How to "bore your opponent to death"? “The Caro-Kann has often been maligned for being dry and boring, played by those wishing to bore their opponents to death.” – IM (WGM) Jovanka Houska
Are there other defenses in which black can bore white to death? For example, when white starts with

1. d4.
The English Opening.
The Reti Opening.

Other than the opening choice, are there are other strategies if black wishes to bore white to death? How about if white wishes to bore black to death?
Other than the opening choice, what are other strategies to bore your opponent?

The London system (for White), the Caro-Kann and the Classical Slav with ...Bf5 (for Black), are extremely similar, we are aiming for the same setup (c3, d4, e3, Bf4, Nf3, Nbd2, 0-0, h3, Bd3 or Be2) in all of them, so they fit well together in a repertoire, and they all have the reputation of being extremely boring, especially the Slav Exchange variation that has an extremely high draw percentage and the London system that is nicknamed "the boring system" and "the old man variation".

Other openings that are considered to be boring are the French Exchange variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5) and the Petrov (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6).

Generally, the openings that are considered boring are either the openings that have a high draw percentage because they are symmetrical (Slav Exchange, French Exchange, Petrov) or the openings that are very positional, slow, quiet, solid, safe, passive, unambitious (London system, Caro-Kann).


Looking for the complete game Sibilio-Mariotti, Ravenna 1982 Tim Krabbe shows this game on his record site.

[Title "Sibilio-Mariotti, Ravenna 1982"]
[FEN "5k2/1p4pp/4p3/3pP1q1/3P4/7K/7P/8 w - - 0 1"]

The game has a stalemate after only 27 moves. I would like to know the complete game. I did not find in chessgames.com, chess365, or my database. Does anybody know the full game?

All games from Tim Krabbe's website are available in the little player on the right side of the page (there is a chessboard, game navigation bar and a box from which the games can be chosen).
For the sake of the question and since it is quite an entertaining game, though:

[White "Sibilio"]
[Black "Mariotti"]
[Event "Ravenna 1982"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e5 c5 4. b4 cxb4 5. d4 Nh6 6. a3 bxa3 7. c3 Nf5 8. Nxa3 Nc6 9. Nb5 a6 10. g4 Bd7 11. Bg5 Be7 12. gxf5 axb5 13. fxe6 fxe6 14. Rxa8 Qxa8 15. Rg1 Qa3 16. Bxb5 Bxg5 17. Rxg5 Qxc3+ 18. Kf1 O-O 19. Bxc6 Bxc6 20. Kg2 Ba4 21. Qe2 Bc2 22. Ne1 Bxe4+ 23. f3 Rxf3 24. Nxf3 Bxf3 25. Qxf3 Qd2+ 26. Kh3 Qxg5 27. Qf8+ Kxf8 1/2-1/2


In the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann, what is the most positional, strategic, quiet, slow, closed, boring, dry and solid variation for Black? I am not sure what to play as Black in the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann, after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3

  [StartPly "19"]

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3

What I would like is the most positional, strategic, quiet, slow, closed, boring, dry and solid variation (the variation which is the least sharp and tactical).
And I would like to castle on the same side as White.

So what exactly should I play? And what are the differences between starting first with 10...e6 or 10...Qc7 or 10...Ngf6 ?

You are the author of a series of questions of the type "What is the most boring way to play" and whereas I am fond of positional play as well, I must say that the way the question is formulated is completely wrong. I played the Caro-Kann for years and there is simply no way to avoid an heated battle in some variations, unless you are ready to make a lot of concessions and compromise your game by getting a very passive and unpromising position.
To excel at chess, you must master various types of positions. Avoiding these will stop your progress. You cannot beat regularly stronger players by using positional means only - they will master these positions as well as you do, but are also able to play dynamically.
Look at Petrosian's games, he was able to attack fiercely.


Opening as a Beginner: Mainlines or Offbeaten path? I am approximately 1500 OTB (Lichess Classical 1750, chess.com 1540, internal rating in my club ~1500), and of course I would like to improve. Work and family are demanding, so naturally I would like to make the most of my limited study time.

I do not think that I gain a lot by spending time on studying openings. On the other hand, I want to and like to play tactical lines in order to improve my tactical vision.

Currently I play 1.e4 as white (Evans Gambit, Fried Liver, Open Sicilian, Korchnoi Gambit, improvise on everything else), and as black I play the Qd8 Scandinavian against 1e4 and QGA against 1d4.

I wonder whether I should switch to more tactical lines as black, for example the Portugese Gambit against 1e4 as presented by Smerdon ("Smerdon's Scandinavian) or recently Vincent Moret in "My first chess opening repertoire for black". Moret also suggests the Albin Countergambit against 1d4.

I do feel however, that these openings are far from trivial. For example in the Evans Gambit, a lot of good moves come quite naturally, whereas in the Portugese Gambit there are a lot of nuances and move orders to remember (should I put the queen on f5 or on h5?) etc., and if you make one bad move you are very quickly on the losing side. And there are lots of chances to make bad moves.

So in summary: To improve my tactical vision and my game in general, should an amateur like myself invest time in studying these sharp and aggressive offbeat opening lines, or rather play more solid lines and spend the time on studying the endgame and middlegame?

