Is this a good idea for starting the game? Usually I am a defensive player. Because of this, a few years ago, I created an opening set of moves, where I moved every other pawn forward 1 space, starting with pawn A2. To be more specific, I moved pawns 2A, 2C, 2E, and 2G to 3A, 3C, 3E, and 3G, respectively.

There are ways to get through to row 1 using a queen or bishop, but except for one way (going diagonally to 1H with a queen), any piece will be immediately destroyed at almost any point in rows 1-4. That one way, using a queen to get to 1H, does do a lot of damage, because eventually it threatens the king, and is hard to be stopped.

I am an amateur chess player, so I do not know a lot about all of the tactics. To experienced chess players, this may look like a stupid question. I apologize for that.

Is this weakness enough to make the strategy not worth it, or is it still a good idea?

It's definitely not a good idea. If it were one, there would be a real opening for it. One problem with moving all your white-squared pawns 1 space forward, is that you lose so many moves developing your pieces. However, this is the 'small' disadvantage. The big one is, that all of your white squares are very weak.

Look at this position:

[fen ""]
1. a3 e5 2. c3 d5 3. e3 e4 4. g3 Nc6

Black just needs to put his pieces on nice squares like for example Ne5 or Nc4, Bg4 with Nf6. Also a disadvantage is that you lose much space. Your knights have nearly no squares, where they can move. Bc1 is completely useless.

If you lose your white-squared bishop, the black pieces will destroy you, because you can't defend all the white squares.


Which webpage broadcasts a single chess game, usually Carlsen's, in infinite analysis? I would often visit a site that had a live Carlsen game analyzed by a strong computer, and deeper than the "average" chess site, but I can't seem to find it. I think it had something to do either with the TCEC or the Stockfish team.

You are probably thinking of analysis.sesse.net.


I am 1400, how do I improve my positional play? My lichess puzzle rating (tactics) is around 2100, while my game rating is only around 1400, so I'm pretty sure that means my positional play is utterly trash. There aren't any positional puzzles out there, and when reviewing games, I'm utterly clueless on anything positional since I haven't the slightest idea on how to evaluate a position, and guides on positional play seem abstract to me.

I get by in life by memorizing sicilian opening lines and copying how IMs and GMs develop their pieces, but this only gets me past the early middlegame, and I'm essentially locked out of playing any opening except the ones I've carefully reviewed, like the modern, sicilian, and english.

I was wondering if there was a systematic way like a routine or checklist to determine a better position and a good positional moves, or if it was all dependent on pattern recognition. In other words, help please!

Positional thinking is more abstract than tactics.  If there could be an algorithm for positional thinking then positional thinking would be like tactical thinking and not something else.  However, there are thinking steps like noticing weak squares.

I suggest starting with a pawn structure book.  Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess" is a classic and the book that changed my game all those years ago.  I really like "Chess Structures - A grandmaster guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios as well.

I believe it is best to start with looking at isolani positions as positional considerations are clear there, As I recall both books start with isolani.  After that skip to the chapters with the structures you play and start trying out the ideas in your games.

Think about what the ideal placement of your pieces would be in the position separate from how to get them there.

These books may have unintended consequences.  After I read "Pawn Structure Chess" I switched from 1.e4 to 1.d4 because I was more likely to get isolani and hanging pawns structures and outplay my opponents who didn't know about these things.


Knight to h5 in the london system In the London system, white wants to keep their dark squared bishop,
Therefore after say 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4, black can play 3...Nh5, doesn't it break white's position?

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Nh5

The bishop is pretty decent on g5 as well.

So after 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Nh5 4.Bg5 and now black would have to create serious weaknesses on the kingside to hunt down the bishop. But if he just returns the knight, he has lost a tempo.

[FEN ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Nh5 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Nxg3 7.hxg3


Does playing gambits improve your tactical skills? I once heard that you can sharpen your tactical skills by playing gambit openings?  If this is true, obviously you would and should improve your game.  Does anyone have any information or proof of this?

I think that there are important skills you can learn from playing gambits, like how to use an advantage in development and the initiative, or just the fact that material isn't everything. It's probably also useful to learn those things early on in your chess career.

I'm not sure about them being better for improving tactics though. Every chess game has tactics.


How to count pieces from PGN notation? I am trying to figure out an algorithm to extract the number of each piece that both black and white have from a PGN file.

Right now I have all of the moves tokenized(i.e. c("e4", "d6", "Nc3", "f5", "exf5", "Bxf5", "Qh5", "g6"...), but I'm not sure where to proceed next. So far I know that identifying the "x" characters is necessary, but I am not sure what to do as the notation only identifies the capture square, and not what type of piece is captured.

You'd have some data structure, such as a 2-D 8x8 array, storing the current piece in each square of the board. Everytime you read a new move, update the array appropriately. Then, when you see a capture like "exf5", check what piece is stored in the "f5" square of the array.

You'll have to be careful with en passant captures. For example, in the case of 1.e4 c5 2.e5 d5 3.exd6, you should be checking the element in the array 1 row above (for d5). In order to detect when an en passant has occurred, see if a pawn captured on to an empty square. For example, 3.exd6 is White's e5-pawn capturing on to the empty d6-square, so it must be en passant.


Did Deep Blue play like a human? Kasparov said, in Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine, that Deep Blue "sank into deep thinking" and took like 15 minutes to make a move.

The movie tells the story of their match, in 1997.

At a certain position, in the second game, Deep Blue could have taken two pawns, but did not, aiming for a win in the long run.

Do modern computers agree with Deep Blue on that, and, if they do, how long does it take them to find the correct winning move?

That part of the movie can be watched here.

This article from Chessbase answers most of your questions.

This was the position in which Kasparov had set a "computer chess" trap.

 [fen "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Gary Kasparov"]

He was expecting
36. Qb6 Rd8
37. ab Rab8
38. Qxa6 e4

 [fen "1r1rq1k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P2/1Pp1p3/2P4P/R1B3P1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Gary Kasparov"]

when, for the cost of 2 pawns he has generated dangerous counterplay based on the idea of Qe5 possibly followed by e3.

Instead Deep Blue played the immediate ab followed by Be4 thereby nipping in the bud any chances of counterplay via ... e4 and ... Qe5 for black.

According to the article -

  In fact, if you consult any of the top engines of today, whether it be
  Houdini 4, Stockfish 6, or Komodo 8, they all choose Deep Blue's move
  36.axb5. For example:

  Komodo 8: 36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 Qd8 38.Kh2 Rcb8 39.Ra6 Kf8 40.R6a5 Kg8
  41.R1a2 Rxa5 42.Rxa5 Bc7 43.Ra1 Bb6

  +/- (0.84) Depth: 29 00:02:15 686MN, tb=57

So, nothing to see here (2 min 15 sec for the computer) ;-) Move on!


Explanation of my game. Can someone explain the "why" to me? Ok, here's a game that I won. I was playing vs someone on chess.com, and playing as black. My PGN is as follows (with comments from the analysis engine):

[fen ""]
1. d4 e5 2. Nf3 {MISTAKE (-0.26) The best move was 2. dxe5}
(2. dxe5)
2... Nc6 {MISTAKE (+1.33) The best move was 2... e4}
(2... e4 3. Nfd2 Nf6 4. c4 c6 5. e3 d5 6. Be2 Be6 7. Nc3)
3. Nc3
3... Bb4 {INACCURACY (+0.98) A better move was 3... exd4}
(3... exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. g3 Bb4 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O d5 8. Nxc6)
4. dxe5 Nxe5 {MISTAKE (+3.60) The best move was 4... d5}
(4... d5)
5. Nxe5 Bd6 6. Nd3 Nf6 7. e3 b6 8. Qf3 Rb8 9. Qe4+ {BLUNDER (-4.53) From winning to losing. The best move was 9. Nb5}
(9. Nb5)
9... Nxe4 10. Nxe4 Qe7 11. Nxd6+ cxd6 12. f3 Qh4+ 13. Nf2 Qb4+ 14. c3 Qc5 15. Nd3 Qd5 16. e4 Qc4 {INACCURACY (-1.22) A better move was 16... Qe6}
(16... Qe6 17. Nf4)
17. Nf2 {INACCURACY (-2.60) A better move was 17. Nb4}
(17. Nb4 Qe6 18. Bf4 f5 19. Nd5 Qg6 20. exf5 Qxf5 21. O-O-O Bb7)
17... Qc6 {INACCURACY (-1.56) A better move was 17... Qe6}
(17... Qe6)
18. Nd3 {INACCURACY (-2.60) A better move was 18. Bf4}
(18. Bf4 b5 19. Rd1 Rb6 20. Bxd6 Qb7 21. Rd5 b4 22. Bd3 bxc3)
18... O-O 19. Nf4 {INACCURACY (-3.83) A better move was 19. Nb4}
(19. Nb4)
19... Re8 20. Bc4 {MISTAKE (-7.39) The best move was 20. Kf2}
(20. Kf2 f5)
20... d5 {BLUNDER (-2.20) The best move was 20... Qxc4}
(20... Qxc4)
21. Bxd5 Qc5 22. Bb3 d5 {MISTAKE (-0.87) The best move was 22... Bb7}
(22... Bb7 23. Nd3)
23. Bxd5 {MISTAKE (-3.69) The best move was 23. Nxd5}
(23. Nxd5 Be6 24. Be3 Qc6 25. O-O f5 26. Rad1 fxe4 27. fxe4 Rb7)
23... Bb7 24. Bd2 {INACCURACY (-6.92) A better move was 24. Bxb7}
(24. Bxb7)
24... Bxd5 25. Nxd5 Rbd8 {BLUNDER (-1.94) The best move was 25... Qxd5}
(25... Qxd5 26. Rd1 Qxa2 27. Bf4 Rbc8 28. Bc1 f5 29. O-O fxe4 30. f4)
26. O-O-O Rxd5 {INACCURACY (-1.14) A better move was 26... Qc4}
(26... Qc4 27. a3 f5 28. Ne3 Qa2 29. Nxf5 Rxd2 30. Kxd2 Qxb2+ 31. Ke3)
27. exd5 Qxd5 28. Be3 {INACCURACY (-2.55) A better move was 28. Rhe1}
(28. Rhe1)
28... Qxa2 29. Bf2 {MISTAKE (-6.58) The best move was 29. Rhe1}
(29. Rhe1 f6)
29... Re2 {BLUNDER (♔ MATE IN 2) From winning to losing. The best move was 29... Qa1+}
(29... Qa1+ 30. Kc2 Re2+ 31. Kd3 Qxb2 32. Bg3 Rxg2 33. Rhe1 Qc2+ 34. Kd4)
30. Rhe1 {BLUNDER (♚ MATE IN 1) From winning to losing. The best move was 30. Rd8+}
(30. Rd8+ Re8 31. Rxe8#)
30... Qa1#

And here are the "stats" from the game:

Strength    White   Black
Excellent   18  15
Good    1   5
Inaccuracy (?!) 5   4
Mistake (?) 4   3
Blunder (??)    2   3
Forced  0   0
Best Move   32.1%   26.7%
Avg. Diff   1.39    1.21

The analysis engine tells me what the mistake was, and what the best move was, but not really "why". I'm more interested in the mistakes and blunders at this point.

I'm really just trying to learn right now...any thoughts or advice are really appreciated.

This is a game between beginners. Nothing wrong with that, but there is not much point at this level giving a very deep explanation as to the "why". Both players should pay more attention to

not blunder pieces in one move
not miss mate in one move

Concretely:

From move 1 to move 4 a pawn was hanging on e5. White could/should have taken it earlier and black should not have allowed that (not move it there in the first place and later prevent it from being lost by either moving it away playing e4 or by capturing exd4.

