contempt has nothing to do with this problem, is there another setting that can help here?

Edit: example position

2k5/7R/r5p1/3K4/3P4/7P/8/8 b - - 0 1

1...g5 2.Ke4 Kd8 3.Ke5 Ra3 4.Rh6 Ke7 5.Rh8 Re3+ 6.Kd5 Kf6 7.Kc5 Kg7 8.Rh5 Kg6 9.Rh8 Kg7 10.Rb8 Rxh3 11.Rb2 g4 12.Rg2 g3 13.d5 Kf6 14.d6 Ke6 15.d7 *

The problem with an engine playing a drawn position with tablebases is that it has no concept of making life difficult for the opponent. All their moves are perfect in the sense that they don't turn a drawing position into a losing one -- not losing is guaranteed. But it has no concept of trying to win, and no way to decide between several moves that all lead to yet another drawn position, because in theory there is no difference.

If you turn off the tablebases, you get the normal engine play. It won't be perfect, but still usually much better than humans, and it uses an evaluation function that rewards material advantage, passed pawns, active pieces, and so on. That's probably what you want.


Purpose behind the move I was just guessing the best move  in the given position(black to move) .
I thought it would be 'Be6' , But the engine gave 'c5' , which weakens the 'd5' square .
I want to know the plan behind the move 'c5' if it is the best move.

The move c5 is obviously anti-positional. So the purpose must be tactical.

[Title "Anti-positional c5"]
[FEN "1rb2rk1/5pb1/p1pp1np1/q6p/2PBP2P/2N2P2/PP1Q2P1/3RKB1R b - - 0 1"]

1... c5 2. Be3 Rxb2 3. Qxb2 Nxe4 4. Bd2 Nxd2 (4... Bxc3 5. fxe4) (4... Nxc3) 5. Kxd2

1…c5 2.Be3 Rxb2 3.Qxb2 Nxe4 is the obvious try. But after 4.Bd2 the position is pretty tricky because 4…Nd2 fails to 5.Kxd2, Bxc3 fails to fxe4 and Nxc3 steps into a selfpin. But the selfpin cannot be exploited by white because black has Re8+/Qe5+ coming up. This looks like a pretty crushing attack.

If white prefers to exchange the Bd4 for the Nf6, then the weak d5 square is more than balanced by the weak black squares in whites position. Bd4 is a much bigger threat than Nd5.


Does swapping the colors of the squares affect the gameplay? If for example, the bottom-left square is light instead of dark AND we place the queens in their colors:

By affect I mean psychologically, etc., because it is pretty obvious that everything you can do in a normal board will also be possible to do here and non-humans shouldn't care if they are swapped or not.

Also, note the word gameplay in the title, if the players are required to write down the moves, that will definitely affect them, but lets suppose someone else will do that for them and they will be 100% focused in the game.

Is the gameplay affected?
Are there any studies about this?
Can this be used as a technique to see things you don't normally see?

Anecdotally, I once played in my school the final match with human pieces in a 10m board with the position of the king and queen swapped. The confusion arose because it was ambiguous which were the light squares as the fills were made with white chalk on a dark-green floor, allegedly the 'light' squares were the ones filled with diagonal stripes because "they contained more white". The stubbornness of the event organizer was big, he didn't want to make this last minute change and we ended up playing in a normal board without really looking to the human pieces because they were wrong.

The only difference would be that the players would be playing a mirror image of a normal game.  In fact, if you think about it, the play would be exactly like allowing Black to go first on a normal board.

I don't think this would seriously phase any level of player, simply because good players are able to calculate well enough to cope with the slight change, and bad players don't strategize properly even on a normal board, so it wouldn't make a big difference for them to swap the king and queen.

Intermediate players might be put off a bit, since they may have memorized certain openings which are slightly changed on this new board, but I think the biggest thing to watch out for would be outright forgetting that the King and Queen are swapped and playing accordingly (e.g. accidentally exposing your King, thinking you're opening lines for your Queen).  As long as that can be avoided, I think any "psychological" effects are quite minor.


Professional match where neither player castles? Are there any professional matches from serious players where neither player castles during the course of the game?

It won't be terribly common, but it's not unheard of either. Here are a few examples involving well-known grandmasters:

Ivanchuk-Csom (1989):

[fen ""]
[Event "Yerevan"]
[Site "Yerevan"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Vassily Ivanchuk"]
[Black "Istvan Csom"]
[ECO "E20"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "49"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nh5 7.g3
f5 8.e4 f4 9.dxe6 fxg3 10.Qd5 g2 11.Qxh5+ g6 12.Qe5 Qh4+
13.Ke2 gxh1=Q 14.Qxh8+ Ke7 15.Qg7+ Kxe6 16.Bh3+ Kd6 17.Qf8+
Kc7 18.Bf4+ Qxf4 19.Qxf4+ d6 20.Rd1 Nc6 21.Qxd6+ Kb6 22.Qg3 h5
23.Bxc8 Rxc8 24.Nh3 h4 25.Qf2 1-0

Sutovsky-Morozevich (1998):

[fen ""]
[Event "Pamplona International"]
[Site "Pamplona ESP"]
[Date "1998.12.31"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "05"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Emil Sutovsky"]
[Black "Alexander Morozevich"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "2575"]
[BlackElo "2625"]
[PlyCount "52"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6
gxf6 7. Nf3 a6 8. Qd2 b5 9. Qh6 Bb7 10. Bd3 Nd7 11. Ng3 f5
12. Nh5 Bf8 13. Qe3 Nf6 14. Qe5 Nxh5 15. Qxh8 Bxf3 16. gxf3
Nf6 17. Rg1 Qxd4 18. Rg8 Ke7 19. Kf1 Bg7 20. Qxg7 Rxg8 21. Qh6
Qxb2 22. Re1 Qc3 23. Qh4 c5 24. Rd1 c4 25. Bxf5 Qxf3 26. Qd4
Nd5 0-1

Andreikin-Jumabayev (2009):

[fen ""]
[Event "48th World Junior Championship"]
[Site "Puerto Madryn ARG"]
[Date "2009.10.31"]
[EventDate "2009.10.22"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Dmitry Andreikin"]
[Black "Rinat Jumabayev"]
[ECO "E38"]
[WhiteElo "2659"]
[BlackElo "2548"]
[PlyCount "41"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 c5 5. dxc5 Bxc5 6. Nf3
Qb6 7. e3 Qc7 8. g4 h6 9. Rg1 b6 10. g5 hxg5 11. Nb5 Qd8
12. Nxg5 Bf8 13. c5 Rh5 14. Nd6+ Bxd6 15. cxd6 Bb7 16. Nxf7
Be4 17. Qxe4 Nxe4 18. Nxd8 Kxd8 19. Bg2 Rg5 20. Kf1 Rxg2
21. Kxg2 1-0


Maximum number of quiet moves in a position The question of how many captures a position can have has been asked in the past: Maximum number of captures in a position

Without captures, and without promotion, which I define as “quiet” moves, what is the maximum number of quiet moves that one side can have in a legal chess position can have?

The maximum number for one side in a legal position is 216 quiet moves, according to this 46 year old chess problem.