I'd be especially interested in stronger players experience, i.e. how they improved.

In general, independently of playstyle, I'd advise every beginner who seriously wants to improve in the long run to favor "popular" openings over "offbeat" ones.

Offbeat openings are (usually) considered offbeat for a reason. That is, usually there is some way for the opponent to "defuse" them. Of course, that doesn't mean they are unplayable, and at a ~1500 level, most opponents won't know about that way anyways. They will at most have learned some variations of the main openings and have no real clue about playing against the Evans, Albin, etc. gambits. If you are properly prepared, you can exploit that, and these offbeat openings will often net you more wins compared to the popular ones in the beginning. However, in the long run, you will run into more and more opponents who DO know them, and some years down the line you may face the dilemma that these openings slow down your progress.

Popular openings on the other hand will usually be less impressive in the beginning, point wise. However, if you find one that you like, you will essentially have found a buddy for the rest of your life. Similar to the offbeat openings, they are (usually) popular for good reason. Having already lived under the microscope of thousands of master for decades, it's unlikely that they will suddenly be "refuted" (that risk is much higher in offbeat openings). Yes, the amount of theory may be frighteningly big, but so is the potential reward. After all, while many different lines mean that you have to have much more to learn, they also mean that you have much more to learn: You get a much broader scope of middle game positions you can potentially reach, and learning how to handle them is very beneficial for your overall chess skill. You don't have to know all little lines from the beginning (your opponents won't either), just start small and build up the tree move by move over time. Honed over the years, a popular opening is guaranteed to at some point surpass the results of offbeat openings.

My personal approach is to play popular openings, but slightly offbeat lines within these openings. That way, I still retain some surprise factor (and decrease the risk that an opponent "out-prepares" me), while still having the safety to play a very sound opening that I can fall back on. It's much easier to just switch to a different line at move 5 (that most likely uses at least some of the motives that I already know from my previous choice of line - not to mention that all side lines before move 5 stay the same) than to switch my entire opening at move 1 (that I will for the most part be completely unfamiliar with).

In your case, I agree with the other answers. Sicilian (Najdorf/Sveshnikov), Slav and Caro-Kann are all fine choices. I mean, you can play stuff like the Portuguese gambit every now and then to have a little fun, that certainly doesn't hurt ... but I wouldn't devote a lot of time into it.


Basic software for any chess enthusiast What is the beginner's starter pack you would recommend for any chess enthusiast?

I am not asking for any specific product just the general software category.

For example I think everyone should have a:

chess engine,

a graphical chess board (preferably one that supports XBoard and UCI protocol),

and a chess database (like SCID).

Anything, I am missing here?

Interactive tutorials, for example presenting a game with commentary and periodically asking you to provide input, e.g. what you think is the best move, how to exploit a mistake etc.

Passive tutorials where you just look at the screen. Youtube is best placed for this.

Set up a position and play against the computer is great for setting up endgames and taking resigned positions from master games and playing them against the engine. After all, the hardest thing to do in chess is to win a won game.

Online arena for playing against real opponents under various time controls.

Mini games such as knight's tour, pawn wars etc. to practice key skills such as visualisation and endgame technique.


Using the Stockfish move generator in a home chess engine Basically, I’m creating a chess AI and I want to focus on the search algorithm rather than the most complete way or fastest move generation portions. So, for now, I was thinking I could use a prebuilt move generator from a tested and well-known source such as Stockfish.

But I'm having trouble understanding how Stockfish represents the current gamestate and how I can read it, how I can get Stockfish to essentially loop through all of the possible nodes, and how I can check if a given node is a leaf. If someone could point me to a resource or knows how Stockfish does this it would be greatly appreciated.

For the fastest move generation I suggest the below code.

https://github.com/Mk-Chan/WyldChess/blob/master/src/magicmoves.c

It’s not the Stockfish source code, but I was able to use it for my own hobby engine and I can tell you that it’s very fast. If you have a lot of trouble I can write a post about how I did it.


Is it possible to block a double check? Is it possible to block a double-check, or is your only option to move the king? (I'm trying to code a chess game, to then go on to code a chess AI, and this would really help me)

Moving the king is the only way to escape a double check.  There is no possible other move that will block both checks.


Video of the Kasparov vs. Kaprov 2009 match in Valencia Is there a video archive of the (rapid and blitz) match between Kasparov and Karpov that took place in Valencia in 2009? I assume there was a live video coverage with commentary, and I would very much like to watch it. Is there a website where one can (re)watch this match?

I could find replay of live videos, but the commentary wasn't available..! :/
here you can stream those videos

Kasparov vs Karpov - Valencia, 2009


Queen's Gambit Accepted : how should White continue after 3.e3 Be6? The Wikipedia article on Queen's Gambit Accepted simply notes that "... White has good compensation after 4.Ne2".

  [FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6 4. Ne2 (4.Qc2)

What about Qc2 to add further pressure to the c4 black pawn?

Queen's Gambit Accepted : how should White continue after 3.e3 Be6?

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6 4. Na3!?

seems good to me-Black would not be able to hold the c4 pawn. I would take c4 pawn with the knight and head for e5. The other knight can bolster him from f3 and there will always be threats to f7 or to Blacks light squared bishop with Ng5.