...Nxe5 is a big mistake as it just drops a piece. Always check and double check if your pieces are attacked.

Qe4 just drops the queen. As above with every move you make, check whether your opponent can capture something (particularly if it is your strongest piece...)

Bc4 is another big mistake as it drops the bishop. Black should have responded with 20...Qxc4 winning a full piece for nothing.

22....d5 is a mistake because it drops a pawn.
24 Bd2 is a big mistake as it drops another piece. Admittedly this is a bit more tricky to see. Basically the bishop on d5 is protected only once by the knight on f4, because the pawn on e4 is pinned to the king, so you cannot recapture e4xd5. Black could have played 24...Bxd5 25 Nxd5 Qxd5 winning a piece.

Bf2 is a mistake because after 29...Qa1+ black will eventually win the pawn on b2 and the white king will be without protection in the middle of the board. For instance 29...Qa1+ 30. Kc2 Re2+ 31. Kd3 Qxb2 etc. A better move would have been 29. Rhe1 which prevents the black rook from entering with check via e2. Admittedly at your current level, this is not a big oversight unlike the other mistakes and I would not yet worry about it.

29....Re2 is a terrible mistake because it would lose to back-rank mate after Rd8+. Back rank mate is an extremely common tactics and you have to be aware of it at all times. You need to have the typical position (=three pawns in front of castled king and opponent queen or rook) ingrained subconsciously in your chess brain.

So in summary:

Pay more attention to hanging pieces (both yours and your opponent's and learn some basic tactics.


Endgame player vs middlegame player: Is the result inevitable? I recently asked this question: Why Anand and Carlsen insisted on playing the same opening/defense

FM Rauan Sagit answered:

  In my view, in terms of opening preparation, the Anand team failed to
  obtain middle game positions that suited Anand's style. In general, I
  think that Anand should have aimed for long middlegames with most
  pieces intact. While Carlsen should have aimed for long endgames with
  most pieces exchanged off the board. From this point of view, Carlsen
  got his types of positions, while Anand failed to get his. This can
  partially be explained by the chosen opening systems. Additionally, I
  think that Anand should not have willingly exchanged queens in a
  single game.

That got me thinking, when a strong endgame player faces a strong middlegame player, does the latter stand a chance?

The endgame player would force the opponent into exchanging pieces and there's nothing you can do about it simply because he doesn't care about his pieces, just like what happened in the championship match,  am I right? What are the odds of a middlegame player defeating an endgame player?

My point was that Anand could prevail in dynamic middlegame positions, while Carlsen could prevail in endgames with a minimal advantage. Of course, Carlsen masters all three phases of the game on a top level. At the same time, sharp and complex middlegame positions release more adrenaline and require more focus. Regarding comparing a middlegame expert and an endgame expert, it is not so easy to exchange pieces. An exchange of pieces is a mutual decision and it takes two to tango. One way of keeping most of the pieces on the board is to select opening systems accordingly. For instance, you can choose the Volga gambit

[FEN ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5

and most of the pieces will be on the board for a good while. In some systems, it is easier for the endgame expert to steer the game towards e.g. an early exchange of queens. While in other systems, it is much more difficult to steer towards multiple exchanges. That being said, all the professionals are experts in all three phases of the game. So the key is to steer towards positions where they risk the most and therefore create the situation they prefer to avoid.


Who are the seconds of famous players? Can anyone provide lists of seconds of famous players? They can contain the names of people that work/worked with top players for a long period or for a particular match/tournament. Besides the names of the seconds, I'm also curious about the typical strength of seconds and whether there are seconds that worked for different top players.
Thanks in advance!

Just to get started, of the top of my head:

Magnus Calsen worked with Jon Ludvig Hammer,  Laurent Fressinet, Ian Nepomniachi, Peter Heine Nielsen, Michael Adams, Simen Agdestein, Garri Kasparov. He also had training sessions with Ding Liren and Wesley So. Also, this were his seconds for WCC 2016.
Vishy Anand worked with Peter Heine Nielsen, Rustam Kasimdzhanov,Radoslaw  Wojtaszek, Grzegorz Gazewski, Krishnan Sasikiran, Peter Leko, Surya Ganguly and Sandipan Chanda. He also had at least one training session with Magnus Carlsen.
Kramnik worked with Peter Svidler, Miguel Illescas, Evgeny Bareev, Peter Leko, Sergey Rublevsky, Alexander Motylev, Efimenko.
Veselin Topalov worked with Cheparinov, Paco Vallejo, Dominguez Perez, Romain Edouard.

As you can see the rating of these seconds is generally in the 2650-2750 range. (A notable exception would be Kris Littlejohn, a 2100 player who used to assist Hikaru Nakamura). It is quite common for seconds to work for different top players, at different points in time. (Leko, Motylev, Nielsen, Kasimdzanov … from the list above.)
As for the strength of a second, they are typically very strong theoreticians. And often a new second is hired because he is a specialist in a particular opening.This is the main reason why his name might be kept a secret. For example Dominguez is an expert in the Grunfeld and the Najdorf. Michael Adams was clearly hired because of his expertise in the Berlin Defence. Gajewsky introduced a strong counter gambit in a line of the Ruy Lopez …


Can you mate with each of your 16 pieces on its original square? An opinion poll conducted by problem composer Roberto Osorio over 10 master-level chess players in the Argentine Chess Club produced 100% wrong answers! :-)
When the right answer is posted here, I will post a follow-up problem.
EDIT: OK here is the follow-up:
[title "R.Osorio - StrateGems 2007 "]
[fen "rnb2rqb/pppp4/6p1/7p/6n1/7k/PPPPPPNP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

This is the position after White's 16th move. What was the exact sequence of moves?

Obviously the last white move was 16. Nf3g1+.

I note that black needs at least 15 moves to place the pieces as they are:

4 moves to swap queen with rook as they are (various movements possible),
2 moves for the bishop (Bf8g7, Bg7h8),
2 moves for the knight (Ng8f6, Nf6g4 or Ng8h6, Nh6g4)
1 move each for the two pawns (g7g6 and h7h5)
5 moves for the king (any direct route)

Together with the information that it is black's 16th move, this means that all of black's pieces must have taken a direct route to their destination.

Note that black did not capture any white pieces, because white still has 16 pieces on the board. This means in particular that the pawns on g6 and h5 are the pawns from g7 and h7 respectively.

White has promoted the g pawn for a knight. Since black has still the original g pawn, and all pieces except for two pawns, this is only possible, if the white g pawn moved to g6, captured the black pawn on f7 and promoted on f8 for a knight.

The white pawn could only be promoted after the square on f8 was emptied, i.e. the order of moves is roughly: 1) white pawn moves to g6, 2) white pawn captures black pawn on f7, 3) black plays g7g6, and Bf8g7

Before white captured g6xf7, the black e pawn must have been gone as otherwise (with e7, Qd8, Bf8 and Ke8 present), black would have been forced to recapture the white pawn on f7 since it is check (and the black king would have no squares to escape).

Counting the minimum number of white moves now until the position after blacks's 15th move (i.e. with white knights on f3 and g2)

white's g pawn: 5 moves (g2g4, g4g5, g5g6, g6xf7 f7f8N)
return the promoted knight from f8 to either f3 or g2: 3 moves
capturing the e7 pawn and returning the piece:
If this was done by the rook, it would take at least 8 moves. This would make the total (5+3+8>15), so is not possible. So e7 was captured by a white knight, which returned. Both options (a) white knight from g1 capturing e7 and returning to g2 or f3 or (b) white knight from b1 capturing e7 and returning to b1 plus the move Ng1f3; would take 7 moves.

5+3+7=15, meaning that also white moved its pieces on shortest possible routes without any time for waiting moves.

As for the rest, basically it comes down to check how to achieve the main plans in order, i.e.:

capture the pawn on e7 with a knight and return the knight at least partially (so that the black king is able to get to e7); as mentioned this needs to be done before white captures gxf7
capture gxf7 and promote the pawn
return all white pieces to their final destination

During phase "1." black is very limited in moves since the g pawn cannot move yet (has to wait for the white pawn to play gxf7). This leaves as the only possible first moves for black 1....h5 2...Rh6 ... 3...Rf6 4....Nh6.

These four moves are just enough time for white to capture the e7 pawn with the knight on b1 and to return the knight to c3 (making space for the king on e7, i.e. giving black additional "waiting" moves (waiting for white to push the pawn to g6 and play gxf7). Note that white has to capture the e7 pawn with the knight on b1, because trying to capture it with the knight on g1 would take one move longer and black would run out of waiting moves. So the first four moves are: 1. Nc3 h5 2. Nd5 Rh6 3. Nxe7 Rf6 4. Nd5 Nh6 5. Nc3 Ke7.

Phase two starts and white has to push the g pawn forward, because playing for instance 6. Nb1 black would run out of "waiting" moves and would not manage to regroup queen/rook/bishop in time. So, the next three and a half moves (6. g4 Ke6 7. g5 Kf5 8. g6 Kg4 9. gxf7 ) are basically black pushing the king on the shortest available route towards h3 and white pushing the g pawn forward. As mentioned black has to wait with playing g6 until white captures gxf7, so black can only push the king during this phase.

The final phase (9....g6 10. Nf3 Bg7 11. f8=N Bh8 12. Ne6 Qg8 13. Nf4 Rf8 14. Ng2 Kh3 15. Nb1 Ng4 16. Ng1#) is basically just moving the pieces to their final squares. There are no alternative move orders possible. For instance white cannot play Nb1 earlier, because with 14. Ng2 he is just in time to block the bishop from attacking h3, allowing 14. ... Kh3.


To what move depth should you analyze a chess position I'm trying to learn a chess opening and using a chess engine (stockfish8) to analyze the position but I'm wondering what move depth should I set it to (e.g., 25, 30 35 half moves).

Generally, the only reason running a chess engine at less than maximum power are time constraints or if you want to give yourself a chance to win, though in the latter case I'd still prefer to play human players instead.

Regarding the use of a chess engine to analyze the position in an opening in order to learn a chess opening I am wondering how you are going to practically do this? I mean, the engine will give you only a certain sequence of moves which it considers best play for both sides. It will not teach you the ideas/plans behind an opening which is the most important part and something which you can rely on if your opponent for instance does not play the expected move. It will not teach you about subtleties, like move-order changes or any sidelines.

I am not saying a chess engine is completely useless for studying openings. You could use it for practice games in a specific opening or you could study a certain alternative move in an opening (but that would be at a stage where you already know the opening somewhat).

For studying a new opening I'd find much more useful than an engine:

any explanation of plans/ideas (this can be books, videos, or a coach/friend)
a database
following games of a Grandmaster who is playing the opening regularly (let them do the difficult analyzing part...)


Which chess player has been the most financially successful? Based solely on chess exploits (not including success in other career fields), which player has been the most financially successful?

Chess playing has never been a very lucrative occupation.  The most money earned in the field of chess probably comes from prizes, and the big prizes are only awarded to the top players.  I don't have a definite source, but I would say that Viswanathan Anand is probably the most financially successful, since the prizes have only increased since he began his reign as undisputed world chess champion in 2007.  The prize is generally split in half, or 60-40 between winner-loser, or in similar fashion. The prize for this year's tournament will be $2.55 million, split between Anand and Gelfand.  For 2010, the prize was 2 million euros, 60% of which went to Anand.


Top players move order when playing QGD? Why is typical move order for QGD among top grandmasters 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5? Why does not black immediatelly go 1. ..d5?
Also, why is QID via 3. ..b6 almost never played?

There is no real objective answer, both are playable at any level. Such variations in move order are decided primarily according to roughly 3 common criteria:

a) Comfort zone of the player: which structures they're more familiar with, and therefore, they may opt for lines that maximise the liklihood of ending up in those.
b) The types of variations and transpositions they want to prevent from occurring (depending on the opponent), which itself depends on various elements.
c) The kind of game they've envisaged: double edged, conservative, etc. (this is a subcategory of b) essentially), all of which influence how committal you're going to be with your starting moves.