[Title "Thur Row, Chess Ultimates 1974, 216 Non-Capturing Moves"]
[FEN "R6R/1K3Q2/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4QNN/2BB3k w - - 0 1"]


Anand - Carlsen WCC 2014 ( game 3 ) -> at which moments Black was able to equalize? I am trying to return to competitive chess after 10+ years of inactivity. I am playing the QGD so the third game of the Carlsen - Anand match is very important for me. It seemed to me that Black had equal position in these lines yet now I am not so sure. That 17.Ng5 leap is really nasty, and after 20.fxe4 White also seemed in command.

Since I don't wish to change repertoire I am asking here for help to improve the game for Black so he can reach fully playable position.

Here are the moves of the game:

[White "Anand, Vishwanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Event "WCC 2014"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]

[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 c6 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. Bxa6 Rxa6 12. b5 cxb5 13. c6 Qc8 14. c7 b4 15. Nb5 a4 16. Rc1 Ne4 17. Ng5 Ndf6 18. Nxe4 Nxe4 19. f3 Ra5 20. fxe4 Rxb5 21. Qxa4 Ra5 22. Qc6 bxa3 23. exd5 Rxd5 24. Qxb6 Qd7 25. O-O Rc8 26. Rc6 g5 27. Bg3 Bb4 28. Ra1 Ba5 29. Qa6 Bxc7 30. Qc4 e5 31. Bxe5 Rxe5 32. dxe5 Qe7 33. e6 Kf8 34. Rc1 1-0

Analysing the whole game, not just the opening moves, the main problem with black's position was the dark squares. Despite having his dark squared bishop, once the pawn marched to c7 the dominance of Bf4 over Be7 was beyond any doubt. It is true that Carlsen made a few mistakes with several recaptures, but these moves were natural and probably every human would have made them in his position.

This is why my main suggestion is to play the line arising after 6... Nh4, getting rid of that annoying bishop and avoiding the pawn from ever reaching c7. The game may then steer into semi-Slav (if black plays c6) or Tarrasch (if black plays c5) pawn structures, where the choice is only yours.


What's the deep idea behind this puzzle? I'm trying to get better by doing many tactics puzzles a day. This one I found very interesting.
[FEN "6rk/6rp/p3pQ2/3pP3/3Pb3/1PP1PRR1/4q2P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxg7+! Rxg7 2. Rf8+ Rg8 3. Rxg8#

I'm trying to figure out what should have jumped out at me in order for me to have seen it. Of course, my typical heuristic sequence involves finding forcing moves (which is how I solved it in the first place), but that doesn't help me learn from the structure of the position. I'm trying to figure out what the intuition behind the position is. Here's an example of what I mean by intuition; take this puzzle for instance.
[FEN "8/8/8/q4k2/8/8/8/4K2R w - - 0 1"]

1. Rh5+ Kg6 2. Rxa5

In this puzzle, the intuition is that the queen is in the same line of sight (from a rook's perspective) as the king, and so if the king is checked along that line of sight, he must move off of it, exposing the piece. Another way of seeing it is that 1. Rh5+ levies a direct attack against the king and a half-attack against the queen (we say a player has a half-attack against a piece if an extra move would allow him to directly attack said piece). Kings must deal with direct attacks immediately, and the tempo Black loses by doing so is equivalent to an extra move for White, which, in accordance with our half-attack theory, means that on White's turn, he is now directly attacking the queen, which he captures on move 2. There are limitations to heuristics, e.g. if the king could in some cases block a check instead of moving, but the intuition is still there.
So back to this problem: First I was thinking "well, there are 3 attackers and 2 defenders" but that doesn't really give much intuition because it's not the same square being attacked each move. Another idea was that there are three half-attacks on g8 by the queen and the rooks (and only two defenders), but I could create other examples where this is the case and White doesn't have any real tactic available to him.
What's the intuition for why this tactic exists? What heuristic would allow me to recognize this kind of position later?

I'm trying to figure out what should have jumped out at me in order for me to have seen it.

The fact that there exists a possible queen check.

In chess, one of the most effective and decisive forms of attacks is by delivering checks. A large subset of tactics stem from a check, a combination centralized around a check, or series of checks (such as the one you're presenting).
In this particular example, after the queen check (sacrifice, always think like Mikhail Tal) the only move for black is to accept the sacrifice. At this point, after 1...Rxg7 (only legal move), my immediate intuition pointed in one and only one direction : another check. And indeed there exists another check available 2. Rf8+ after which again the only move for black is to block with the rook. From there the forced mate is evident.
Notice how at all steps, black has had only one available move, this is called the forcing move ; they are almost always the core of tactic sequences. Whenever you see forcing moves, you should immediately think of the possibility of a tactic.
All in all, your intuition in any position should be to always look for checks, they are the most powerful form of attack. If you are able to find a check, followed by a series of forcing moves, you should take your time to calculate precisely for there might be the opportunity of a game decisive tactic.


Early f3 in d4 openings? Are these openings playable for white? I use the first move order to counter my friend's very well prepared Benoni, and manage to whoop him many times, but its only in blitz. I was wondering if early f3s are playable in "actual" i.e. longer games as well. I'm aware that the second position often transposes into Neo-Gruenfelds or Kings-Indians, but wasn't sure if the other positions below were playable/if they provided white with good attacking chances in compensation for creating the early king-side weakness.

[fen ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 (2... g6 3. f3) (2... e6 3. f3) (2... d5 3. f3) 3. f3 *

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. f3  The first two moves signify an A56 Benoni but 3. f3 does not show up in my database as a typical continuation.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 is a playable E60 King's Indian.  3. ... Bg7 is a good followup for Black.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. f3  The first two moves signify an E00 Queen's pawn game and are very drawish.  3. f3 is not a typical continuation.  3. e3 gives White more chances for the point.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d5 3. f3 The first two moves of this are also an A50 Queen's pawn game.  Again, 3. f3 is not commonly played.

I suspect 3. f3 isn't popular for good reason and would recommend you try another continuation.

EDIT - so, why is f3 bad?  In the first continuation, Stockfish believes it drops a 'pawns worth' of value:

[fen ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. f3 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd2 e6 6.Nc3 d5 7.e3 Bc5 8.a3 a6 9.b4 Ba7 10.c5 O-O 11.Nge2 e5 12.Bb2 Be6 13.Rd1 Re8 14.Na4 Rc8 15.Qc2 h6

We see that by after his 7th move, Black is having a splendid game.  After the moves above, Black controls the center and is doing fine.  White hasn't even castled yet.  The problem with f3, ultimately, is that it doesn't do anything to constrain Black.  It takes a good square from the Knight which will eventually deploy to the passive e2.  Further, f3 looks silly if it isn't followed by e4 sometime soon.  White only manages the passive e3. I don't like how f3 opens the e1-h4 diagonal and nor do I like how it allows a Queen or Bishop on the a7-g2 diagonal to look at the King which will likely be sitting on g1 in most variations.


How should black meet 2.d4 in the Sicilian Defense? When playing the Sicilian Defence, what should black do when white's second move is: 2.d4

Should black take the white pawn, or should he continue to develop, by say moving pawn to e6?