  The Wikipedia article on Queen's Gambit Accepted simply notes that "... White has good compensation after 4.Ne2".

[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6 4. Ne2 b5? 5.a4! c6 ( 5...a6 6.axb5 ) ( 5...bxa4 6.Nf4 Bd5 7.Nc3 c6 8.e4! ) 6.axb5! cxb5 7.Nec3!! Bd7 ( 7...Qd7 8.Qf3 Nc6! 9.Nxb5! ( 9.d5?-+ Nb4 10.dxe6 Nc2+ 11.Ke2 Qd3#) Bf5 10.Nd2 Bd3 11.Nxc4+- ) 8.Qf3 Bc6 9.d5 Bd7 10.b3! Qc8 ( 10...b4 11.Bxc4!! bxc3? 12.d6!+- Bc6 13.Qxf7+ Kd7 14.Qe6+! Ke8 15. d7+! Qxd7 16.Qf7+ Kd8 17.Qxf8++-) 11.bxc4 b4 ( 11...bxc4 12.Na3 ) 12.Na4 Bxa4 13.Rxa4 a5

I bet that strong engine can find even better compensation for White than one I provided above, but I also think that my lines are sufficient as well.

  What about Qc2 to add further pressure to the c4 black pawn?

It should work, but you will needlessly complicate matters too much.

Hopefully this answer is what you were looking for.

If you have further questions leave a comment.

Best regards.


Is this an Anderssen's mate or Opera mate? Is this an Anderssen's mate or Opera mate?

According to Wikipedia, Opera mate uses losing's side pawn to restrict its own king. In this position, f7 fulfils that requirement.

But it also fits the description of Anderssen's mate.

I fail to see the difference between Anderssen's mate and Opera mate except for the blocking pawn.

I assume you took the mates' definitions from here. Then, it fits the description of the Opera Mate but I don't think that's intended – a 'real' Opera Mate doesn't happen in the corner.

Then again, those two terms aren't commonly used anyway. I bet most grandmasters will have to check Wikipedia as well to find out what they mean. Of that list, just a handful are common knowledge (the back-rank mate and the smothered mate being the most well-known).


Based on Elo rating, what percentile am I in? How do Elo ratings compare with percentiles, and is there a chart breaking percentiles down by Elo rating ranges?

Dated 2004, but probably not far off: USCF Regular Rating Distribution Chart:

The graphics on this blog post were interesting:


Opening repertoire for different levels I wonder, is there any book or article on what openings are good and appropriate for different levels, as it's done in the 4th volume of John Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings and in this link http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11634/675?

And what are your recommendations for this question?

There is something to be said for choosing mainlines from the get-go. I heard several strong players (for example Jan Gustafsson, Judith Polgar) say, that they wasted time by playing sidelines in their youth or that they had problems to master certain openings they had avoided for too long. (Gustafsson played 1…g6 and Polgar King's Gambit).

So if you are young and very ambitious it makes a lot of sense to go for openings you will never have to discard. If you look at the absolute top, even Carlsen's experiments with sidelines quite often completely backfire (Northsea Defense vs Adams, Pirc vs Naiditsch, Leningrad Dutch vs Wojtacek, weird gambit vs Saric, etc.).

But most of us never reach these heights and under Elo 2400 you can get away with all kinds of openings. So my choice is to play what I feel comfortable playing and from time to time mix in some completely new stuff so I don't get bored. I play some very shaky and borderline incorrect stuff, but I can't remember ever losing because my opponent just played "the refutation". There are always chances.


How do I get to the next level of chess skill? I learned chess when I was about 5 years old and my brother and I went through a huge chess phase where we had many of the major openings fully committed to memory and competed in a few tournaments throughout the Bay Area. We took a break for a few years and then sort of revamped our game, going to a few more tournaments and starting to read some of the more famous chess books and what not. I left for boarding school, so we've both nearly stopped playing. I'm starting to get back into it and want to know if you have any recommendations of any interesting chess books I should read, online sites I should check out (other than chess.com and instant chess), or really anything to improve my game.
Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions!

When I was in the same situation, Jeremy Silman's How to reassess your chess helped me a lot. It made me reconsider the basics of the game. I now have a much better undertanding of what goes on during a game, and I got from 1700 to 2000 Elo in the process. Just don't take his method too literally (he recommends making up "dream positions", which is just not my thing).


How should white continue after 5...Qf6 in the Scotch Game? I have been playing the Scotch main line every chance I get.  I have had a pretty good success rate with it, but I feel this is due to the my opponent not having a complete understanding of the Scotch.  My play usually goes something like this:

 [fen ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4

After this, I rarely encounter the classical move 4...Bc5.  Most of the time, black will play 5...Nxd4 followed by 6. Qxd4 and I usually find myself in a pretty good position here.  However, so far I have never encountered the moves 4...Bc5, 5. Nxc6 Qf6 (threating mate)

It is this position that gives me most trouble, I know that my knight on c6 is lost because of the mate threat, so what is white's best move(s) if play continues with 5...Qf6.  I have found it very difficult for white to recover from this, especially since black has more development

First, I'd note that the most popular move after 4... Bc5 (according to the game databases of both Chess Tempo and Chess Games) is actually 5. Be3, and I suppose there's an argument to be made that it's both the more ambitious and the more principled move because it attempts to maintain control and/or occupation of the d4 square rather than immediately ceding it. In those main lines, Black is generally seeking to play a freeing ...d5 pawn break, when White's center is either liquidated or White is forced to push his pawn to e5 (typically supported by a pawn on f4), creating a structure where Black must blockade and aim to attack the head of the White f4-e5 chain while White seeks to bolster and ultimately advance it.