Therefore, these matters tend to be quite opinion-based, that said, here's an attempt to shed some light on a handful of key differences between the two specific lines:

More particularly for the line you ask about, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 ... often called the anti-Nimzo qualifies as one of the most versatile options for black as there still remain a diverse set of variations for black to consider, to name a few (assuming 4.Nc3):

On the solid side: 4...Be7[*] (leading to mainline QGD with Bf4...e3).
Or sharper variations such as: the Vienna 4...dxc4
Tarrasch 4...c5
Ragozin 4...Bb4

Note that white is also keeping many options open with 3.Nf3 instead of Nc3.

On the other hand, with 1...d5, well for starters, Nimzo Defence options are essentially ruled out, and assuming black is going to follow with e6...Nf6, white is left with early options to divert towards fundamentally different structures such as the exchange variation of the QGD: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 ..., compared to the move order with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 where an attempt to transpose to an exchange variation with 4.cxd5 exd5 leads to poorer version of that system for white as the early Nf3 is almost a lost tempo since black has to pressure d5 (with early Nc3 and Bg5 pinning f6-defender) while including an early Qc2 to prevent black from creating a good light-square bishop with Bf5.
So the whole setup with early Nf3-cxd5 and without Nc3 allows only for a nonthreatening transposition to the QGD exchange variations.

Instead, by not committing to d5 [**] on the first move and playing Nf6, black preserves the option of playing the Nimzo among other lines (and therefore, avoid QG's altogether if so desired), while transpositions to most variations with pawn on d5 remain open, which leads us to the natural conclusion that: not making early committal pawn moves in the centre tends to leave us with more options on the table.

So as you see, all these lines are possible but the decisions are made according to one's preferences (and the circumstance at hand) and neither option (1...d5 , 1...Nf6...) is generally better or worse.

Regarding your last question,

  Also, why is QID via 3. ..b6 almost never played?

it's not clear what you mean, the move 3...b6 is the defining move of the Queen's Indian Defense (QID), and it is frequently played (by e.g. Carlsen, Karjakin, Anand, Ivanchuk, ...).

[*]: This mainline followed by Bf4..e3 and 6...c5 also happens to be what Carlsen - Caruana had prepared for during the recent world championship event, see e.g. game 7.

[**]: Similarly, 1...d5 also avoids certain lines that 1...Nf6 doesn't, but there's not enough time/space to get into that.


DroidFish's rtb folder's file placed somewhere else DroidFish has an rtb folder that should be used for wdl and dtz syzygy endgame tables. For the six pieces tables it represents roughly 80+60Gb and as I my phone has only 64Gb as internal memory, I would like to put the files on a SD card and make DroidFish point to them, but it does not seem to be possible. Is it really the case ? If not, how should I do ?

Let \path\to\endgame\tablebase\files be ... the path to endgame tablebase files. This means that the directory should contains only tablebase files, and not for instance folder for up to 5 pieces tablebase files and a folder for 6 pieces tablebase files. The files are .rtbw or .rtbz files. (These are Syzygy files, I don't know how it works for Gaviotta files (for which DroidFish provides the gtb folder) but I guess it works the same.)

The .rtbw files store win/draw/loss information including, where applicable, information on the 50-move rule. During the search only the .rtbw files are accessed. These files are "two-sided": they store information for both white to move and black to move.

The .rtbz files store the distance-to-zero: the number of moves to the next capture or pawn move. These files only need to be accessed when the root position has 6 pieces or less. They are "single-sided".

Anyway, all these files for up to 6 pieces endgames are in the folder \path\to\endgame\tablebase\files and now you should make DroidFish point to it. This takes place in DroidFish in "Settings --> Endgame Tablebases --> Syzygy Directory" where you have to put the complete path -- don't forget the "\" the path necessarily starts with.

It may be stupid as you already put files in that folder so you think you know its path, but beware as for instance on my samsung galaxy, the application "My Files" (the samsung file explorer) gives me a wrong path : if I use the path it gives to me, I don't see that tablebase are used by the engine in analysis mode :

as in the last line there is only "d:35/55 3:g4 t:431.7 n:1935M nps:4483k h:99" and no "tb:x" in it. Recall that "d" is the depth of analysis expressed in number of moves, "3:g4" at this point indicates that the third best move is g4, "t" is the time spent on the analysis so far, expressed in seconds, "n" is the number of nodes the engine searched through, "nps" is the current number of nodes the engine searches through per second and "h" divided by 10 gives you how full in percent the hashtable is, in previous picture's case it is therefore 9.9% full. (These notations and definition are UCI engines standards.)

The reason is that the "My Files" application does not give the absolute path to the folder. To get the absolute path to the folder, you have to use for instance the "Explorer" application which, while you browse, will display the absolute path the to place you browsed at.

Example for a folder placed in the hard disk of my phone : /storage/emulated/0/DroidFish/rtb
Example for a folder placed in the micro sd card plugged in my phone : /storage/3661-6463/Syzygy

The /storage/emulated/0/DroidFish/rtb is a vanilla DroidFish folder that you should use if you have place enough on your phone's harddisk. In /storage/3661-6463/Syzygy the /storage/3661-6463 is the absolute path of my micro sd card and the Syzygy is the folder I created in it.

I give all these precisions about paths because what is for instance provided here does not work in my case. So beware, the absolute path (internal or external = on the sd card) depends on your device.

When it works, the analysis looks like :

and you see the "tb:15" bit in the last analysis line, showing that the tablebased are used. The "tb" indicates the current number of tablebase consultations/hits by the engine. Sadly, even as Stockfish provide dtm and dtz information, they are not printed in droid fish analysis part and as far as I know there's no option allowing to tweak this ...

I have a samsung galaxy s9+ with 64Gb of internal memory and a 250Gb micro sd card that contains 150Gb of endgame tablebase files versus a samsung galaxy s10+ with 1Tb of internal memory containing the same 150Gb of tablebase files and I don't see any real difference of performance. It's just a tiny bit slower on the s9+ when the analysis depth gets bigger, but nothing major. In any cases, it will crush any human more than 99% of the time on average. ;)


Need help with study plan I am 1700-ish player and have too much time to play, and I didn't choose a study plan. I searched on the web about it, but no one has clearly defined study plan except chess.com and their study plan is trash. I wanted for a help from someone better or same rating like me.

In order to develop a study plan you'd basically have to figure out your strengths/weaknesses and formulate a goal that you want to achieve.

In practice this means that a stronger player would have to analyze your games, but also (particularly at higher level) look at other things such as psychological factors, fitness, etc.

Ideally that coach would spend lots of chess time with you, so being somebody from your area would be preferable to having a random guy from the internet.

Unless you have money to burn or are super serious, IMO the most reasonable would be (if possible) to find a friendly chess club in your area with strong enough players. In my experience players in a club are usually very willing to give advise or tips to improve.

If you are objective enough, you could also try to figure out what you should train for yourself, however at a rating of 1700 that would be difficult to do. In any case you should always analyze your own games to improve and learn what to focus on next.

Once you know what to train for, there is plenty of information on this and other websites concerning improving in a particular area of chess.


Longest Sequence For Any Piece To Reach A Certain Square What is the longest sequence of moves (by both White and Black) wherein White attempts to move one of their pieces from one square to another? Assume Black makes every move optimal towards the purpose of keeping White’s piece from reaching its intended square, but that it is nevertheless possible, in a finite number of moves, for White to achieve their purpose. If a complete response is impossible or impractical, partial/shorter responses are welcome. Both sides must have a king and pawns on the first rank of each side may do a double step.
For example, say that White’s goal is to get their King from e1 to g1 and can only achieve this through castling due to an unimpeded Black Rook on the second rank, but Black has an unimpeded Bishop on a6 controlling f1. White must remove the Bishop or the Rook from the diagonal in order to castle, which may take many moves.
Sorry if my question is vaguely worded or unclear in any way- I’ve never before written a chess-related problem. Also, feel free to edit the question or tags- all constructive criticism is welcomed.

Thanks for the fun question, and welcome to CSE! For this kind of construction problem, the king is obviously the piece to choose.
Addendum 10/12/2020: The position that used to be here proved defective, so here is a new position, Unfortunately over a hundred moves had to be cut. Here is my new offering of 336 moves, with the White king going to b7,
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 10/12/2020, White forces Black to let their king move to b7 in  336 moves"]
[FEN "Kb1n1b1k/b1p1pBp1/1pPpPpPp/pPpppppp/ppp1p1p1/8/8/pppppppp w - - 0 1"]