In classical chess openings, the first thing white tries to do is build a pawn center with pawns on both e4 and d4. So the first goal of 1.e4 is to follow up with 2.d4, and the first goal of 1.d4 is to follow up with 2.e4. Of course, there is an opponent, so usually white has to shift plans quite quickly, but that's the classical theory.

Black can react in several different ways. If he attacks pawn e4 right now, then white can't really move 2.d4; that's what 1...d5 and 1...Nf6 do. 1...e6 and 1...c6 prepare 2...d5, so that black also gets a foothold in the center. Moves like 1...g6 let white go right ahead and hope that black will be able to sabotage white's center later and use the empty space left behind. 1...e5 puts black's own pawn in the center, makes 2.d4 exd4 possible and opens up lines for the bishop and queen: the classical best move.

1...c5 does slightly less than 1...e5: if white does play d4, black can chop off the pawn, and it opens up a diagonal for the queen, but no minor pieces are freed. The point is that that e-pawn is a center pawn, and therefore more valuable than the c-pawn: if black can trade c for d, he'll have one more pawn in the center. It's a very long term idea and he'll suffer first because he is behind in development, but the extra center pawn is helpful in defence and if he survives he'll probably have a better pawn structure.

So the whole idea of the opening is to play 2...cxd4 after 1.e4 c5 2.d4. 2...e6 would be followed by 3.d5, when black can't trade c for d anymore and white gets a slight space advantage.

This also explains the three main ways to play white against the Sicilian: fight it head on by still going for d4 (either 2.d4 or 2.Nf3 3.d4) and try to destroy black using the development advantage, prepare d4 with 2.c3 ("the only move that takes the Sicilian seriously", van der Sterren), or all the other plans that use d3 instead of d4, trying to show that white can do without d4 and that therefore 1...c5 is silly.


Is it true that Chess is generally more played by men? I have recently heard that the only 5% percent out of entire chess players are women. I find this suspicious. Who says that only men can play chess? Is this statistic true, and if it is, why?

Among active players in the United States, about 15% seem to be women.

If you look at the rankings on this page, there are currently 9513 women active out of 64634 total players. That's 14.7%.

My guess is that the composition of female players skews more heavily towards juniors than the composition of male players, but I didn't find any numbers on that. I say this because I saw more female players at scholastic tournaments as a child than I do now at open tournaments as an adult.


What's the best move by white in this game? In this game white must win. Please help me.

The key move is the g3 move.

If the e3 rook is unpinned, black has lot's of troubles
If the b8 knight is under-protected, Qxb8 wins easily

1.g3 achieves both.

 1.g3 Qc7 2.Rxd7 now wins (Qxb8 or Rxe8 coming)

Black should resign.


How can one become a very good chess player without studying chess or openings? I heard that Capablanca never liked to bother with openings, would never study chess or read books. Despite all this, he became world champion. Is this an exception to the rule?  Have times changed today were players are too strong and study is mandatory?

Capablanca didn't like to "study chess or openings" means that he didn't like to study formal chess (as it was understood in his time).

On the other hand, he studied more, and had a better grasp of chess principles, particularly as they related to the middle and end game. His best exposition of this was "Chess Fundamentals."

Because he focused on principles, rather than "book" moves, he was the hardest person in the world to surprise with a new line. He beat back the Marshall Attack that Marshall had reserved especially for him.

Nowadays, there is more and better book knowledge, so it's helpful to learn some of it. And the other reason is that not many players have the instinctive grasp of the game that Capablanca had.


How bad is the Elephant Gambit? I tend to think the Elephant Gambit is dubious, but what is the best path to a White advantage?

[fen ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5

Update:
 RemcoGerlich's comment of an upcoming book is quite relevant!  Typical analysis is only 4 moves deep claiming White is better (as shown in some answers below).

I had never seen 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 Bd6 given as "Elephant Gambit Proper" on wikipedia (link in Kortchnoi's answer); The wiki, by-the-way, quotes De Firmian analysis which is pre-computer analysis.

Good question. You are right, the Elephant gambit appears to be a dubious opening. Have you checked the wikipedia page on the Elephant Gambit? It offers good lines to fight for an advantage. But they are two other questions:

Do you like to defend or retain the initiative?

Those playing this opening are not afraid to gambit a pawn for the initiative with 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3.exd5 e4. In most of the lines following 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.d3 Be7 or 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 white has a pawn up but black has the initiative. With a precise play and a bit of patience, white will gain an advantage.

Do you like opening theory?

The issue is that you are going to face this rare opening once or twice in your tournament life and most of the time black will be better prepared (in this rare line). He/she will have more experience with this gambit. So, another way to deal with this gambit will be to go for an unrated variant such as

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3.Nxe5 Bd6 4.d4 dxe4 5.Qe2!?

[fen "rnbqk1nr/ppp2ppp/3b4/4N3/3Pp3/8/PPP1QPPP/RNB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

followed by Nc3, Bg5 and 0-0-0...

Those continuations have many advantages: Easy to remember; easy to play, and maybe not the kind of positions black are looking for when playing the Elephant Gambit !


Most drawish and least drawish opening Based on statistics (drawing percentage), which opening is the most drawish and which one is the least drawish? I am aware of questions such as this one, but my question is different.
There are two criteria.

It must be played by professionals.
It must not be an intentional loss (no hanging pieces, etc., so your opponent wins instead of drawing) for either side.

Dana Mackenzie wrote a nice series of articles about opening statistics in 2015.
For the most drawish openings, he writes this:

The Exchange Slav (D14) dominates this category like no variation dominates any other category. It’s a unique ECO code, a variation that is more about the players’ psychology than about chess. According to Rob Weir’s tables, this variation results in a draw 79.9 percent of the time in master play, and usually quickly. (The average number of moves is 25, about 8 less than any other variation.) If anything, I think that Weir’s statistics understate the extent to which these six moves serve as a wordless draw proposal. Weir removed all games of 10 moves or shorter from his database. When I look this position up on ChessBase, it looks as if at least 90 percent of the games are draws.
The top five drawing variations:
D14 (Exchange Slav with … Nc6 and …Bf5): 79.9 percent draws
D79 (Symmetric Grunfeld, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. cd cd): 59.0
C92 (Ruy Lopez, Flohr-Zaitsev Variation 9. … Bb7): 57.5
D13 (Exchange Slav, not 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bf4 Bf5): 56.2
B36 (Maroczy Bind, side variations): 56.1

For the least drawish:

Unlike the last category, the Hall of Shame of chess openings, this category consists of the most honorable, “fightingest” opening variations in chess. And what better variation to start with than B89, the Velimirovic Attack in the Fischer-Sozin Variation of the Sicilian Defense? The above position arises after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bc4 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7. To get an idea of the fireworks that may ensue, take a look at the amazing game Fischer-Geller from Skopje 1967. This was one of the three losses that Fischer included in his My 60 Memorable Games, so you know it has to be a pretty special game.
The top five:
B89 (Sicilian Defense, Sozin-Fischer-Velimirovic Attack): 25.2 percent draws
A44 (Old Benoni, 1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5): 25.5
B00 (Uncommon 1. e4 openings, e.g. Nimzovich 1. … Nc6, Borg 1. … g5, etc.): 27.5
C05 (French Tarrasch, closed variation, including the pawn sac 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 Qb6 8. O-O!?): 29.5
A60 (Main Variation Benoni, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6, side lines): 29.6


How does Chesscube.com rating compare to USCF and FIDE ratings? My Chesscube is 1800. I would like to have the strength of 2100 or 1900 USCF and FIDE. What Chesscube rating do I need?