It's typical of most variations in the Scotch that Black gets a slight lead in development in exchange for White's superior pawn structure and has to use piece play (combined with timely pawn breaks like ...d5) to avoid the dreaded "Scotch ending" where White has a mobile king-side pawn majority while Black's queen-side pawns can be blockaded (due to the pawn doubling that normally takes place on the c-file in many lines).

In the line that you specifically refer to, the only two common and respectable continuations are either 6. Qd2 or 6. Qf3. (I have seen 6. Qe2 played, presumably with the idea of not blocking the dark-square bishop and intending on castling queen-side, but it's comparatively rare and, statistically, its practical success rate looks abysmal.) Of these, I've always preferred 6. Qf3, precisely because it doesn't impede White's development in the way that 6. Qd2 does by blocking the dark-square bishop.

In those variations, if Black does capture on f3 (which he almost always does relatively quickly, except in the lines with 6... Qxc6, which are the least common), White's pawn structure is not as compromised as it might superficially appear after the obligatory g-pawn recapture, and in fact gives White a solid central presence and open files and diagonals for his pieces. Those lines lead to relatively standard endgames where the dark-square bishops also normally get traded very quickly and White seems to do well. 6... Qxc6, which is rare, may be a good reply, where Black again aims for a ...d5 pawn break and extremely symmetrical positions arise in which piece play dominates and major strategic themes don't particularly present themselves with any force or consistency.

If none of this sounds appealing, the only other (semi-)respectable way to play the Scotch is as a gambit line with 4. Bc4, appropriately but boringly called the "Scotch Gambit." Notably, this was recommended in the book Chess Openings For White, Explained. Unfortunately, none of the major lines are particularly forcing, and if Black is reasonably familiar with classical open games, he can transpose into lines of either the Giuoco Piano or the Two Knights Defense where he returns the pawn and easily equalizes (in fact, I'd say Black has a more pleasant position in the best of the Two Knights Defense lines than White does).


Is the Scandinavian Defense a good opening for beginners? Is the Scandinavian Defense a good opening for beginners?

I'm wondering this because I'm a beginner and I mainly try to do this opening.

The opening is playable at all levels, though quite rare in grandmaster play. Here is what chess.com says on the opening:

  Although the Scandinavian is not played much by grandmasters, it is generally considered to be an opening that is easy to learn and worth trying out for beginners and club level players.

I believe the appeal of the opening is that it is quite conceptual. After 3...Qa5, the mainline, none of the pieces are attacking each other, meaning that there aren't many tactics or much theory in the early part of the game.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 {Creating a bolt hole for the queen if she is attacked.} 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 {Developing the bishop before locking it outside of the pawn chain.} 7.Bd2 e6 {Black will develop the dark square bishop, castle kingside, then play for central pawn breaks.}

Both sides have developed simply and logically.

Edit: Others have stated the Scandinavian is not testing at the high level. If you wish to employ different openings later on, the caro-kann and slav-defense have good reputations and similar pawn structures to the Scandinavian.


What's the idea behind delaying capturing the rook (25...Rd2) in Hug–Spassky (1973)? I've been studying a series of games featuring the King's Indian Attack and in Hug–Spassky (1973)[1], I don't understand why White delays capturing the rook after 25...Rd2.
Why play 26. Nd3?
Is White avoiding the loss of tempo after (26. Qxd2 Qd8) or (26. Qxd2 Rad8)?
Instead, White plays 26. Nd3 prompting 26...Rxe2. I must be missing something since I don't see the idea behind 26. Nd3.
[Title "Hug (2440) - Spassky (2655), 1973"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[startply "50"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 { A07 King's Indian Attack } c6 3. Bg2 Bf5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 e6 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. Qe1?! { (0.55 → -0.05) Inaccuracy. Nh4 was best. } (7. Nh4 Bg4 8. h3 Bh5 9. g4 g5 10. Nhf3 Bg6 11. Ne5 Nbd7) 7... h6 8. e4 Bh7 9. Qe2 O-O 10. b3 a5 11. a3 c5 12. a4 Nc6 13. Bb2 Re8 14. Ne5 Nd4 15. Qd1 Qc7 16. Nef3? { (0.00 → -1.29) Mistake. f4 was best. } (16. f4 Rad8 17. Kh1 Nd7 18. Ng4 Nf6 19. Ne5) 16... dxe4 17. dxe4 Red8 18. Re1 Nxf3+ 19. Bxf3 c4 20. bxc4 Bb4 21. c3 Be7 22. Qe2 Nd7 23. Nb3 Ne5 24. c5?! { (-1.33 → -1.93) Inaccuracy. Nd4 was best. } (24. Nd4) 24... Bxc5 25. Nxc5?? { (-1.77 → -4.79) Blunder. Bg2 was best. } (25. Bg2) 25... Rd2 26. Nd3 Rxe2 27. Bxe2 Nc4 28. Bf1 Qc6 29. Bc1 Bxe4 30. Nc5 Bd5 { White resigns. } 0-1

[1] Game with annotations by lichess.org

Why play 26. Nd3?
Is White avoiding the loss of tempo after (26. Qxd2 Qd8) or (26. Qxd2
Rad8)?