1. Be8 Kg8 2. Bd7 Kh8 3. Bc8 Kg8 4. Ba6 Kh8 5. Bb7 Kg8 6. Bc8 Kh8 7. Bd7 Kg8 8. Be8 Kh8 9. Bf7 a3 10. Be8 Kg8 11. Bd7 Kh8 12. Bc8 Kg8 13. Ba6 Kh8 14. Bb7 Kg8 15. Bc8 Kh8 16. Bd7 Kg8 17. Be8 Kh8 18. Bf7 a2 19. Be8 Kg8 20. Bd7 Kh8 21. Bc8 Kg8 22. Ba6 Kh8 23. Bb7 Kg8 24. Bc8 Kh8 25. Bd7 Kg8 26. Be8 Kh8 27. Bf7 a4 28. Be8 Kg8 29. Bd7 Kh8 30. Bc8 Kg8 31. Ba6 Kh8 32. Bb7 Kg8 33. Bc8 Kh8 34. Bd7 Kg8 35. Be8 Kh8 36. Bf7 a3 37. Be8 Kg8 38. Bd7 Kh8 39. Bc8 Kg8 40. Ba6 Kh8 41. Bb7 Kg8 42. Bc8 Kh8 43. Bd7 Kg8 44. Be8 Kh8 45. Bf7 b3 46. Be8 Kg8 47. Bd7 Kh8 48. Bc8 Kg8 49. Ba6 Kh8 50. Bb7 Kg8 51. Bc8 Kh8 52. Bd7 Kg8 53. Be8 Kh8 54. Bf7 b2 55. Be8 Kg8 56. Bd7 Kh8 57. Bc8 Kg8 58. Ba6 Kh8 59. Bb7 Kg8 60. Bc8 Kh8 61. Bd7 Kg8 62. Be8 Kh8 63. Bf7 c3 64. Be8 Kg8 65. Bd7 Kh8 66. Bc8 Kg8 67. Ba6 Kh8 68. Bb7 Kg8 69. Bc8 Kh8 70. Bd7 Kg8 71. Be8 Kh8 72. Bf7 c2 73. Be8 Kg8 74. Bd7 Kh8 75. Bc8 Kg8 76. Ba6 Kh8 77. Bb7 Kg8 78. Bc8 Kh8 79. Bd7 Kg8 80. Be8 Kh8 81. Bf7 c4 82. Be8 Kg8 83. Bd7 Kh8 84. Bc8 Kg8 85. Ba6 Kh8 86. Bb7 Kg8 87. Bc8 Kh8 88. Bd7 Kg8 89. Be8 Kh8 90. Bf7 c3 91. Be8 Kg8 92. Bd7 Kh8 93. Bc8 Kg8 94. Ba6 Kh8 95. Bb7 Kg8 96. Bc8 Kh8 97. Bd7 Kg8 98. Be8 Kh8 99. Bf7 d4 100. Be8 Kg8 101. Bd7 Kh8 102. Bc8 Kg8 103. Ba6 Kh8 104. Bb7 Kg8 105. Bc8 Kh8 106. Bd7 Kg8 107. Be8 Kh8 108. Bf7 d3 109. Be8 Kg8 110. Bd7 Kh8 111. Bc8 Kg8 112. Ba6 Kh8 113. Bb7 Kg8 114. Bc8 Kh8 115. Bd7 Kg8 116. Be8 Kh8 117. Bf7 d2 118. Be8 Kg8 119. Bd7 Kh8 120. Bc8 Kg8 121. Ba6 Kh8 122. Bb7 Kg8 123. Bc8 Kh8 124. Bd7 Kg8 125. Be8 Kh8 126. Bf7 d5 127. Be8 Kg8 128. Bd7 Kh8 129. Bc8 Kg8 130. Ba6 Kh8 131. Bb7 Kg8 132. Bc8 Kh8 133. Bd7 Kg8 134. Be8 Kh8 135. Bf7 d4 136. Be8 Kg8 137. Bd7 Kh8 138. Bc8 Kg8 139. Ba6 Kh8 140. Bb7 Kg8 141. Bc8 Kh8 142. Bd7 Kg8 143. Be8 Kh8 144. Bf7 d3 145. Be8 Kg8 146. Bd7 Kh8 147. Bc8 Kg8 148. Ba6 Kh8 149. Bb7 Kg8 150. Bc8 Kh8 151. Bd7 Kg8 152. Be8 Kh8 153. Bf7 e3 154. Be8 Kg8 155. Bd7 Kh8 156. Bc8 Kg8 157. Ba6 Kh8 158. Bb7 Kg8 159. Bc8 Kh8 160. Bd7 Kg8 161. Be8 Kh8 162. Bf7 e2 163. Be8 Kg8 164. Bd7 Kh8 165. Bc8 Kg8 166. Ba6 Kh8 167. Bb7 Kg8 168. Bc8 Kh8 169. Bd7 Kg8 170. Be8 Kh8 171. Bf7 e4 172. Be8 Kg8 173. Bd7 Kh8 174. Bc8 Kg8 175. Ba6 Kh8 176. Bb7 Kg8 177. Bc8 Kh8 178. Bd7 Kg8 179. Be8 Kh8 180. Bf7 e3 181. Be8 Kg8 182. Bd7 Kh8 183. Bc8 Kg8 184. Ba6 Kh8 185. Bb7 Kg8 186. Bc8 Kh8 187. Bd7 Kg8 188. Be8 Kh8 189. Bf7 f4 190. Be8 Kg8 191. Bd7 Kh8 192. Bc8 Kg8 193. Ba6 Kh8 194. Bb7 Kg8 195. Bc8 Kh8 196. Bd7 Kg8 197. Be8 Kh8 198. Bf7 f3 199. Be8 Kg8 200. Bd7 Kh8 201. Bc8 Kg8 202. Ba6 Kh8 203. Bb7 Kg8 204. Bc8 Kh8 205. Bd7 Kg8 206. Be8 Kh8 207. Bf7 f2 208. Be8 Kg8 209. Bd7 Kh8 210. Be8 Kg8 211. Bd7 Kh8 212. Bc8 Kg8 213. Ba6 Kh8 214. Bb7 Kg8 215. Bc8 Kh8 216. Bd7 Kg8 217. Be8 Kh8 218. Bf7 f5 219. Be8 Kg8 220. Bd7 Kh8 221. Bc8 Kg8 222. Ba6 Kh8 223. Bb7 Kg8 224. Bc8 Kh8 225. Bd7 Kg8 226. Be8 Kh8 227. Bf7 f4 228. Be8 Kg8 229. Bd7 Kh8 230. Bc8 Kg8 231. Ba6 Kh8 232. Bb7 Kg8 233. Bc8 Kh8 234. Bd7 Kg8 235. Be8 Kh8 236. Bf7 f3 237. Be8 Kg8 238. Bd7 Kh8 239. Bc8 Kg8 240. Ba6 Kh8 241. Bb7 Kg8 242. Bc8 Kh8 243. Bd7 Kg8 244. Be8 Kh8 245. Bf7 g3 246. Be8 Kg8 247. Bd7 Kh8 248. Bc8 Kg8 249. Ba6 Kh8 250. Bb7 Kg8 251. Bc8 Kh8 252. Bd7 Kg8 253. Be8 Kh8 254. Bf7 g2 255. Be8 Kg8 256. Bd7 Kh8 257. Bc8 Kg8 258. Ba6 Kh8 259. Bb7 Kg8 260. Bc8 Kh8 261. Bd7 Kg8 262. Be8 Kh8 263. Bf7 g4 264. Be8 Kg8 265. Bd7 Kh8 266. Bc8 Kg8 267. Ba6 Kh8 268. Bb7 Kg8 269. Bc8 Kh8 270. Bd7 Kg8 271. Be8 Kh8 272. Bf7 g3 273. Be8 Kg8 274. Bd7 Kh8 275. Bc8 Kg8 276. Ba6 Kh8 277. Bb7 Kg8 278. Bc8 Kh8 279. Bd7 Kg8 280. Be8 Kh8 281. Bf7 h4 282. Be8 Kg8 283. Bd7 Kh8 284. Bc8 Kg8 285. Ba6 Kh8 286. Bb7 Kg8 287. Bc8 Kh8 288. Bd7 Kg8 289. Be8 Kh8 290. Bf7 h3 291. Be8 Kg8 292. Bd7 Kh8 293. Bc8 Kg8 294. Ba6 Kh8 295. Bb7 Kg8 296. Bc8 Kh8 297. Bd7 Kg8 298. Be8 Kh8 299. Bf7 h2 300. Be8 Kg8 301. Bd7 Kh8 302. Bc8 Kg8 303. Ba6 Kh8 304. Bb7 Kg8 305. Bc8 Kh8 306. Bd7 Kg8 307. Be8 Kh8 308. Bf7 h5 309. Be8 Kg8 310. Bd7 Kh8 311. Bc8 Kg8 312. Ba6 Kh8 313. Bb7 Kg8 314. Bc8 Kh8 315. Bd7 Kg8 316. Be8 Kh8 317. Bf7 h4 318. Be8 Kg8 319. Bd7 Kh8 320. Bc8 Kg8 321. Ba6 Kh8 322. Bb7 Kg8 323. Bc8 Kh8 324. Bd7 Kg8 325. Be8 Kh8 326. Bf7 h3 327. Be8 Kg8 328. Bd7 Kh8 329. Bc8 Kg8 330. Ba6 Kh8 331. Bb7 Kg8 332. Bc8 Kh8 333. Bd7 Kg8 334. Be8 Kh8 335. Bf7 Nxc6 336. Kb7

As for a legal position, 111 moves is the longest I have come up with so far. White wants to move their king to any square as soon as possible.
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 30/12/2019, White forces Black to allow a White king move in 111 moves"]
[FEN "5b1k/2p1pBp1/1pPpPpPp/1P1p4/8/7b/5n1P/3n2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Be8 Kg8 2. Bd7 Kh8 3. Bc8 Kg8 4. Ba6 Kh8 5. Bb7 Kg8 6. Bc8 Kh8 7. Bd7 Kg8 8. Be8 Kh8 9. Bf7 d4 10. Be8 Kg8 11. Bd7 Kh8 12. Bc8 Kg8 13. Ba6 Kh8 14. Bb7 Kg8 15. Bc8 Kh8 16. Bd7 Kg8 17. Be8 Kh8 18. Bf7 d3 19. Be8 Kg8 20. Bd7 Kh8 21. Bc8 Kg8 22. Ba6 Kh8 23. Bb7 Kg8 24. Bc8 Kh8 25. Bd7 Kg8 26. Be8 Kh8 27. Bf7 d2 28. Be8 Kg8 29. Bd7 Kh8 30. Bc8 Kg8 31. Ba6 Kh8 32. Bb7 Kg8 33. Bc8 Kh8 34. Bd7 Kg8 35. Be8 Kh8 36. Bf7 d5 37. Be8 Kg8 38. Bd7 Kh8 39. Bc8 Kg8 40. Ba6 Kh8 41. Bb7 Kg8 42. Bc8 Kh8 43. Bd7 Kg8 44. Be8 Kh8 45. Bf7 d4 46. Be8 Kg8 47. Bd7 Kh8 48. Bc8 Kg8 49. Ba6 Kh8 50. Bb7 Kg8 51. Bc8 Kh8 52. Bd7 Kg8 53. Be8 Kh8 54. Bf7 d3 55. Be8 Kg8 56. Bd7 Kh8 57. Bc8 Kg8 58. Ba6 Kh8 59. Bb7 Kg8 60. Bc8 Kh8 61. Bd7 Kg8 62. Be8 Kh8 63. Bf7 f5 64. Be8 Kg8 65. Bd7 Kh8 66. Bc8 Kg8 67. Ba6 Kh8 68. Bb7 Kg8 69. Bc8 Kh8 70. Bd7 Kg8 71. Be8 Kh8 72. Bf7 f4 73. Be8 Kg8 74. Bd7 Kh8 75. Bc8 Kg8 76. Ba6 Kh877. Bb7 Kg8 78. Bc8 Kh8 79. Bd7 Kg8 80. Be8 Kh8 81. Bf7 f3 82. Be8 Kg8 83. Bd7 Kh8 84. Bc8 Kg8 85. Ba6 Kh8 86. Bb7 Kg8 87. Bc8 Kh8 88. Bd7 Kg8 89. Be8 Kh8 90. Bf7 h5 91. Be8 Kg8 92. Bd7 Kh8 93. Bc8 Kg8 94. Ba6 Kh8 95. Bb7 Kg8 96. Bc8 Kh8 97. Bd7 Kg8 98. Be8 Kh8 99. Bf7 h4 100. Be8 Kg8 101. Bd7 Kh8 102. Bc8 Kg8 103. Ba6 Kh8 104. Bb7 Kg8 105. Bc8 Kh8 106. Bd7 Kg8 107. Be8 Kh8 108. Bf7 Bg2 109. h3 Ng4 110. hxg4 h3 111. Kh2

Addendum 12/23/2020: It turns out that for legal positions, longer lengths can actually be achieved by instead using a pawn as the designated piece. Here is my the new record of 124 moves.
[Title "me, chess.stackexchange.com 12/30/2019, White forces Black to allow their h7 pawn to move in 123 moves"]
[FEN "7k/p1pN2pP/2p3p1/8/p5p1/P1p2PP1/2P2P1b/5K1N w - - 0 1"]