There is no way to directly compare ratings from distinct populations.

However, it's not true that online chess and OTB populations are really distinct. There are players who have ratings in both OTB and online chess.

So, you can compare your rating this way: Find players in Chesscube who has also OTB ratings, select two of them, both have ratings close to your rating, one of them is higher than you, one of them is lower than you.

Your expected rating is between their OTB rating. If you pick more player from Chesscube, and pick more closer players, you will get smaller interval, thus more accurate estimate.

Example:

            Online    |    OTB
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Player A     1750     |    1630
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Player B     1850     |    1730
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You          1800     | Expected: ~1680, Probably between 1630-1730
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Instructive games with a white h-pawn push in the Smith-Morra gambit? I like to play the Smith-Morra gambit.  Recently, a friend showed me a game where he (as white) successfully played a h-pawn push in the Smith-Morra gambit, which both damaged black's kingside while opening up the file for the rook.  He then followed up with a massive attack along the h-file, and easily won.

This could have been a once-off against an unskilled opponent, so I'd like to see how viable this is in other situations.

Question: What are some instructive games with a white h-pawn push in the Smith-Morra gambit?

I checked my main games database and my book on the Smith-Morra, "The Modern Morra Gambit" by FM Hannes Langrock. I could find no examples of high-level players successfully employing this strategy to launch a kingside attack. The Smith-Morra focuses very strongly on quick central control and development, so it makes good sense to me that white's play will almost always be focused on the centre rather than along the h-file.

The one system within the Smith-Morra where I found a couple of examples of white successfully playing h4-h5 was in the Nge7-system. In this system, black plays Nge7 and Ng6, with the aim of using the knight to add extra control over the e5-square. In these cases, h4-h5 was usually played not with the aim of a kingside attack, but with a view to chase away the strongly placed black knight and regain control over e5. I did find one interesting example in the aforementioned book of white using this to instigate an attack, though it revolved more around using the e5-pawn as a central wedge rather than an attack on the h-file. It was given as D.Cantell Martinez - O.Martinez Rodriguez, Asturias 2001, though I don't know how much value to attribute to it as couldn't find it in my main database nor on chessgames.com, and I couldn't find the players for sure on the Fide ratings website (I found two possible O.Martinez Rodriguez, rated  about 1800 and 1900). In any case, it was given in the book as:

  [FEN ""]
  [White "Martinez"]
  [Black "Rodriguez"]

  1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4 Bc5 7.O-O a6 8.Bf4 b5 9.Bb3 Nge7 10.e5 Ng6 11.Bg3 O-O 12.h4 Qc7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.h5 Nf8 15.Ne4 Be7 16. Nf6+ Kh8 17. Ng5 g6 18.Nxf7+ Kg7 19.Qf3 Bb7 20.h6+ 1-0

Overall, it seems to be a very uncommon theme in this opening.


Why, in this Capablanca game, was this move considered bad? Regarding this position:

[fen "r2qr1k/pbpn1pbp/1p1p1np1/4p3/1PP5/3P1NP1/PBQNPPBP/R2R2K1 w - - 1 1"]

I have 2 questions:

1)If the game goes 1..c5 2.b5 the engine shows white slightly better but if 1..a5 2.b5 then the engine shows black slightly better.Why is that??

2)In this game Capa played h6 I think to prevent Ng5 but  according to Alekhine this was not a good move. I don't understand why play another move and invite the Knight to g5?

2) In this game Capa played h6 I think to prevent Ng5 but according to
  Alekhine this was not a good move. I don't understand why play another
  move and invite the Knight to g5?

This position comes from the famous game in which Richard Reti defeated the reigning world champion, Jose Raul Capablanca, in New York in 1924.

[fen ""]
[title "Reti vs Capablanca, New York 1924"]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.g3 b6 6.Bg2 Bb7 7.O-O d6 8.d3 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 e5 10.Qc2 Re8 11.Rfd1

However, in this position, Capablanca didn't play 11...h6 but 11...a5, followed by 12...h6. Despite this difference, the question deserves to be asked because h6 is still debatable.

[fen "r2qr1k1/pbpn1pbp/1p1p1np1/4p3/1PP5/3P1NP1/PBQNPPBP/R2R2K1 b - - 3 11"]
[title "Reti vs Capablanca, New York 1924"]

1... a5 2.a3 h6?! (2...Qe7!? {to prepare e4})

Alekhine criticized h6

  This move, which is difficult to understand, is the best proof that
  Capablanca was poorly disposed that day.

Why is h6 inaccurate?

The move h6 is inaccurate because White does not threaten to play Ng5 (He could have done it before, and the exchange of light bishops might weaken the White king). h6 is a move difficult to understand because at this super high level, moves always have a goal. Here we do not clearly understand its purpose. My guess is that

Black is playing a waiting move because it plans to sacrifice a pawn with c5 but waits for a more favorable moment.
Black does not want to push e4, which is natural, but tends to favor White.
Black could have played instead Qe7 to prepare e4.

[fen "r2qr1k1/1bpn1pb1/1p1p1npp/p3p3/1PP5/P2P1NP1/1BQNPPBP/R2R2K1 w - - 0 13"]
[title "Reti vs Capablanca, New York 1924"]

1. Nf1 c5! {was that the plan?} 2.b5! {no thanks!} (2.bxa5 Rxa5 3.Nxe5 Bxg2 4.Nxd7 Bc6 5.Nxf6 Bxf6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Qd2 h5! {and Black has more than sufficient compensation according to Kasparov}) Nf8 e3 Qc7 d4 Be4 Qc3 exd4 exd4 N6d7 Qd2 cxd4 Bxd4 Qxc4 Bxg7 Kxg7 Qb2+ Kg8 Rxd6 Qc5 Rad1 Ra7 Ne3 Qh5 Nd4 Bxg2 Kxg2 Qe5 Nc4 Qc5 Nc6 Rc7 Ne3 Ne5 R1d5 1-0


Should a member of a national chess federation register himself separatef for FIN? I know a player that is already a registered player of a National Chess Federation (NCF). Is he required to register separately with FIDE to obtain a FIN?
According to [FIDE's rules,](http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=180&view=article] I'd say no

All NCFs are required to register their players with FIDE. The FIDE Regulations on Registration, Transfers and Eligibility shall apply. All players who already have a FIDE ID number before 1 January 2015 are considered to be registered.

But I've been asked by a FIDE arbiter to tell the player the procedure (and that he has to pay 25€ for that). The player I'm talking about has been registered already in the NCF for 2016 and 2017.

The section you quote from the FIDE handbook is very clear. It is the responsibility of the individual national chess federations to register their players. It is not the responsibility of the players. It is the responsibility of the national federations to pay the fee required by FIDE to FIDE.

That said some national federations will have more than one level of national federation membership for individuals. They will charge more for FIDE registered players than for non-registered FIDE players and recoup some or all of the FIDE registration fees that way.