No, the idea behind Nd3 is to limit the losses. Black would respond to 26. Qxd2 with Nxf3+ forking the king and queen.
[fen "r5k1/1pq2ppb/4p2p/p1N1n3/P3P3/2P2BP1/1B1rQP1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxd2 (1. Nd3 Rxe2 2. Bxe2 Nxd3 3. Bxd3 {and white has limited the losses}) Nxf3+ 2. Kg2 Nxd2

After the sequence starting with Nd3 white is down a queen in exchange for a rook and a bishop. After Qxd2 white ends up down at least a queen for a rook.


Bughouse sitting/stalling full strategic breakdown We play with the rule one loses -> the team loses. My cheesy titled question is serious: let's try to wrap our heads around the Bughouse clock mechanics. When should one consider sitting/stalling? I imagine these ones:

I sit because the opponent mates me in the next move.
Because moving would mean giving my opponent a chance to capture a piece of mine, giving his partner a piece he needs and improves his game a lot.
To wait for a piece my opponent could handle me that could give me huge advantage.

Also, for stalling/sitting we always need more time that the diagonal opponent, if not, he could stall and we lose by time.

Are there other reasons to sit/stall?

Well, since the values of pieces in bughouse chess depends severely on the position type (e.g. a queen is often useless) you may want to stall/not play immediately when you're waiting for a specific piece to complete your strategy in general, not necessarily to win you a piece or gain some specific advantage.

E.g. you may have noticed experienced bughouse players starting with 1.Nf3 followed by Ng5 or Ne5 and sacrificing at f7. Now, when the king takes the knight, you might not reach an immediate advantage, but getting a knight could yield you a nice aggressive position.
Or another example would be waiting to get a pawn very early to disturb your opponents development as early as 2nd or 3rd move, with the goal of attacking, but also getting more space and a psychological advantage.
While we're on that, sometimes if you're playing blitz bughouse casually, chatting etc. you might want to spend some time just to get your opponent off track, since psychology plays a huge role in chess, and therefore in bughouse as well.

However, I would agree with you that on most occasions it is that you see you're getting checkmated in the next move so you let your partner play as long as he can(given that you have more time than your diagonal opponent, of course).

That's pretty much all I can think of, I hope you find this answer useful!


What is the correct name for a part of a chessboard: 'square' or 'cell'? I play shogi (Japanese chess) and there is a word "マス" to call a cell of a square lattice not only used in shogi and chess. As far as I have read the article about chess in Wikipedia, it seems that "square" is used more often than "cell" to call "マス" in chess. What is the most natural term to call a cell of the chess board? Is it "square"?

Yes, that's a "square". The word "cell" is never used. E.g. from the Wikipedia article:

  Chess is a two-player strategy board game played on a checkered board with 64 squares arranged in an 8×8 grid.

  The 64 squares alternate in color and are referred to as light and dark squares.

Or, if you prefer a dictionary:

  3 : any of the quadrilateral spaces marked out on a board for playing games

(source: Merriam-Webster)

  1.3 A small square area on the board used in a game.
  ‘move the white king's pawn forward two squares’

(source: Lexico, more example sentences about chess in that link)

Finally, as @chaosflaws notes in the comments, the official FIDE Laws of Chess:

  2.1 The chessboard is composed of an 8 x 8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the ‘white’ squares) and dark (the ‘black’ squares).


What did Bobby Fischer mean in this quote? Bobby Fischer has been quoted many, many times. What did Bobby Fischer mean when he said "My opponents make good moves too. Sometimes I don't take these things into consideration.”?

It means that even he, Bobby Fischer, was susceptible to overlooking his opponent's good replies.

From the book, "Counterplay: An Anthropologist at the Chessboard", here is a quote on page 74:

"So intense was Fischer's concentration, and so single-minded his intent, that he would sometimes become immersed in his own ideas at the board and forget certain possibilities available to his opponent. "Yet possessing a tremendous will to win," Elie Agur writes of Fischer, "he might have "forgotten' his opponent at times, carrying out his plans as though no obstacle could be put up to stop them." Or to quote the man himself: "My opponents make good moves too--Sometimes I don't take these things into consideration."

You are right that this is widely quoted, and attributed to him, but I would love to find where and when he said this exactly. I suspect it was in response to a game that he lost or drew. That I have been unable to find so far.


Help for beginning player to start learning openings Hi and thanks in advance for any help.

Basically, I've been playing chess on and off for a long time, but only casually. Im not a beginner as such, but I only play against friends and occasional online games and never really studied chess seriously. According to Shredder im around 1200-1300 rating so nothing special.

I've never really studied openings seriously, and I've got to the stage where I'd like to try and learn a little more seriously to improve my game. The problem I have is, whilst I can play reasonably against the very common openings, I've really no idea how to play against more unusual openings.