1. Nf8 gxf3 2. Ke1 Bg1 3. Kd1 Bh2 4. Kc1 Bg1 5. Kb1 Bh2 6. Ka2 Bg1 7. Ka1 Bh2 8. Kb1 Bg1 9. Kc1 Bh2 10. Kd1 Bg1 11. Ke1 Bh2 12. Kf1 a6 13. Ke1 Bg1 14. Kd1 Bh2 15. Kc1 Bg1 16. Kb1 Bh2 17. Ka2 Bg1 18. Ka1 Bh2 19. Kb1 Bg1 20. Kc1 Bh2 21. Kd1 Bg1 22. Ke1 Bh2 23. Kf1 a5 24. Ke1 Bg1 25. Kd1 Bh2 26. Kc1 Bg1 27. Kb1 Bh2 28. Ka2 Bg1 29. Ka1 Bh2 30. Kb1 Bg1 31. Kc1 Bh2 32. Kd1 Bg1 33. Ke1 Bh2 34. Kf1 c5 35. Ke1 Bg1 36. Kd1 Bh2 37. Kc1 Bg1 38. Kb1 Bh2 39. Ka2 Bg1 40. Ka1 Bh2 41. Kb1 Bg1 42. Kc1 Bh2 43. Kd1 Bg1 44. Ke1 Bh2 45. Kf1 c4 46. Ke1 Bg1 47. Kd1 Bh2 48. Kc1 Bg1 49. Kb1 Bh2 50. Ka2 Bg1 51. Ka1 Bh2 52. Kb1 Bg1 53. Kc1 Bh2 54. Kd1 Bg1 55. Ke1 Bh2 56. Kf1 c6 57. Ke1 Bg1 58. Kd1 Bh2 59. Kc1 Bg1 60. Kb1 Bh2 61. Ka2 Bg1 62. Ka1 Bh2 63. Kb1 Bg1 64. Kc1 Bh2 65. Kd1 Bg1 66. Ke1 Bh2 67. Kf1 c5 68. Ke1 Bg1 69. Kd1 Bh2 70. Kc1 Bg1 71. Kb1 Bh2 72. Ka2 Bg1 73. Ka1 Bh2 74. Kb1 Bg1 75. Kc1 Bh2 76. Kd1 Bg1 77. Ke1 Bh2 78. Kf1 g5 79. Ke1 Bg1 80. Kd1 Bh2 81. Kc1 Bg1 82. Kb1 Bh2 83. Ka2 Bg1 84. Ka1 Bh2 85. Kb1 Bg1 86. Kc1 Bh2 87. Kd1 Bg1 88. Ke1 Bh2 89. Kf1 g4 90. Ke1 Bg1 91. Kd1 Bh2 92. Kc1 Bg1 93. Kb1 Bh2 94. Ka2 Bg1 95. Ka1 Bh2 96. Kb1 Bg1 97. Kc1 Bh2 98. Kd1 Bg1 99. Ke1 Bh2 100. Kf1 g6 101. Ke1 Bg1 102. Kd1 Bh2 103. Kc1 Bg1 104. Kb1 Bh2 105. Ka2 Bg1 106. Ka1 Bh2 107. Kb1 Bg1 108. Kc1 Bh2 109. Kd1 Bg1 110. Ke1 Bh2 111. Kf1 g5 112. Ke1 Bg1 113. Kd1 Bh2 114. Kc1 Bg1 115. Kb1 Bh2 116. Ka2 Bg1 117. Ka1 Bh2 118. Kb1 Bg1 119. Kc1 Bh2 120. Kd1 Bg1 121. Ke1 Bh2 122. Kf1 Bg1 123. Kxg1 Kg7 124. h8=Q+


Why is there a craze of becoming chess grandmaster? Go to any online chess server, there are thousands playing and trying their best. These days there are even online coaches and titled players and people are ready to shed huge bucks for getting couple of hours sessions.

But given all this, I sometimes think: Why do people want to become a chess grandmaster or a titled player? What do I really get out of that? A high paid job? NO. A green card to the US? NO. Free sponsorship? PROBABLY NOT. A lot of money? NO (because once you become GM you have to compete with others similar to you).

Then why? Why is there a craze to become a chess grandmaster, or a titled player?

If anyone has a good answer and a accurate ones, please reply with good points.

Napoleon put it succinctly:
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.

Just a couple of points:

It is the same reason that students love getting "gold stars," and why there are so many badges on StackExchange itself. There have been volumes written on the power of peer recognition.

In particular, chess titles (for the most part) are a direct result of chess achievement. FM, IM and GM titles are all well-earned. No matter how much we might not care for a person, we know that if they have a chess title, they earned it. A GM title is the highest formal title, and it serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained.


How to interpret lifetime score I can not understand what the following numbers mean:

  Gligorić had the following record against the world champions he
  played against: Max Euwe +2 -0 =5, Mikhail Botvinnik +2 −2 =6, Vasily
  Smyslov +6 −8 =28, Tigran Petrosian +8 −11 =19, Mikhail Tal +2 −10
  =22, Boris Spassky +0 −6 =16, Bobby Fischer +4 −7 =8, Anatoly Karpov +0 −4 =6 and Garry Kasparov +0 −3 =0.

I took them from here. I do understand that it tracks statistics against a particular opponent in all games, but what is this strange mathematics mean: +8 −11 =19?

+8 -11 =19 means: Won 8, lost 11 and drew 19


Computer assistance in online blitz chess I play on chess.com which is usually a very positive and pleasant experience. I like to play five minute time controls with 0 second increments which means it translates to a very fast paced game. Often, I will enter tournaments with this time control.

Recently, I have been forced to play with a player who I strongly believe is using a computer. I figured it would be very easy to have another chess program open in a different window and play the moves your opponent is playing and respond likewise, but I didn't think this would be possible in such a rapid chess game. He is moving very quickly without making any mistakes and setting up very strong combinations. Is it possible that he has configured his computer to be wired into the game where it moves without him having to switch between windows or programs?

It's definitely possible.

In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi47GBArpPE the user has set up a program that screen captures the board, determines the best move and then plays out that move. It's fast enough that he can play bullet (1 minute each) with it.


In the books Wojo's Weapons, why was Wojo occasionally known to say "I'm too lazy!" when asked why he didn't play 1. d4 instead of 1. Nf3? In Wojo's Weapons: Winning With White (Volume 1) by Jonathan Hilton and Dean Ippolito, it is written:

  Wojo's move order to reach any opening position almost always started with 1. Nf3 and then either c2-c4 or d2-d4. When asked why he didn't play 1. d4 as his first move instead, he was occasionally known to say, "I'm too lazy!"

I don't really understand why he says that.

If I am not wrong, if you want to play c4, d4, Nf3, g3, (not against everything, but against most defenses), then the difference between starting with 1. Nf3 and starting with 1. d4, is that starting with 1. Nf3 avoids all of these openings:

The Budapest Gambit
The Albin Countergambit
The Benko Gambit
The main lines of the Grunfeld (I think)
The Benoni
The Nimzovich Variation (Exaggerated Fianchetto) of the QID

At the price of allowing Black to play the English.

Technically starting with 1. d4 also allows White to play these three variations:

The Samisch against the KID
The 4-Pawns Attack against the KID
The Exchange Variation against the QGD

But since White is going to also play Nf3 anyway (on move 3), he is not going to play any of those variations.

So if we intend to play c4, Nf3, d4, g3, I would believe that choosing to start with 1. Nf3 is the most intelligent choice since it avoids so much openings at the (small) price of allowing Black to play the English.

But this isn't laziness. It's just cleverness, it's the wise choice to make. So I still don't understand Wojo's quote.

So what did I miss? Does starting with 1. d4 avoids other openings that 1. Nf3 allows? Are there other advantages of starting with 1. d4 ?

If I am not wrong, if you want to play c4, d4, Nf3, g3, (not against everything, but against most defenses), then the difference between starting with 1. Nf3 and starting with 1. d4, is that starting with 1. Nf3 avoids all of these openings:

That is exactly the reason why I always open with 1.Nf3 :)

You should have seen the look on some faces after they realize they can't play their gambit openings and must agree to play "dull" game. I really don't care, since I will always be rock-solid and safe, and since I am White I can usually open the center if I want "trouble".

  At the price of allowing Black to play the English.

Yeah... But it's not so bad, since English is so rich in ideas that it rarely ends in a draw if at least one side fights really hard for a win. This can be useful against lower rated opponents because they can't spring some dull opening line and draw by "suffering" all game. Theory is less important, than knowledge of plans which is also great, since lower rated opponent can't draw because he just bashed out 20+ moves of forced line.

As for equally rated opponents, this is great opening as it allows you to overpower the opponent with your intelligence and creativity, which should suit your style, based on your earlier posts.

  Technically starting with 1. d4 also allows White to play these three variations:
  But since White is going to also play Nf3 anyway (on move 3), he is not going to play any of those variations.

Which is the reason you will not see 1.Nf3 at the top so often -> the flaw of this move is that it avoids the best lines for White in many openings. Black can reach full equality rather easy ( like in QGD Exchange line... ), but still, positions are enough unbalanced for you to win. With 1.Nf3 you sacrifice objectively the most dangerous lines for Black, for safety and flexibility. It all depends of person's style. I like solidity, and have no problem with playing equal positions. Just because the position is equal desn't mean it is a dead draw. If you are creative, you can sharpen it and play for a win...

  So if we intend to play c4, Nf3, d4, g3, I would believe that choosing to start with 1. Nf3 is the most intelligent choice since it avoids so much openings at the (small) price of allowing Black to play the English.

Indeed. Just remember that this move order offers you no advantage. You will always play equal positions, but you will be rock-solid and flexible. Consider the option of playing King's Indian Attack, instead of playing d4 for example... This is a good option for White too, you do not need to limit yourself with d4+c4 pawn formation.

  So what did I miss? Does starting with 1. d4 avoids other openings that 1. Nf3 allows? Are there other advantages of starting with 1. d4 ?

1.Nf3 cuts down on the amount of theory you need to learn, but you will never play the most critical lines for Black. With 1.d4 this is not the case, but you will have to learn much more, since you can't bypass some heavily theoretical openings... It's up to you to make the choice.


What are the advantages of the Stonewall attack? I stumbled upon the Stonewall attack, and it looks pretty strong, and I especially like the fact that it is strong against computer programs.

I would like feedback on this attack, and if this is a move I should consider as a beginner in chess to improve my play?

From the Wikipedia article that you linked to:

  The downsides to the Stonewall are the hole on e4, and the fact that the dark squared bishop on c1 is completely blocked by its own pawns. If Black defends correctly against White's attack, these strategic deficiencies can become quite serious. Because of this, the Stonewall Attack is almost never seen in master-level chess any more, although it is seen occasionally among club players.

The problem is that although the fortress may be solid (at least to begin with), White's attacking options are limited by the bad bishop. In addition, by setting up the fortress the initiative is handed to black, who has various options to break down the fortress (generally a good opening for white would keep the initiative). The article suggests:

  Black has several ways to meet the Stonewall. One choice which must be made is whether to fianchetto one or both bishops; Black can meet the Stonewall with a ...b6 and ...Ba6 aiming to trade off the dangerous white bishop on d3, and a kingside fianchetto with ...g7-g6 takes away White's idea of attacking h7. An early development of Black's light-squared Bishop to f5 also cuts across White's plans.

Other obvious attacking options for black are to hit the base of the chain with b5 and b4, or to castle queenside and attack on the king side with g5. Setting up a fortress like this often seems strong, but in fact the opposite may be true, and in fact is simply providing "hooks" for the opponent to mount an attack. As also stated in the article

  Black playing the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defense is seen occasionally at master level.

and one could also surmise that such defensive formations are, in general, more appealing from black's perspective.


Is castling possible with a pawn promoted to a rook? I was thinking about some rules and I came up with a really nice question. Is it possible to castle with a pawn promoted to a rook?

If the rules are followed-neither the king or the new rook has moved and king doesn’t move out of or through check-to me it seems to be a legal move.

If it possbile, how would this castling look like? I suspect that the king would go to e3, and the new rook would go to e2, starting from the below diagram.

[FEN "8/4P3/8/8/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=R

No, according to FIDE's Laws of Chess, castling has to be done along the first rank.
§3.8.2:

3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same
colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the
king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its
original square two squares towards the rook on its original square,
then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.
3.8.2.1   The right to castle has been lost:
3.8.2.1.1 if the king has already moved, or
3.8.2.1.2 with a rook that has already moved.
3.8.2.2   Castling is prevented temporarily:
3.8.2.2.1 if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one
or more of the opponent's pieces, or
3.8.2.2.2 if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.


Can one use alternative identifiers (from languages other than English) for chesspieces in PGN? I came across this in the PGN standard on this site, section 17, for alternative piece identifiers (emphasis mine):

English language piece names are used to define the letter set for identifying chesspieces in PGN movetext. However, authors of programs which are used only for local presentation or scanning of chess move data may find it convenient to use piece letter codes common in their locales. This is not a problem as long as PGN data that resides in archival storage or that is exchanged among programs still uses the SAN (English) piece letter codes: "PNBRQK".