Different federations handle this in different ways and it is nothing to do with FIDE. It might be helpful if you said which national federation you are talking about.

EDIT: Doing some research I see that you are Italian. The Italian chess federation (Federazione Scacchistica Italiana or FSI) has 3 levels of membership, junior (10 Euros), ordinary (25 Euros) and adult (42 Euros). You must be a member of the FSI to play chess in Italy organized by the FSI. Normally you join (and pay) for membership through your chess club. If you want to play in a congress but are not a member of the FSI (through a club or otherwise) then you have to pay the congress your FSI membership fee.

Note that the membership fees I have quoted are old and may be out of date.


Why is en passant hardly heard of? So many people I know (or have played chess with) have never heard of En passant and will call me out for cheating.

  En passant is a move in chess. It is a special pawn capture that can only occur immediately after a pawn makes a double-step move from its starting square, and it could have been captured by an enemy pawn had it advanced only one square. The opponent captures the just-moved pawn "as it passes" through the first square. The result is the same as if the pawn had advanced only one square and the enemy pawn had captured it normally.

Read more on En passant at Wikipedia

I find that it is overall an uncommon move, I hardly ever have the opportunity to use it.

Why aren't people taught the move when they first learn chess? (I didn't know about it until I'd been playing for multiple years)

Read more on En passant at Wikipedia

It is taught together with the rest of the rules of the game. You playing for years without knowing about it has nothing to do with that, either you learn the rules or you don't, you won't self-discover them no matter how many years you play, specially not when your playing pool is limited solely to your friends who may not know certain rules either. So you not knowing about it doesn't make for a case that it's poorly taught.

Now chesswise, I think it's quite clear why it's a relatively rare type of move given that it can only be played when there are still pawns at starting position and when moved two squares, constraints make events rare. That said, its potential as a move is still rather frequently employed, for instance to stop your opponent's desired queenside pawn expansion, following is a typical example:

 [Title "En passant being employed"]
 [fen "r1bq1rk1/pp1nbppp/4pn2/2pp4/P2P1B2/2P1PN2/1P2BPPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 8"]

 1...a6 2.a5 b5 (2...b6 3.axb6) 3.axb6

Black plays a6 to prepare b5 and their desired setup is to have the a6-b5 pawns which provides important light-square control and creates space on Black's queenside. White on the other hand, prevents it by simply playing a5, with the underlying tactical idea being to capture with en passant in case black tries to expand with b5. If black did play it regardless, then after white takes, black's left with a weakened a6 pawn. So with a5 we stop both b6 and b5 for good.


Is this endgame scenario winnable for white? [title "White to move"]
[fen "8/8/4kr1Q/1p2pp2/1P1n4/p3K3/P7/8 w - - 0 1"]

I’m looking at this current position, and I think I'm going to lose, as I have limited mobility with both my king and queen. But a friend suggested otherwise, saying that I should put more focus on destabilizing the pawns up front, and therefore I have a high probability of winning otherwise.

Suggestions would be appreciated.

Looks rather lost (for white) to me.  Black basically has a fortress except for the a3 pawn.

If white wanted to win this (with black not doing anything), you'd have to win the a3 pawn, play a4 and promote a pawn. I don't think white has time for this as black's e,f-pawns will run very fast.

So the only realistic chance is a perpetual.


Why doesn’t Stockfish evaluate this fortress as 0.0? I'm going through the 100 endgames you must know book on Chessable and stumbled upon something I don't understand. This position with white to move is described as a draw starting with 1. Kh1. I figured well why wouldn't 1. Kf1 be a draw and I put the exercise into Lichess analyses, which evaluates the position as -2,5, no matter which move white plays.
Why isn't Stockfish able to evaluate this position as 0.0? It says 'depth 64'. Wouldn't it only need to calculate 50 moves to establish that this is a fortress and thereby a draw?
[FEN "8/8/1n6/8/8/5k1p/7P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

Depth 64 means 64 half moves, it includes moves both by white and black. It isn't close to being able detect draws by means of the 50 move rule (100 plies). Especially since that is only the depth of the deepest line in the search, and to conclude it was certainly a draw, Stockfish would have to look at a huge number of lines that all eventually draw by the 50 move rule.
Endgame draws like this are notoriously difficult for engines, they have no good way to judge "progress" in their calculations. There are some attempts being tried out but they aren't at the level of Stockfish yet.
This is why tablebases were invented -- huge databases of all positions with up to some number of pieces (7 at the moment I think). They give an immediate answer. This is a five-piece position and a Stockfish configured to use tablebases would immediately know it is a draw.


Sales rankings for chess books? Are there any estimates sales rankings for chess books? How much do a bestselling chess book generally sell?

Obviously, how much money book selling is a business secret. Nobody will tell you, you will never get the information.

But I do work with book publishers, they can comfortably pay my invoices with good profit margin. Furthermore I sell few database apps on the app store (www.smallchess.com), while I'm not a publisher I make non-trivial returns.

Selling chess books won't be make another Jeff Bezos, however, it's still a profitable business. In fact, selling books give better returns than being a 2700+ grandmaster. Unless you're like in the top 20 of the world, selling a good book (or running a business) makes more money.

Why? While the chess marker is much smaller than say football, the chess market is dominated by high-income earners. Chess books buyers have good purchasing power, because if they don't they would have better things to do than chess.

Well known book writers rely on commissions from their books for living.


What is the Pirc Defense (1... d6 or 1... g6)? On this website: http://www.dwheeler.com/chess-openings/, it says that the Pirc Defense is 1. e4 d6 or 1. e4 g6.  Which one of them is the true Pirc Defense?

1. e4 g6 could certainly transpose into a Pirc but it is not the first two standard moves. If you look at the ECO entry for B07, B08, B09 you will see the standard variations for the Pirc/Modern. I would say the link you give is wrong.

ECO B07

1. e4 d6

without 2. d4

2. d4 without 2... Nf6

2... Nf6 without 3. Nc3

3. Nc3 without 3... g6

3... g6 without 4. Nf3, 4. f4

B08

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3

B09

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4


Chuzhakin's System Hazardous Elements and Rules A short time ago, I ran across some short texts and a short video about Chuzhakin's system to spot tactics and avoid blunders.

What little I've seen seems really to help me. And so I'm looking for the complete list of hazardous elements and rules or the complete text. Everywhere is mentioned a pdf.

Also, there are a lot of links to Chuzhakin's pdf (at neoneuro.com...) in the net, but all of them lead to 404 Page not found...  Some hours of searching the net for the text lead to no result.

Could somebody please post the pdf or the maybe list of hazardous elements and the counting rules?

I googled the name of the file, chuzhakinssystem.pdf, and found a copy here: https://docplayer.net/22332201-Chuzhakin-s-system-version-2-14.html

Better yet, it can be found using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20180219185540/https://neoneuro.com/downloads/chuzhakinssystem.pdf . I think this link is more likely to be stable.


Antichess piece value What is the point value of each chess piece in Antichess?
I think they don't need to be negative values, because you're just going after the lower valued ones.

In particular, I wonder what the value of a king has in ntichess, since it has no value in regular chess.