As a rough idea of my play at the moment, I generally play Giuoco Piano, Evans Gambit, Scotch etc type games as white, almost always 1 e4 games. As black I play the same against 1 e4 or I try and play a KID type game against 1 d4 but again when my opponent plays other types of openings I'm pretty much guessing how to respond.

Can anyone suggest how I might go about getting better at openings. Should I choose a handful of particular openings and try to find out more, or should I try and learn more about opening theory in general? Any recommended books or websites you can recommend? Any tips from when you were in my position and wanted to become better with openings?

Thanks! :)

It's important to know the main openings and their ideas, but there are some don'ts here.

Don't study obscure or excessive lines under the impression that not knowing these rare lines will result in poor play (it doesn't).
Don't study opening moves without understanding the ideas behind the moves.
Don't fall into the trap of learning hundreds of opening lines in order to gain an advantage of 0.2 pawns, only to drop a piece to a simple tactic in the middlegame. One of the best coaches in the world for beginners, National Master Dan Heisman, said:

  It does not matter who gets the advantage out of the opening if one of the players is likely to lose a piece to a simple tactic in the middlegame. Losing a piece from an advantageous position will almost always result in a lost position. So study tactics, not openings, until you almost never lose pieces to simple tactical motifs.


Do engines remember previous analysis? Suppose I let the engine analyze a given position (let's say for simplicity the starting position), and then I execute the move suggested by the engine (let's say 1. e4). Then I let the engine analyze the upcoming position (black to move after 1. e4), and after a while I take the move back and let the engine again analyze the original position (the starting position, white to move again), will it:

utilize the analysis done on this position last time and look wider at each PLY?
utilize the analysis done on the upcoming position (after I played 1. e4) and possibly reevaluate 1. e4 based on that?

Yes. This is what hash is: it stores previous analysis.

  Hash is a database that stores information about positions previously searched, how deeply they were searched, and what was concluded about them. See also https://www.chessprogramming.org/Hash_Table


I sometimes miss very obvious moves. How can I improve my game? I am a hobby player but I would like to improve my game.

I like to watch annotated games. For instance, I have watched all games of Josh Waitzkin in Chessmaster GM Edition.

Also, I watch games in YouTube as well.

In some variations, I find so said "hard to find" or "advanced" combinations at a glance. The correct move almost shines on the board.
In some other variations, on the other hand, I really struggle to find a simple mate-in-one move or a beginner's fork.

What would be the reason behind this behavior of my brain? How can I improve my vision?

I think you should do more Tactics training (https://www.chess.com/tactics/) (http://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics.html). Also You should read this

Here's an important segment

  There are a few common targets that will help you in finding tactical targets in chess:

  1-   Hanging (undefended) pieces can be used to gain tempo moves or to win them in tactical combinations.

  2-    An exposed (unsafe) king is a permanent target that can easily be combined with other threats.

  3-    The geometrical relation between pieces, in example – pieces on the same diagonal, file or rank.

  4-    A piece with a very important defensive task can become a target for an attack.

  5-    A piece with more than once defensive task can become overloaded and exploited.

  6-    Pieces in attacking positions versus pieces in defending positions have more flexibility and thus more opportunity for tactical maneuvers.

  7-    A majority of forces in a certain part of the board can outnumber the defenders and create opportunities for a tactics.

  8-    A piece with severely limited mobility can sometimes be trapped or kept out of the game.


Why does Stockfish undervalue pawns when compared to the classical "a piece is worth three pawns" approach? I was taking a look at values engines give to pawns and piece and was quite shocked by Stockfish values for middlegame (Mg):

PawnValueMg   = 128
KnightValueMg = 721 ~ 5.6 pawns
BishopValueMg = 825 ~ 6.4 pawns
RookValueMg   = 1276 ~ 9.9 pawns
QueenValueMg  = 2538 ~ 19.8 pawns

So this is way far from the standard "1 piece equals 3 pawns approach", and I was curious about the reason behind it.

Also, the fact that bishops are 0.8 pawns more valuable than knights called my attention.

I'm aware that this is a small part of Stockfish's (or for that case, any serious engine) evaluation function, but even so it seems like a really big different from the classic approach.

I am not an expert on stockfish source code, but my understanding is the following.

Humans:

It is true, that the  1 piece equals 3 pawns approach is pretty accurate, surprisingly so. However as you are probably aware, when evaluating a position, we consider many other aspects as well, such as piece activity, space, king safety, etc. The difference however is that we don't assign actual numerical values to these other factors.

Stockfish (or similar engines):

Unlike humans, engines assign numerical values to all factors. The numbers you mention are just a small part of the evaluation function.

Check out the middlegame evaluation function for stockfish. On that page you can also modify the board to see the evaluation and you can visit the specific functions such as `piece_value_mg' which is concerned with these numbers.

As you can see, just the piece values of all pieces amount to 9326. However there are many other functions which add to the evaluation. Most importantly, not all of these extra functions treat pawns and pieces equally.

For instance:

`Psqt mg', gives values to pawns only, depending on their position on the board. As you would expect,  pawns in the center are more valuable (pawn on e4 instead of e2 is +24 points)
another pawns only function: `Pawns mg' gives points depending on the pawn structure (isolated, doubled, connected pawns, etc) also here you can gain several tenth of points for the pawns (but not for the pieces).