Followed by a table of symbols for different languages.
The first part seems to suggest that one can use identifiers from other languages to represent the pieces if one so wishes.
However, the highlighted part seems to contradict that, saying that, ultimately, the PGN should use the English identifiers and not those of any other language.
It appears that a mistake in my understanding caused this contradiction, so I'd be glad if someone could please clarify it.
My question
Can one use symbols from languages other than English for representing pieces in a PGN file?
Would something like this work (using the piece identifiers in German)?
[Event "Casual game"]
[Site "Hogwarts"]
[Date "2018.03.09"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Malfoy, Draco"]
[Black "Weasley, Ronald"]
[Result "*"]
[TimeControl "1/15+1"]
[FEN " "]

1. e4 e5 2. Sf3 Sc6 3. Lb5 Sf6 4. O-O Sxe4 *

The specification you have in your link has no practical meaning as the format is not enforced consistently. Steven J. Edwards introduced the format, but he didn't have authority to control how programmers implement PGN.

Most PGN parser would only support the English language.

I've been distributing PGN parsing softwares for years, but I don't think I'll add foreign language support. I assume anyone who is intelligently capable of playing chess would be able to read English piece identifiers.


Position with the most (or many) distinct refutations? I'm looking for a chess position, hopefully not too contrived, in which it's Black's turn, he has several moves, but each one is refuted by a mate by White.

I know I could take any mate-in-two problem, make White's first move and I'd be left with what I just described, but there's one more criterion: I'd like White's second (mating) move to be different for each of Black's possible moves. Or as many distinct mating moves as possible.

Believe it or not, this is for teaching calculus.

EDIT: Here is another mate-in-two problem with five legal black moves leading to five different checkmates.

   [Event "Apprenti Sorcier, 1992"]
   [White "ACHBAR Selim"]
   [Black "mate in two"]
   [Result "1-0"]
   [SetUp "1"]
   [FEN "8/8/1R6/2p5/8/2Bk1NRN/3P4/K6B w - - 0 1"]

   1.Rb1! (1...Ke2 2.Nfg1#)(1...Ke4 2.Nh4#)(1...Kc2 2.Ne1#)(1...Kc4 2.Ne5#)(1...c4 2.Nd4#)

All five different mating moves are done with the same piece, which is very nice.

Just to get this started; here is a mate-in-two problem with three possible black moves and three different checkmates.

  [Event "Grand Rapids Herald 1932 (643)"]
  [White "WURZBURG Otto B."]
  [Black "mate in two"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [SetUp "1"]
  [FEN "8/Q7/2kp4/8/8/1K6/3R4/5B2 w - - 0 1"]

  1.Re2! (1...Kb5 2.Rc2#) (1...d5 2.Re6#)(1...Kd5 2.Bg2#)


What happens if I push a pawn to the 8th rank and press the clock before promoting? What happens if I push a pawn to the 8th rank and press the clock before converting it to another piece?

Does it make a difference if it's Blitz or not?

"If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal."
Source: Fide Laws of Chess taking effect from 1 January 2018 at 7.5.2.

If a move is illegal, it's illegal in Blitz, too. What can differ between Blitz and classical is what the penalty for an illegal move is.

Previously, in blitz/rapid a player making an illegal move would instantly lose the game.

However, January 1, 2018 revisions to FIDE Laws of Chess acted "to equalize the rules for classical chess on the one hand, and rapid and blitz on the other, with regard to the penalty for making an illegal move."

  Before, in both rapid or blitz an "illegal move" (which includes moving with two hands, or not making a move and pressing the clock) would instantly lose the game in case the arbiter intervened or the opponent stopped the clock. Now, in the first instance it will lead to a time penalty and only if a player does it again, he or she loses—just like in classical chess.

Source for quotes on 1/1/2018 change: Peter Doggers, New FIDE Laws Of Chess For Blitz, Rapid Still Not Perfect


How to play around outposts? [Title "The knight on f5"]
[FEN "1r1qr1k1/2pb1pp1/2np1n1p/ppb1p3/4P2N/2PP2NP/PPB1QPP1/R1B1K2R b KQ - 5 13"]

I recently played a Blitz game that perfectly underlines my biggest weakness: I don't know how to handle outposts I cannot get rid of. In the position above, white will plonk a knight on f5 and black cannot do anything about it. Yet, black is fine. Kicking the knight away with g6 never works because h6 will be hanging. The engine suggests expanding in the center with d5 and at some point play b4 to open things on the queenside. That makes sense, of course, but white could just sit there and do nothing. My feeling is that I cannot make progress in this position. And, to be honest, the psychological effect of not having achieved anything while my opponent will get an outpost is also quite significant. Of course, I know that, objectively speaking, black has fine development and a good position. But the fact that I cannot force the center to open and basically have to wait is quite uncomfortable for me (against moves like d5 or b4, white can just refuse to take the pawn, and taking on e4 or c3 myself doesn't feel like it achieves much). So, I have a number of questions regarding this position (and playing around outposts in general):

How do you play around outposts?
Do you know any famous grandmaster games that illustrate the concept of playing around an outpost?
What is black's best plan in the position above?

I think the main idea od .. d5 here is to undermine the outpost.  Hence the followup should not be a quick .. d4, but rather trying to keep pressure on e4.  I don't like .. d4 for more than one reason: it makes Bc5 bad, and it tempts White to Bc2-b3 returning to the best diagonal.  My plan would be:

.. d5 motivated as above
.. Bf8 to shore up the kingside and to avoid a hit with tempo on Bc5
.. b4 starting to open lines on queenside and taking aim at White's center from the side
if White does nothing, .. a4 and then .. a3 will break up her pawn chain, eventually gaining the d4 square for Black.  White can counter this by plaing a3 herself but that creates more scope for Black counterplay on the queenside like maybe Nf6-d7-c5-b3.

Now, of course White also moves, and the best use of that will be to cook something up on the kingside.  The side who gets there first will rule the game, and that's how it should be.  Human compatible, 20th century chess :-)


What should my plans be in a Carlsbad pawn structure? I often find myself in positions with the Carlsbad pawn structure, and I really struggle to come up with a plan. I am usually the one with the pawn chain pointing toward the queenside, so I assume that I should be focusing my play over there with things like the minority attack. However, I have recently found the minority attack to be unsuccessful for one main reason. The moment I push my b-pawn to b5 in the position shown below, white can respond with b4, instantly shutting down all of my play. Even though b4 creates a hole on c4, I also have a hole on c5 which my opponent can take advantage of with his knight. At this point, I have no idea what to do, and my opponent can play on the kingside with moves like f4-f5.

Question: How should black (in this case) play after white plays b4?

This is the type of position I get into as black.

[FEN "1K1RR3/P1PQ3P/1PN1BP2/4P1P1/1B2p1p1/3pbn2/ppp1nq1p/1k1r2r1 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

In general, a good plan in these situations is to then advance in the centre (either with ...f6-...e5 or just ...e5). When the position opens up, White will have a clear weakness on c3, which could be even more vulnerable than your d5-pawn. In addition, if you exchange off the d4-pawn with ...e5, White's control over the c5-square becomes weakened. However, your grip over c4 remains strong.


Correspondece chess on agreed openings I would like to play correspondace chess, but in order to use it as training for my openning repertoire, I want to agree with the oponent which opening to use.

For example, We bith give a list of openings/variations and agree in which position start playing. Is any website with this functionality?

Gameknot allows mini-tournaments to specify a starting position for all games in the tournament. This is a popular way to explore openings; I do it frequently.

Mini-tournament participation does require that you've completed a few games on the site already though.


En passant for beginners When I started playing chess, I learned many of the rules of chess on my own.
I was playing chess online, and then I realised that pawns can capture in such a fashion. At first, it was weird to me. Like, wow! How can a pawn capture like this?!

Then I read the theory of en passant. I have come to know that such kinds of rules exist in chess. By the way, it's an interesting rule.

Now here comes the main question: How can we teach this rule to a beginner (in a plain language or simplified way or associating any story to it)?

How can we teach this rule to a Beginner? (in a plain language or
  simplified way or associating any story to it)

The history gives the story.

At one time pawns could only move one square at a time even on the first move. But this made the game a bit slow. To speed it up the rule was changed to allow a pawn to move either one square, as before, or two squares on the first move.

But this changed the way one pawn could stop another pawn from moving because of the risk of capture. So, for instance, a black pawn on g4 stops a white pawn on h2 from moving. Before the rule change the only move the white pawn could make was from h2 to h3. Then the black pawn on g4 could capture it. After the rule change the black pawn could move straight from h2 to h4 thereby dodging the attack from the black pawn. This was unfair to the black pawn on g4 and changed the game in an unintended way. So, to even things up again the en passant rule was introduced which said that in that situation the g4 black pawn could take the h4 white pawn as if it had only moved one square.

The rule only applies on the move immediately after the double pawn move because with the old rule (only allowed to move one square on move one) if black didn't take immediately then white could move the pawn on his next move and the chance was gone.


What is happening in this problem? I recently solved a problem chess.com and it is below. What I don't understand is that why black moved its rook to h8 (1...Rh8). I think that black's position would have been better if it was something like 1...Rf7. Is 1...Rh8 really the best move for black? If yes, why? If not, what is the best possible move, though black is about to lose?

[FEN "8/p6r/5R2/5N1k/5K1p/7P/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ra6 Rh8 2.Ng7#

After 1.Ra6, Black is in Zugzwang - the purpose of Ra6 is to prevent Black's a-pawn from moving. Now Black must move his rook.  If he moves it off the h file, then White plays Rh6#.  However, after 1... Rh8, White mates anyway with Ng7.

Black can hold (after a fashion) if his Rook can control g7 and h6.  After 1. Ra6, he will have to leave one of those squares undefended.

And to answer your question directly, Black has no good moves after Ra6. He's going to get mated on g7 or h6.  So Rh8 is as good as any.


If there is two knight that can go to the same square, how does lichess know which knight I moved in the blind mode? I just thought about something where two knight can go to the same square. Let say if a white knight is at c3 and a black knight is at b2. They both can go to a4 square. My question is that if I am play in the blind mode and typed
na4

and press enter, how does the chess engine know which knight I moved? Is it matter at all for chess engine to know this?
Note I am playing chess at lichess.

In algebraic notation, you must specify either the file or rank of the specific piece you'd like to move if an identical piece can also move there.
in the following image, there's a knight on c6 and another knight on e2. There's an arrow going from the f2 knight pointing to the d4 square.

if you'd like to specify this move, then you'd write

N2d4 or
Ned4

In some rare cases you must name both file AND rank. This usually happens when there are 3 of the same pieces on the board, in most cases; 3 queens.
In the following image there are 3 queens, one on d3, another on d7, and another on f7. There's an arrow going from the d7 queen pointing to the f5 square.

this move would be:

(Q)d7f5

The "Q" before "d7f5" is redundant because only a single piece can possibly be on the d7 square so you can just leave it out.


What web-based Content Management System (e.g. Blogger) has the best support for chess content? I am contemplating starting a website/blog, and trying to choose between Blogger, WordPress, and Drupal (but open to others). My needs are mostly blog-like - to post static pages and regular updates, and I'd like to choose a platform that has good support for embedding FEN/PGN strings/files out the box and generating diagrams and replayable games. I'd also like to link to a static pgn file with many combinations and have a gadget that would display a diagram with a "Daily Tactic". So far I looked into Blogger, and it does not have much support out of the box, and actually makes it difficult/impossible for me to embed Javascript that I have pre-generated with something like PalView. What are my other options?