In my opinion, this is a very difficult question, since the piece values in antichess are not as static as in normal chess and usually highly depend on the game phase and position.

However, there are some rules of thumb which pieces tend to be stronger or weaker, see, e.g., http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~andrew/suicide/StanGold/theory.htm.

You can also try to derive the piece values from the results that are obtained in automated parameter tuning for antichess engines. E.g., there is a paper on automated learning of piece values for chess variants, also including antichess/suicide, which you can find at http://www.ke.tu-darmstadt.de/publications/reports/tud-ke-2008-07.pdf. They got only negative piece values for antichess, so their engine probably was not strong enough to find that it can be good to have more pieces. Due to the simplified evaluation function they used (with basically only piece values), the result is not unexpected, I think.

In 2016, I added antichess to the Stockfish fork with support for multiple chess variants that is also used on lichess. Over time we improved the search and the evaluation function and repeatedly ran an automated optimization (with SPSA) of the piece values. When the evaluation function was very simple and the playing strength rather low, the optimal piece values were all negative. As the search and evaluation got more sophisticated and playing strength improved, the optimal piece values changed and some moved towards zero or even to positve values.

Today, it seems to be the strongest antichess chess, and the piece values mostly agree with intuition of strong human players. You can find the current piece values in the code. Since there are several other evaluation terms (piece-square table, mobility bonus, etc.) that are influenced by the presence of pieces, these values are not completely representative, though.

Here is a summary of my interpretation of Stockfish's piece values (also trying to consider the influence from other evaluation terms):

pawns are usually bad, since they are very restricted in their movements and are easy targets for forcing captures. I would give them a value of -1.
knights are quite dangerous, but for a strong player they can also be very useful pieces. According to Stockfish, the knight's value is about -1 in the middlegame, and +2 in the endgame.
bishops are usually very dangerous in the opening/middlegame, since the opponent can often get rid of all pieces if you have to start taking pieces with your bishop. Their value is about -3 in the middlegame and +2 in the endgame.
rooks tend to cause the same issues as bishops in the middlegame, but are usually very strong in the endgame. Their value is -5 in the middlegame and +2 in the endgame.
the queen can be useful in the opening due to her high mobility and the ability to quickly attack and capture pieces that are covered by the opponent, which might force him to take back in an unfavorable way. In the endgame the queen attacks too many squares and is usually bad. The piece value estimate is 0 in the middlegame and -2 in the endgame.
the king is a strong piece because it can move to many squares, but only locally. In this way, it can be used to avoid zugzwang and to put up local threats without attacking squares in the opponent's camp. The piece value is something like +2 in the middlegame and +3 in the endgame.

You might find that the results disagree with some the rules of thumb I linked above. That only confirms that it is hard to break down the evaluation of pieces in antichess positions to a few numbers.


Loss to a master, where did I go wrong? Two knights 4.d3 (black) [FEN ""]
[Date "6/15/2018"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Opponent"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2248"]
[BlackElo "1874"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 Bg4 8. h3 Bd7 9. Nbd2 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. Re1 Qc7 12. Nf1 Rfe8 13. a3 b5 14. Ne3 g6 15. b4 Nb7 16. d4 cxb4 17. cxb4 Bf8 18. Bb2 Bg7 19. Rc1 Qb8 20. Bd3 Nd8 21. Rc2 exd4 22. Nxd4 Ne6 23. Nxe6 Rxe6 24. Qa1 Qd8 25. f4 Nh5 26. Bxg7 Nxg7 27. Nd5 Rc8 28. Rxc8 Bxc8 29. Bxb5 Bb7 30. Bc4 Qh4 31. Rf1 Ne8 32. Qd4 Bxd5 33. Bxd5 Re7 34. b5 Qg3 35. a4 Qa3 36. Rf3 Qc5 37. Qxc5 dxc5 38. Rc3 Nf6 39. Rxc5 Nxe4 40. Rc6 Kg7 41. a5 Nf6 42. Bc4 Rd7 43. Kh2 Nd5 44. Kg3 Ne3 45. Be2 Nf5+ 46. Kf2 Nd4 47. Ra6 Nxe2 48. Kxe2 Rd5 49. b6 axb6 50. axb6 Rb5 51. Kd3 Rb2 52. Kc3 Rb5 53. Kc4 Rb2 54. Kc5 Kf8 55. Kc6 Rc2+ 56. Kd7 Rd2+ 57. Kc7 Ke7 58. b7 Rc2+ 59. Rc6 1-0

My rating: 1874

Opponent's rating: 2248

I feel like I lost this game as a result of gradual positional mistakes. Feel free to address any of the following points and suggest improvements in my play, or any other important details in the game:

7...Bg4 turns out to be a bit of a waste because in playing 8...Bd7 I felt that I didn't want the bishop sitting on h5 or g6. I think the best choice was an immediate 7...Na5 followed by ...c5.
After 12...Rfe8 I was planning to switch my bishop over to the long diagonal but I still felt a bit hindered by the fact that I played Bc8-g4-d7.
I question the move 13...b5. Perhaps I should've stuck to my plan of ...Bf8, ...g6, and ...Bg7. Here I was thinking about a b5-b4 break but I'm thinking that is a bit premature.
15...Nb7 I felt was wrong. This isn't a good square for my knight and I probably just stick it on c6, and I don't need to worry about keeping space for my light-squared bishop.
Perhaps 17...Rac8 was worth considering?
19...Qb8 feels kind of ugly. If I had played ...Rac8 earlier, ...Qb8 may not have been so bad.
Perhaps 21...exd4 was wrong. I know in Ruy Lopez structures black is supposed to hold this tension on e5 usually, but I think I saw ghosts and thought I had something with ...Ne6.
After 24.Qa1 I felt my position was getting close to losing.
I think I avoided 28...Qxc8 because I didn't want to give my opponent a tempo with Rc1-c7.
36...Qc5 felt like all I had because I didn't want to lose the a-pawn. Was keeping queens on the board a better idea with something like ...Qc1-c7?
My opponent says I was perhaps wrong to trade knight for bishop with 47...Nxe2, although I thought I was losing regardless.
The rook ending with the b-pawn most certainly seems lost, whereas with an a-pawn it would have been drawn.

Also, please no computer analysis unless it's absolutely necessary to justifying something. Thanks!

8... Bd7 was a poor move. Bg4 is understandable as white often plays h3 to prevent it, but if you're going to play it at least follow through with Bh5. Bd7 only serves to give white a free tempo to play h3, which he already wanted to do, and to place your bishop on an inferior d7 square.

11... Qc7 was a bit of a lazy move. What does it accomplish? Something like 11.. b5 to gain space seems a lot more worthwhile. Even Nc6 to further clamp down on d4 after having played c5 would be better.

12.. Rfe8 seems good.

13.. b5 seems good, you're doing what you should have done 2 moves ago. Sure it's a bit weaker now that he has played a3 and b4 comes in more strongly but still a good way to contest for space on the queenside.

14.. Bf8 felt more natural to me, but i understand you want to deny f5. I just don't think it's that scary here and if he goes for d5 instead you've wasted a move.

15.. Nb7 definitely feels a lot more awkward than Nc6. Were you planning to play Nxc5 incase he takes?