To be fair, there are also functions that only deal with pieces such as `Pieces mg'. However note that they can also give a penalty (negative value) to the total evaluation. In fact for the starting position you have -63 from that function.

In summary...

Stockfish has a much more fine grained evaluation function than we humans do. The pure piece value from stockfish cannot really be compared with the human piece value.

In stockfish pieces and pawns can gain points in other ways beyond the values you mention. Furthermore, stockfish does not consider the piece on its own, but also how it relates to other pieces, e.g. whether there are doubled pawns, an outpost, etc.

If you check out the code, these other factors are each in the range of several ten points, so if you take them all together you might very well gain the 100 points necessary for the pawn to be 1/3 of a piece.

Mathematically you could also consider it as a kind of approximation or averaging in which you assign a single number (human piece value) for the very complex system that stockfish uses. There is no reason that the average value (human piece value) has any relation to one of the parameters (ValueMG) in the stockfish universe.

I really recommend to see for yourself at the link how much more complete the stockfish evaluation is.


How does a chess club become recognized by FIDE? First question here, I split it into 2 questions

What would it take for the club to be recognized by FIDE? At first the club would be a place to have fun, but later on, I would like that the club become recognized  by FIDE, I would like to give the members FIDE ratings and to participate in local and international events.

What would it take for the club to be recognized by FIDE?

FIDE does not recognize chess clubs (except perhaps maybe for club world cup competitions?). Depending on your country, your national chess federation (NCF) will likely need to recognize your club to allow you to participate in national team tournaments.

  I would like to give the members FIDE ratings

FIDE gives the ratings to players who have played in a tournament that has been registered as a FIDE-rated tournament. If you want to organize such a tournament, you should discuss with your NCF.

  and to participate in local and international events.

Your NCF may require each player to belong to a club recognized by the NCF before participating in tournaments rated by NCF. In international events, there is no requirement by FIDE to belong to a national club, but each player needs to register with FIDE via the NCF before entering the competition (since July 2014; before that registration was possible after the tournament).


How to improve positional chess understanding? I am a normal player with ~1500 FIDE rating, and I am quite good at tactics and trap things. But I falter at the positional games and I am bound to make mistakes where the things are non-tactical. So how should I improve my positional chess understanding?

My suggestion ist to take a book on positional chess and look through it.  For example "How to Reassess Your Chess" by IM Silman is, in my opinion, a good book to get started.  It walks you through all of the positional elements and gives you at least a good idea on what you might want to look out for.  Of course this can only be a start and at some point you may have to look beyond for some ideas on pawn structures, for which also several good works are available.

One word of warning is that, often, while you may feel that the weakest part of your game is positional chess, this might not be correct.  You can be sure only if a show a couple of your games (especially losses or games where you ended up in an uncomfortable position) to a (quite a bit) stronger player and ask their opinion.

In any case, I would like to recommend also the book series by Yusupov, in particular for your level the Fundamentals series (orange color).  These books contain positional chapters, but also endgame, tactics, openings and much more.  The goal is to raise the level of all your abilities to the same level.  If you can breeze through the tactical parts, this is good for you, then you will mostly gain from the positional chapters. However, it is likely that you will find further parts where you can learn a lot.


Women in Chess - First women-only event. What was the first women-only event held in Chess history?

The First International Ladies' Chess Congress in London, 1897. Games commenced on June 23 and the tournament was finished on July 3. It was organized by the Ladies' Chess Club of London and the Women's Chess Club of New York. The time control was 20 moves per hour, from 1 to 5 pm and 7 to 11 pm. Two games were played per day.

Results (after 19 rounds):

Mary Rudge 18.5
Louisa Matilda Fagan 15.5
Eliza Mary Thorold 14
Harriet J. Worrall 13
Marie Bonnefin 12.5
F. Sterling Barry, Edith Margaret Thomas 11.5
Gertrude Field 11
G. Watson, A. M. Gooding 10.5
E. H. Sidney, Alice E. Hooke 10
Rita Fox 9
Anna Hertzsch 8.5
Eschwege 6
Müller-Härtung 5.5
De la Vigne, Forbes-Sharpe 4
Finn 3.5
Stevenson 1

Referee: Harry Nelson Pillsbury

My sources are

Batgirl: Women Can Play Chess!, 2013, chess.com
Joost van Winsen: The Ladies Made an International Move, 2016, chess archaeology (with many pictures!)


Game databases vs. various languages/character sets How do people use chess software in large countries like China, India or Russia, if they don't speak English, and more importantly, if they don't know Latin letters? With unicode there's not big problem to localize software for these countries, but what about names and databases? Are there special databases for these regions, using their symbols?

You don't need good English to play chess...

  https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5369964903

is Baidu (China's larger search engine) page on chess.

Do you see? The Chinese know Nxf2, Qxe3+, Bg3.

The Chinese players don't need a new software because they can use Chinese in a chess software.

In the screenshot, I have Mikhail Botvinnik in Chinese in my ScidVsPC software.


What is the best age to learn chess? I am currently writing a capstone position paper about the optimum age for a person to start learning chess. I have come to the conclusion that the optimum age is 5-6. I need help brainstorming reasons though. So far I have:

Most grandmasters learn chess at this age.
Children's brains are like sponges at this age.

Any other ideas would be very helpful. Thank you.