I am writing for a Chess Blog (Blogger) from time to time, using KV Chess (former Chess Flash) to generate replayable chess games. Thus, the viewer is embedded as flash code. I did not manage to use PalView, it seemed a bit too complicated and had bugs. Perhaps it is better today? Cheers.


Is it possible to win with a king and one bishop vs a king? Are there any possible moves to checkmate a Black opponent if we have a White bishop and king?

No. There is no position you can construct in which the black king is in check (has to be from the bishop), white only has king and bishop and the black king can't move.
The closest you can get is this:
[fen "k7/1BK5/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

And the black king can move to a7.


Arena: How to have the engine only analyze and let me play as both White and Black I enjoy watching chess videos where, say, an opening is analyzed and besides the main line, the lecturer also explores alternatives and explains why they are bad or good. I would like to do this exploration on my own.
The way I imagine doing it is playing as both White and Black on my Arena 3.5 with Stockfish engine installed. I'd like ot be doing all the moves myself, but having the engine explore possible moves only as suggestions.
For now, I am stuck having to stop the engine on every move by pressing the red cross on the rightside panel, undoing the move done after I press the cross, and performing my own move. How to set up Arena to work the way I would like, or perhaps there is alternative free software that does this?

In Arena 3.5, you can hit the "Edit" button next to "Analyze", and continue doing moves. In the edit mode, it does not try to do a move automatically. If you keep the "Analyze" button as pressed, then it will analyze both sides of the game. I think this is what you are looking for. See screenshot attached.


Queen's gambit continuation I have reached this same position a number of times, what would be the most sound continuation for white?

[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6

Two moves that come to mind are Bg5 or Nf3.

What are your thoughts and ideas behind the next move?

According to Hans Berliner, correspondence chess champion, Bg5 is the best.
From his book "The System. A World Champion's Approach to Chess" he stated, and Fischer agrees, that Bg5 maintain the most amount of pressure.  Nf3 is not as good, because you has three major plans in the QGD exchange variation and only one has the knight on f3.

My opinion is that Bf4 is stronger below master level.  I like the idea of Bxb8, not having the question put to the bishop on g5, and it reduces the possibility of Bd6.  There are disadvantages to putting the bishop of f4.

The answer depends upon what type of positions you like to play.  For positional games, the knight goes to f3, for center control and kingside attacks, the knight goes to g3 via e2.


Chess books for master level players Chess books written by Aagaard, Dvoretsky and Kasparov are suitable books for master level players. I have recently discovered the book Perfect Your Chess by Volokitin & Grabinsky which is similar in vein. What other chess books are suitable for master level players?

I use the term master level players to refer to players who are at a level equivalent to 2200+ FIDE rating. Books suggested should:

be suitable for a general master level player.
contain sufficient material that will stimulate a master level player.
be useful in the training of a master level player.

Openings:

Questions of Modern Chess Theory by Isaac Lipnitsky - a Soviet classic. Gets into the ideas behind opening theory in general.

For specific opening lines - the Grandmaster Repertoire series tends to be quite good.

Middlegame:

Dvoretksy's Analytical Manual - I didn't get too far through it but it is an incredible workout.

Endgame:

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, of course. If you learn everything in this book you will have endgame knowledge that far surpasses most masters.

Practical Rook Endings - Korchnoi. Quite expensive in this listing but I found one for $15 a few years ago.

Most books by John Nunn.

General:

Any well-regarded selection of annotated games from a GM is immensely helpful. Keres, Tal and Shirov's collections are great, to name a few.


What are the strategies of Alphazero? Alphazero is an amazing chess engine, one of the best in the world. It also has a more "human" playing style than other engines. Furthermore, understanding this engine might be vital to improving the way we play chess. Of course, one might argue that engines play the best move using brute force calculations and combinations. Human just can't do that. However, I argue that there are some clear strategies of alphazero. These are just some of them.

fianchettoing bishops
controlling space and giving opponents no moves(pawns)
forcing the opponent to create creating weaknesses (checkmate threats) and taking over the holes in the position. (when pawn g6 is played to stop mate, the dark squares are a weakness.

There are much more than these strategies. I have not yet seen how Alphazero defends, for example. Also, I would request u to go to this link (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/alpha-zero-vs-alpha-zero-10-lesser-known-alpha-zero-lines). This link shows the openings when alphazero plays both white and black. It would be nice if somebody could add understanding of it.

I know this post seems outdated, but Alphazero is so ahead of its time. It is still the best engine! I think we should understand it and help the chess community.

I don't think there are any "strategies" in the human definition of "strategy".

When you use the "common" computer engine (basically, min/max tree search), you can always check how and why the engine arrived to some particular position evaluation, but still, this is usually limited to 10-12 half-moves, beyond that it's still hard for people to grasp what was the threat, or what is the forced mate or why this particular line evaluated higher than another line: "Mate in 20?" -- "Yeah, I saw that one a few moves back" =)

When you talk about AZ or any similar NN-based software, it becomes practically impossible to reason about the moves. Once the training is over, all you get is the bunch of multi-dimensional matrices, which, once multiplied/added, give you some answer that leads to some policy chosen in this particular position.

And this behaviour is not specific to chess only. Same things happen in image recognition, pattern analysis, language processing or any area where NN are in favour last few years. You get the results, but not the explanation.

So, right now, I would not recommend to blindly follow any of the AZ patterns, because no one has a clue, er... clear understanding, why and when those patterns should be followed. It might be as minor as "if black pawn is on h6, fianchetto bishop on b2 (or g2, or both)" -- we'll never know. Not in the nearest future, at least.


Fastest possible checkmate by en passant En passant is somewhat of a rare move in chess. Checkmating by en passant, however, is an even rarer occurrence. But suppose both sides had the same goal to help cause a checkmate to their opponent via en passant.
What is the minimum amount of moves needed by both White and Black to give checkmate by en passant?

According to
this page
the shortest known mate by en passant capture is in 5.5 moves
(that is, White mates on move 6), and was published by Benko in
Chess Live & Review in 1976:

[Title "Pal Benko's 5.5 move e.p. helpmate"]
[Fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. g4 d6 4. g5 Kd7 5. Bh3+ f5 6. gxf6#


Why can Stockfish give different evaluations at the same depth? When I let Stockfish get to a certain depth (say depth 33), it gives some evaluation. Then I refresh the position (while leaving Stockfish on) and when it gets to the same depth it gives a different evaluation.

I know it uses previous analysis stored in a hash table to get to the same depth quicker the second time around, but why it can give a different evaluation puzzles me. Previous analysis should only improve search speed for a deterministic engine.

For anyone familiar with Stockfish's source code, any reasons this could be?

If Stockfish was a pure minimax/alpha-beta searcher with all leaves having a predetermined depth, your assumption that the search result should be reproducible would hold true, even with a different state of the hash table. That is because the result in minimax/alpha-beta only depends on the evaluation function, but not on the order in which the moves are searched, which only has an impact on speed.

However, in fact Stockfish is using a lot of forward pruning, reduction and extension techniques that are state/history dependent, so the results of the search of a subtree depends on the state/history with which it entered the subtree. Therefore, starting with hash table entries that influence move ordering (and can actually return a different evaluation than searching the subtree again) leads to a different result of for a search of same depth.

There is one more detail in the Stockfish case why even with pure alpha-beta search re-searching the position again would give different results. The evaluation of draws is pseudo-randomized with small fluctuation from zero in order to avoid some search artefacts in case of repetition draws, and this pseudo-random number depends on the node count of the current search. Therefore, using a different move ordering due to the hash entries would lead to different pseudo-random numbers, and hence potentially a different search result.


Knight and 2 Pawn vs 3 Pawn Endgame I got into this endgame as black (thinking that its a draw) and finally managed a draw by repetition:
8/5p2/4p1k1/7p/4N2K/6P1/7P/8 b - - 0 45

(8th rank is at bottom)
But the Lichess gives this position a +4.9. So, how to win such endgame as white ?

Zugzwang.
OK, one word is a bit short for an answer. :-) Still, I would win that one for White probably on blitz time. Note that Black has only one passer and your knight easily can put a cork to that. Thus, with still one minute on the clock:

Play the N to f4 to kill Ph5.
Black of course will object to that, playing Pe5 in time.
Fine, then play the N to d3. The Pe5 now hangs.
Either he goes to e4, now you can catch the Ph5 and easily be back in time, or Kf6, same result.
Assume Black is lucky and manages to play Pe5, Pf4 without getting massacred. OK, same as before,
the N gangs up on Pf4, he must go to f3, the K can capture it.
After that, back to the Ph5.
Finally, queen the remaining Ph2 and mate.

A final warning. As Black I will try to let you play the N to f4, and when you capture h5, I have the K on g6, play e5 and YOU are in zugzwang. With one minute on the clock, I won't ponder if g4 still is won after f4 (it most surely is, but panic on the streets of London), but rather play the cool Nd3 instead of Nxh5 and we're at point 6 of the plan again.
Black can do zilch about this plan, White can execute it without much thinking.
To learn:

No swapping of pawns if you are up a figure.
No rushing in endgame. (As I commented above, bof's plan Ng5, Nxf7 also wins but do that only if you trust yourself, and Black can also foil it with Pf6.)
No allowing of muddling the waters when you have a technical win.
Make a decent plan.
Make it in easily executable parts.


Playing against imaginary oponents Is there a solo computer chess program where you can play against imaginary/fictional/historical characters (and maybe win once in a while)?

Chessmaster is such a program. It is a bit outdated now, but still very usable for the majority of people. The skill cap for the game is well beyond what most club players will ever reach in their lifetime. Some examples of opponents you can play

Imaginary - You can play in a Human vs Orc arena, against a commander of the opposing army. There are limited difficulties in this level, so you may have problems playing against the harder opponents. It is also not explicit about which opponents are hard, and which ones are easy, so you will have to test this yourself.
Fictional - There are hundreds of fictional people to play against. Each of them have a biography (if you care to immerse yourself) and a picture of a person to help you believe you are playing against an actual person. There are a wide variety of playing styles to help simulate the different kinds of human players you might play against.
Historical - There are many famous players who have been simulated into the game, including various versions of Josh Waitzkin at the age of 6 and beyond. Most of the historical players however will be playing at the maximum skill level of the game, since it will be trying to simulate the strength of Grandmasters.

I'd recommend playing against the fictional players, as they are entirely beatable once you learn the rules. You will start out with a rating (around 800 if you are new) and your rating will adjust as you play a few games.

Don't be disheartened if you lose your first few games, this happens to everybody. If you are serious about improving, you will learn something from each loss and eventually your rating will improve, and you can play against stronger opponents.


Is it possible for a clock to show less than 30 seconds for a player in a game with a 30-second increment? Is it possible for a clock to show less than 30 seconds for a player in a game with a 30-second increment when it is his opponent's turn?

My answer:

Even if one player has only 1 second on his clock and then makes his move, he would end up with 31 seconds on his clock and it is his opponent's turn. So, it seems to me that a clock under such time controls can never show less than 30 seconds for a player when it is his opponent's turn.

Am I wrong?

You are correct - it is impossible. It can only show less than 30 seconds while it's counting down on his/her turn.

Obviously, with delay instead of increment, this would be possible.


How does one respond to 3.d4 after playing the Sicilian? I was black in this game, and white went ahead and played 3.d4 even though I clearly had it guarded, however once played, white now has the queen as an additional defender, and the queen was able to rest on d4 with no threat from black. In response I played

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4 Qa5+ 6.Nc3 e5

I went on to lose this game, but I feel like this was the deciding factor. I really don't feel like 5...Qa5+ was the best reply, even if white was to reply with 6.Bd2 I could still reply with 6..e5 and propose a queen sac, which after black wouldn't be in as bad a position.

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4 Qa5+ 6.Bd2 e5 7.Bxa5 exd4

So, my question is: Is black's best response to 3.d4 after playing the Sicilian 3...cxd4? Also, if so, was there a blunder somewhere by black, or could a better move have been played elsewhere?