16.. c4! Keeping the position closed since your pieces are more weakly placed and gaining space on the queenside was your best decision here I think. As things stand you created a powerful diagonal for his bishop if it can get to b2.

19... Qb8 is a bit ugly, but your real problem was you didn't try to free your rook with a5 on move 20. You already shut it off from the rest of the noard, it's your duty to find it a bit of activity where it's stuck and fight back against your opponent a little.

Yes 21... exd4 was wrong. Your pieces are very badly placed, you trapped your rook on a8, you moved your knight to the back rank and your d7 bishop is only  active towards the sides of the board, so opening the center even more is a bit of a crazy thing to do. Getting your knight better placed with 21 .. Nc6 and follow it up by looking to free your a8 rook with an opportune a5 would have been a much better choice. Remember, don't open things in the center when your opponent has better piece placement. Not to mention your d6 pawn became very weak after that.

After Qa1 a potential a5 just becomes even stronger. You are just missing this idea, which has been a good move for many of your turns. If you have to you can always play Nh5 or Ne8 to break the pin, Qd8 is unnecessary and loses a tempo.

29... Bb7 it's nice to see you finally got this bishop to a decent square. Giving up a pawn was worth it, but too little to late.

31.. Ne8 this is the kind of move you can play with a closed center, but with an open one it's far too passive and slow. Nh5 was a better try, though you're still lost. Be careful about exchanging central pawns, it really changes the nature of the game.

Yes, trading the Queens really didn't leave you with good chances, though to be fair you were lost either way. At least you got some good endgame experience out of it which is valuable from a training perspective. It was rough because your king was far away from his passed pawn, and with no central pawns, and pawns on both sides of the board his bishop was superior to your knight. Not to mention his pawns were already far advanced.

Well at least you fought hard, good game. Hopefully this game will give you some good opportunities  for growth.


Can playing blindfold chess be learned or is it a natural skill? Any blindfold players here? Just wondering if blindfold chess is a skill that can be learned by amateurs like me or a natural skill by chess GM's, IM's, etc.

In essence, you are asking-

  Can memory (or other brain functions) be improved or is it a natural trait?

The answer is yes to both. While it is true that one's memory can be improved, it is also commonly observed that some people are more "gifted" when it comes to memory (and other brain functions) than others.

To play blindfold chess, you need three things -

A decent memory
A good ability to visualize
A decent level of chess playing strength (if you want to play decent chess i.e. or one could simply have a fantastic memory and make legal yet nonsensical moves).

Memory

I never "practiced" blindfold chess to learn it. I simply observed that as soon as my chess level got to FIDE 2000 level (for example), I could easily replay moves in my head and think "blindly". I don't have a great memory. I suppose my memory is average or slightly above average, but chess has surely helped to improve it to some extent.

Visualization

The way I do it is by visualizing a 2D board in my head (like a computer screen). The board doesn't have to be crystal clear (it's often hazy), but as long as you can "see" the pieces in their places, it's fine. I suppose that a chess player's ability to visualize increases the more chess he/she plays. This is normal brain development. The more you exercise a muscle, the better it gets. So I would suggest you practice visualization to get better at it.

Playing Strength

The real point of blind chess is to play chess blindly and yet play it well. So playing strength is indispensable or else there is no point in playing blind chess. If you play blind chess badly, you only prove you have a good memory and visualization power and nothing more. So, as an amateur, I would say your top priority is to improve your playing strength. Work on that and your memory and visualization will automatically improve.

All the best!


Books on opening theory organized around tactical/strategic motives, not opening lines "Understand your openings, not just memorize lines" is a common advice given to a club level player. However, most opening books are still organized around lines, amended with some explanations that may or may not yield "understanding".

I wonder if there are books on opening theory organized around tactical or strategic motives that are shared between many openings. Rather than having chapters such as "Rubinstein French" or "Ruy Lopez", this book might have, for example, sections named "Pinning Nf6 with Bg5", "To exchange or not to exchange a bishop for a knight to double opponent's pawns", "f7/f2 weakness", etc., that would explore how a similar strategic or tactical motive arises and compares across the openings.

You might be looking for two separate, but related types of books.

First, and I have an extensive library, I could find no books that do not organize the openings somewhat by sub-variation. The problem is that the ideas between various sub-variations of a specific opening, like the French, are just too different to lump into one chapter, so the answer to your basic question is "no".

The books that come to mind for learning opening pawn structures, and that is what you want, include the following books. These are the strategic ideas.

"Chess Opening Essentials: The Complete Series (Volumes 1 - 4)" (by
various GM authors, it is fairly basic, but it covers virtually all
openings and the basic ideas)
"The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings: Algebraic Notation" (by GM Rueben Fine, it is old, but still covers many openings, and the basic ideas have not changed)
"Pawn Structure Chess" (by Andrew Soltis, it contains many errors, but the basic ideas are sound)
"Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" (by GM Mauricio Flores Rios, this is the best of them all, but it is more advanced, and should be read after one, or more, of the above books. It does not cover as wide a variety as some of the books above)

The other type of books you might find helpful are books that are in the "Tactics in the X-opening" type books. These obviously cover the common tactics ideas of your question (f2/f7, as well as other soft spots, etc.). Some of these include:

"Tactics in the Grunfeld" by GM Genady Nesis
"Tactics in the King's Indian" by GM Genady Nesis
"Tactics in the Sicilian" by GM Genady Nesis
"Tactics in the French" by GM Genady Nesis
There is a whole 9-volume series called "Catastrophes & Tactics in the Chess Opening", which are grouped by opening, by GM Carsten Hansen
"Tactics In the chess Opening", a 6-volume series by GMs A. C. van der Tak, Friso Nijboer, and Geert van der Stricht.


How should rooks be developed in the opening? The opening is definitely a weak area in my chess game and I always feel like my rooks sit unused until well into the middle game (?).  Is that just how things go, or is there a strategy that allows development of the rooks in the opening?

I'm aware of castling as a way to get a rook towards the middle files (of course).  But I always feel like I'm neglecting the rooks when I play.

That's actually not very surprising.  In many openings, the rooks don't participate until fairly deep into the middlegame.  You touch on the reason in your question - the rooks have to wait until all the other pieces are out of the way in order to develop.

The specific strategy for rook development will depend on the position, but generally speaking, the rooks belong on the open and half open files in the middlegame.  In the endgame, rooks belong behind passed pawns.  Also in the late middlegame and endgame, rooks are very useful on the 7th rank (and to some degree the 6th rank as well).

In most openings, the rooks for white will usually come to d1 and e1.  Obviously that's a huge generalization, so don't take that as gospel truth.  Larry Christiansen has said that "when in doubt [about which rook to move], play the 'a' rook to d1".  The other rook (usually coming from the f file after O-O) should either stay on f1 or move to e1.

One last comment - often the best way to make use of the rooks is to double them so that they can invade into the enemy camp.  Usually your rooks aren't going to reach the 7th rank in the middlegame because there are too many minor pieces still on the board, but they can still be very useful when doubled and on open files so that they threaten to invade into the opponent's position.


En Passant Checkmate I made a check with a pawn that was subject to an en passant movement.