3...cxd4 is indeed basically forced. Perhaps the single biggest idea of the Sicilian is to exchange your c-pawn for White's d-pawn, leaving you with more pawns in the center. So go ahead and do it!

However, 4...Nxd4 is a mistake, leaving White with much better development after the trade.

Some common 4th moves for Black after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 are 4...Nf6 (attacking the e4 pawn), 4...e6 (preparing to develop the dark-squared bishop and/or play ...d5), and 4...g6 (planning to develop the dark-squared bishop to g7).


Editing a chess wiki I would like to edit wiki notes on chess, using a text editor that could interact with a program like xboard or similar (that is being able to enter moves and variations in the wiki by playing them from the board, for instance, and the other way round : click on moves in the text to see the position on the board).

The reason for this question is that scid, that I like a lot despite being a bit old-fashioned and buggy nowadays, has a very poor editor (no linking abilities, a pain to use). And xboard editor is even worse.

Of course, using latex could be an option, but it lacks the simplicity of a wiki, and I fail to see how to make a text editor interact with a xboard-like program.

It amazes me than no such a thing exists. The closest program I have seen is r/chess pgn viewer, but it does not seem under active development (not really an issue, but it is not clear to me how to use it for a private wiki). Any ideas ?

Help will be much appreciated.

Have you tried one of the more recent forks of Scid?  Specifically ScidvsPC, which is actively maintained.  At the very least it reduces many of the bugs and there are some improvements.  The export to HTML function now includes a javascript option to produce a board viewer for websites, that might do some of what you want.  It will also display annotated games (though it usually won't display any introductory annotations before the first move).  There's also ChessX which looks relatively decent, but I'm not sure how much it will meet your needs.  They're both free, though, so worth a shot.  CheesX runs on Windows, OS X and Linux.  ScidvsPC includes a Mac version, but I can't remember if Linux support is native or needs Wine.

Both of those programs support exporting the PGN to HTML, which is good enough for web pages, but conversion to alternative mark up (or down) languages doesn't seem to have enough demand to have encouraged any development in that field yet.  You might need to code it yourself or conspire with one of the projects under active development to do so.


Why is Leela better than Leelenstein? (as of January 2020) Leela Chess Zero is a neural-network based chess engine trained entirely from self play (that's why it has the word "zero" in its name). Leelenstein uses the same binary,* but a different method to train its neural network, utilizing supervised learning.

The latest results indicate that Leela is stronger than Leelenstein. Why?

I'm especially interested in an explanation of why the zero approach is better than the supervised learning approach, if it is indeed superior (presumably it is, or I don't see why Leela would win in the first place).

*As I understand it, NN-engines need two things to operate: the binary file, and the neural network itself. Leela and Leelenstein share the same binary.

As far as I can see Leelenstein is mostly derivative of Leela. It uses a fraction of the games produced by Leela's self-play to get to a similar playing strength.

Given that most of these games have also been used to train Leela, there is little reason to expect Leelenstein to be better.

Basically Leela produces customized trainingsdata via self-play, Leelenstein uses games produced by other engines, which may or may not be consistent with each other.

After self-play Leela uses the data in a supervised fashion. Leelenstein is not a different approach. It's the same approach, only skipping the step of producing its own trainingsdata.


What's PlayMagnus age 10 Magnus' true elo? I do realise that a similar question might have been asked before; however, all intel about the topic that I have managed to gather to date seems to be outdated: almost everywhere I search, it is said that PlayMagnus age 10's estimated elo is 1500-1700, but I believe him to be much stronger than that. My Rapid elo on chess.com is 1850, but in order to beat him, I need to concentrate intensely, and even then I'm more likely to draw or lose than win. There is no doubt in my mind that the bot is stronger than me - I would estimate by about 200-300 elo points.
To this end, here is the question: am I simply significantly overrated, or is age 10 Magnus' true elo actually higher than what is commonly cited?

It's important to note the PlayMagnus app is running the Glaurung chess engine. The Glaurung chess engine is the forerunner of Stockfish. It's roughly about the same level as Shredder/Junior (link), both former winners in the computer chess championships. Very far away from the modern Stockfish but also far stronger than your chess.com's rating. You won't stand a chance unless the engine artificially plays bad chess. Unfortunately, there is no good way to make an engine play weaker while human-style chess. Lot's of different techniques, but nothing is satisfactory.
However, the PlayMagnus group has professional chess programmers working full-time to tune the engine for each age group. While I don't know their internal benchmark, the fact that they're pushing the app out means they're satisfied with the performance. Magnus Carlsen at age 10 was about ELO 2000 (from Wikipedia), so that'd be the target ELO. A tuned-down engine will not be playing consistently at human-level ELO 2000, but it should be closed given after so many years of professional development.
A very roughly ELO 2000+ (computer engines tend to biased up) is what you should expect. That's consistent with your observations.


Why are retreating moves unintuitive? Apologies if this is a poor question for the site and feel free to close it if it's too vague or not appropriate for this site: I've heard commentators (IMs/GMs) on chess tournaments (from the Opera Euro Rapid to PogChamps 3) suggest that retreating moves (such as backwards knight/bishop moves) are unintuitive, and I've felt this way while doing certain puzzles as it takes me a long time to find the retreating move after a successful first few moves, but I'm curious as to why this is the case? Is it human psychology, or does it have something to do with fundamental principles/piece development? Unfortunately, I don't have a specific board state/game scenario to display but any answers would be appreciated :)

I think it's human psychology; we associate forward moves with attack and backward moves with defense. After all, chess originated as an abstract model for a real war.
That said, retreating moves don't need to be unintuitive, as long as we're on the defense. I don't have a specific situation in mind either, but retreating a queen or rook to help defending your king from a mating attack feels familiar.

I've felt this way while doing certain puzzles as it takes me a long time to find the retreating move

That's a good observation: in puzzles, you are almost always on the offense. It's always 'White/Black to move and win material', 'White/Black gives mate in x moves'. In rare cases, it's 'White/Black to move and draw' but even then it's often finding an offensive combination to equalize or force a draw by repetition or stalemate.


What is the standard way to calculate scores in team tournaments? I found this PDF document on FIDE rules for the Chess Olympiad, which is a team tournament, but the scoring rules were mentioning too briefly (an annex D was mentioned but I couldn't find that).

So my question is:

Assuming that there are X teams competing in the tournament
And that each team has Y players

What is the standard way to organize such a tournament (regarding scoring)?

If there are too many teams, how to define which team goes against which?

How are ties solved?

I think the standard way to treat a team tournament is like a normal tournament, only with teams instead of players.

So there is swiss system pairing if there are too many teams for a round robin. A win gives you 1 point, a draw 1/2 and a loss 0. Sometimes that 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, but that's equivalent.

The number of board points, i.e. the sum of points each player of a team has made, is usually used as a tie-breaker.

It used to be the case that the olympiad had board points as scoring system. But that doesn't make much sense for a team event and also leads to pretty boring tournaments, so it was changed in 2008.


How do I trap the queen once it pins my rook? I am playing as Black in this game, and after 10. Qg4, I realize that White wanted my rook.  I knew I could trap the queen once it went for the rook (11. Qxg7), but I forgot how. I went on to win the game but I would still like a refresher.
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2013.04.17"]
[White "ilikefood7"]
[Black "MDMoore313"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1300"]
[BlackElo "1298"]
[TimeControl "10|0"]
[Termination "MDMoore313 won by checkmate"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 b6 4. Bb5 Bb7 5. d3 e5 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qc7 8. Bf4 Bd6 9. Nxc6 Qxc6 10. Qg4 Bxf4 11. Qxg7 O-O-O 12. Qxh8 Qg6 13. Nd5 Re8 14. Nxf4 Qh6 15. Nd5 f5 16. O-O Rf8 17. Qe5 d6 18. Qc3 f4 19. d4 f3 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. g3 Qh3 22. Ne3 Nf6 23. Kh1 Ng4 24. Nxg4 Qg2#

I don't think you can trap the Queen, but you ought to be able to force the Queens off the board.  Once you do that your extra piece becomes very powerful.  After 11... Qf6 white can only avoid a queen trade by 12. Qg4 but is followed by 12... h5 and preparing for an eventual Rg8.  Black's having a great game though his King is in a drafty place.  Razor sharp.


How to use Polyglot opening book bin file I previously asked how to use polyglot in c# with a chess engine. My question then was not accurate. What I want to know is, what property(ies) of the bin file object I need to do the following:

I will parse a FEN string, then, I will access a property of this bin file that will allow me to generate a FEN string that's hopefully linked to a move, whether this move is in a pgn string of a game, or saved as a specific data struct.

Then I will compare my parsed string with such FEN string obtained by accessing a property of the bin file object.

Then, when I find a match, I will use another method to obtain the next immediate move, which is the one the computer should do, according to the game from which the move was obtained after finding a FEN matching the one I parsed in the first place.

So, I guess a pseudo code would look like:

 string extractedMove;
 string parsedFEN = "...";
 object bookBytes = File.Read(pathofthebookfile);

  string GetFENOutOfBook (string FENvalue)
{
   return  bookBytes.Find(FENproperty/Fenkey => FENvalue);
}

  public void GetMove ()
{
   extractedMove = bookBytes.moves[GetFENOutOfBook(parsedFEN)].ToString();
}

So can someone point me in the right direction to do this? I just need to know what properties I need to work with of the polyglot book bin file so I can create the logic to extract the move. Thanks in advance!

I have every reason to believe your approach is wrong and will lead to disaster. I'm saying it as someone who make softwares to work on Polyglot books (www.smallchess.com).

You are strongly advised NOT to do all the hard works like what I did before. Just wrap the C++ Polyglot code in your C#! Your time should be on your C# engine, not this.

Polyglot, although open source is not something you would like to port to C# unless you are super motivated. Why? Polyglot has bunch of hash keys. Screenshot on my source code:

There was never any good documentation on Polyglot, it existed mainly in source code. Today, not many people really know how that does (including myself). I understand only part of it, by reading source code.

That was the comment I wrote to myself when I started using Polyglot many years ago:

    /*
     * A PolyGlot book move is encoded as follows:
     *
     * bit  0- 5: destination square (from 0 to 63)
     * bit  6-11: origin square (from 0 to 63)
     * bit 12-13-14: promotion piece (from KNIGHT == 1 to QUEEN == 4)
     *
     * Castling moves follow "king captures rook" representation. So in case
     * book move is a promotion we have to convert to our representation, in
     * all other cases we can directly compare with a Move after having
     * masked out special Move's flags that are not supported by PolyGlot.
     */

Polyglot works like this:

Given a position, convert to a hash key. I have my screenshot for the conversion

Use the key to locate an entry in the book using binary search
Read the entry from (2)
Extract the chess move like:


Looking for information on PARADISE (software) I am working on developing statistics around the middlegame. During searching I found a little information about PARADISE (PAttern Recognition Applied to DIrecting SEarch), which was developed by Wilkins in 1980. Do you know anything about PARADISE? Or do you know any similar software? I will appreciate any kind of answer which helps me dig deeper.

A very informative article about PARADISE was published by Wilkins himself  in "Artificial Intelligence, Volume 14, Number 2" (September 1980), which I was lucky to get my hands on years ago when I was writing my diploma thesis on chess programming and kept it since then.
Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get at these days. But the article should have been reprinted in "Computer Chess Compendium", by D. Levy, which still appears to be available: Abe Books
Other than that, I was only able to dig out some working notes related to the program (written in a dialect of Lisp) again by Wilkins himself, which also apparently contains some program fragments: Working notes on Paradise chess patterns
Should you stumble upon additional sources, please keep us informed.