The check led to a checkmate, but the rules at chess.com didn't count it as a checkmate but let the opponent make his move. He took the pawn with his pawn with an en passant movement.

It seemed a bit strange to me because, I thought that in this case the check mate would be valid, and I wonder what happens in the case the opponent plays some other piece, does the checkmate become valid?

Or he is obliged (no other move allowed) to make the "en passant" movement even in the possibility he is not aware of the en-passant type of movement? (In this case I suppose the game is won, anyway)

My idea is that the rule is wrong in this case, the check mate should be counted as valid even if the idea of the en passant is that the movement ends at the time the opponent plays, but I think in this case the king is dead.

It is not checkmate if the other player has any legal move that gets them out of check. Capturing the checking piece is one such way; whether the capture is en passant or not is irrelevant for the purpose of this question.

In this case, an en passant capture is the only legal move. If the other player didn't know the en passant rule, I suppose they might lose on time unless they figure out what's going on first. Using a website such as chess.com one might be able to discover the rule accidentally, since clicking on a piece normally highlights all the possible moves for that piece.

Regarding your question of "what happens in the case the opponent plays some other piece", that would be an illegal move. A site such as chess.com simply won't allow it. In an over-the-board tournament, the consequence may vary: in blitz, the player who makes the illegal move loses; in long games, the move gets retracted and a time penalty is applied, at least for a first offense.


Is there an analysis of World Champions' games that shows the statistics of their game? Is there an analysis of World Champion games, with the help of engines, that shows statistics like percentage of best moves played, blunders made, creative moves which computers can only see at high depths, and etc? There might be some bias in this analysis since solid players, at least to me, will play objectively better moves since the positions that arise are simpler.

Yes, there are such studies. You can check this recent paper and references therein for the older ones. Various ideas have indeed been tried in order to quantify the "complexity" of position (e. g., in terms of complexity of search tree or dynamics of the evaluation function as the depth grows), but I think you better read the papers if you are interested in details.


Steely, grim perseverance in the face of certain destruction @JoshuaBakker has made an interesting comment:

  Why would you want [weaker competition]? For learning it's better to play against decent players....

But is it?

I believe that such advice used to be conventional during the precomputer era. If Capablanca had time to play chess against me, then I should have seized the opportunity, even if I must certainly have lost.

But is this not chiefly because Capablanca rarely had time to play chess against me?

Today, Stockfish always has time.

One could reasonably infer from the comment, taken in context, that an Elo 1300 player wasted his time by playing any Elo 1000 to 1600 opponents, if he could instead have been playing against nothing but the masters. Yet, is this really true?

Would one really learn chess best by fighting only hopeless odds? Does one truly gain nothing by the occasional victory, having taking advantage of an opponent's blunder? Must steely, grim perseverance in the face of certain destruction be the sole mode of chess play which has any lessons to teach?

(Here are a related question and answers from last year.)

As this question highlights, it can become problematic if you don't even feel like you have a hope of winning a single game. Where's the fun in that? In my opinion, chess should be played first and foremost because it is fun. It isn't very fun never to feel the satisfaction of playing a nice winning combination against an opponent.

I think it's important for chess improvement to have fun while dealing with chess, and thus some success is needed. Otherwise it all becomes a chore, which will impede development in the long run. Therefore, I don't think it's
advisable to play against stockfish for practice, unless it's training of some particular technique. Furthermore, stockfish training (i.e playing games against stockfish) will never really be applicable in regular games, as humans cannot, and will not even try to, play like the top computers.

However, facing strong opponents is a crucial component to improving. The ideal opponent is in my view somebody with a strength about 200-400 rating points above oneself. Then they will most likely beat you, and highlight the mistakes you make which makes them easier for you to discover and correct for future games. But you still have a realistic chance of scoring. You will have to struggle though, and really push yourself not to get blown off the board.

If you don't play stronger opponents, you will never improve very much. Why? Because there simply is no need for improvement then!


Syzygy tablebases in xboard I'm trying to set up the five-men syzygy tablebases for use in xboard 4.8. Stockfish 6 and Komodo 9 are both supposed to support Syzygy, but in Xboard, their SyzygyPath option is missing from the UCI options.

I've tried setting up the tablebase through the GUI options but there's no documentation on how to do this with Syzygy rather than Nalimov that I can find. Anyone have a clue how this is done?

xboard is not a UCI user interface, so you'll need to install the Polyglot adapter to make it work. Once you have the Polyglot installed, you'll need to edit the polyglot.ini file. Read here for instructions on how to do it.

Please note Polyglot is not a very professionally made software. You'll only be able to find some old documentation. The whole process is quite technical. If you don't want to spend the time, you might as well consider other user-interfaces.


Who is the oldest person to become a GM via norms and hitting 2500 in rating? Who is the oldest person to become a GM via norms and hitting 2500 in rating? In other words, the standard way that most GMs achieve the title.

This would rule out any of the old masters pre-FIDE, and I also want to rule out those, who become a GM directly as a result of winning the World Senior Championship (like GM Larry Kaufman, for example).

The oldest player for whom I can find supporting evidence is Nikolai Shalnev who was 57 when he got his third GM norm in the Spring 2001 tournament in Odessa at which point his FIDE rating was 2550.

According to his (German) Wikipedia entry:

  Shalnev trägt seit 2001 den Großmeister-Titel. Die dritte Norm für
  den Titel des Großmeisters hat er beim Turnier Spring 2001 in Odessa
  erfüllt, wo er mit 9,5 Punkten aus 12 Partien siegte.

Translated:

  Shalnev has the Grandmaster title since 2001. He obtained the third grandmaster norm in the Spring 2001 tournament in Odessa, which he won with 9.5 points out of 12 games.


Has there ever been a game where multiple humans play against a single chess computer? I'm wondering if the following scenario has ever been played out:

  Once side of a chess game is played by multiple humans at once,
  collaboratively determining what the next move will be.  This could,
  perhaps, be enforced by some sort of game logic where the move with
  the highest percentage is the chosen-move.  Let's pretend that there
  could be as many as 1000 humans contributing to the decision making.
  The other side is played by a single chess computer, and a
  reasonably-good one at that.

Has anyone ever attempted something like this?  If so, what was the outcome?  Does adding more human players to make decisions for one side of the game increase the likelihood of that side defeating a computer opponent?

Six months ago a match was held on ICC: Komodo, one of the strongest engine, faced hundreds of people combined. Komodo won.

http://www.chessclub.com/article/icc-vs.-komodo-online-voting-match


Syzygy 6 man Tablebase Files Question Is anyone familiar with the .wdl and .dtz formats for the 6 man tablebase that are available?

I already confirmed that both aren't needed, however they both store different information. Goal is to determine which one would fit what I want to do.

-I know there are other forums out there for this.  I'm a new member on one of them but trying to see if anyone here is familiar with this is all.

WDL gives win/draw/loss for a position
DTZ gives distance to zero for the 50-moves draw rule

Both files are needed, absolutely. Chess engines assume both files are there, and would only check one of those at run time. It's your responsibility to make sure you have both files. There's a good opportunity your engine will crash if you don't.

You're giving yourself trouble if you leave out one. Download them both or do nothing.