Some famous players learned at 4 or so, for Carlsen it was 8, for me it was 11.

My daughter is 6. I'd love to teach her chess. She loves playing games, but she hates the fact that someone has to lose (if a player is behind in a multiplayer game, she'll help that player instead of trying to win). She also hates the concept of a fixed set of rules that daddy knows and that have to be abided by... so she's invented her own "chess" (take a board and two sets of pieces, put all the white ones on white squares, all the black ones on black squares, and that's it). She also likes to take my Yusupov books and put the pieces on the board just like they are in some diagram, but is completely uninterested in the purpose of those diagrams. This is wonderful, she has her own mind.

It's completely impossible to actually teach her chess at this age though. So the answer to the question can only be "it depends entirely on the child". Whenever the kid becomes interested in learning chess is the best age.

(that said, if they taught the rules of chess at school right now, she'd probably soak them up. But what would that accomplish?)


Technique to win this same colored bishop endgame The following endgame is a same-colored bishop endgame which I had on a game in Lichess. I tried for approximately 30 moves to try and win this game, but in the end, I got nothing more than a draw. I just felt that I was better due to white having 4 isolated pawns and 3 on light squares. Stockfish 11 evaluates the position as -4.3 at depth 40. The position in black to move. Please explain to me the technique to win this endgame.

The key here is zugzwang - White has an ideal defensive position at the moment, his king stops yours penetrating, his bishop covers the weak pawns on g4 and c4, and the pawn on a5 you can't easily get at is it is on a black square. BUT when white has to move he will either have to move his king (letting your king in), or move his bishop (leaving a pawn undefended) or move his a pawn (giving you an extra passed pawn)

So how can you take advantage of this? Well... if your bishop was on e6 and it was white's move he would be in zugzwang, and would either immediately drop a pawn (through a bishop or pawn move) or very soon afterwards (through a king move). Now note you can't just move your bishop straight to e6 as this would leave a position where you, not white, has the move. What you have to do is lose a move with the bishop - sometimes called triangulating with the bishop in reference to the similar idea with the King:

[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round ""]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/1p6/5p2/P1p1k1p1/b1P1P1P1/4K3/4B3/8 b - - 0 1"]

1...Be8
    ( 1...Bd7?! 2.Bd1 Be6 3.Be2 {And white is OK for the moment
    } )
    ( 1...Kd6?? {Trying to get to the a pawn} 2.e5+ Kxe5 3.Bf3 Kd6 4.Bxb7 )
2.Bf1 Bd7
    {so losing a move}
3.Be2 Be6
    {Now white has the move and has to give you something}
4.Bf3
    ( 4.Kf3 Kd4 )
    ( 4.Kd3 Kf4 )
    ( 4.Kf2 {Stockfish's Choice} 4...Kd4
        ( 4...Kxe4?? {Be Careful!} 5.Bf3+ )
    5.Bf3 Kxc4 6.e5 fxe5 7.Bxb7 Kb5 8.a6 Kb6 )
4...Bxc4
    {and wins}
*

There's a free course at chessable (https://www.chessable.com/) called "Basic Endgames" which covers this, amongst many other things


Is this endgame a draw (hacked - TestViking)? In my recent online blitz video, I got the following endgame with the black pieces. With white to move, the game went as follows

[White "hacked"]
[Black "TestViking"]
[FEN "8/3k2p1/1p1P1pP1/p1p5/P1P1PK2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.e5 Ke6 2.exf6 Kxf6 3.d7 Ke7 1/2-1/2

...white offered draw and I agreed. Was the position a draw or did one of the sides have a win or winning chances?

Yes, it was drawn all along. 1...Ke6! was the only move for black to draw since he cannot allow white to force ...gxf6, nor allow the white king up to support the d-pawn. After 4.Ke5 Kxd7 5.Kd5 there's no way for either side to make progress as the kings will just be shuffled between d5/e5 and d7/e7. There is one practical chance/trap that might be worth trying before agreeing to a draw; black can play 5...Kc7 and see if white goes for 6.Ke6, in which case black wins with 6...b5!, forcing the creation of a passed pawn and queening first. As long as white spots this and plays 6.Ke5 instead there's nothing more to do, though.

Edit: I realized black cannot play Ke7 at the end as it loses to Kc6. However, Kc7 still draws as before due to white being unable to play Ke6.


Black's tools in the Caro-Kann Advanced Tal Variation What are Black's plans to play for an advantage in this variation?
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 e6

The kingside development seems so slow, allowing White to develop, castle, and break on c4 before Black has even castled. Is it sound to play Qb6, with c4 at some point as Black with plans to leave the king in the center?  Where else is the compensation?

I play the white side of this position often, and have an incredible winrate because to be honest, it feels very hard for black to develop naturally. Here's an example of how things can go wrong:
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 e6 7. Bg5 Qb6 8. Nd2 c5 9. c4 Qxb2 10. Rd1 Qxd4 11. Qb3 Qxe5+ 12. Ne2 Qc7 13. cxd5 exd5 14. O-O

Black is able to win several pawns, but in order to "punish" white's play has to move their queen many moves in a row. While it appears black has done nothing "wrong," this position just so happens that white gets a huge initiative and is practically winning already because of the open lines against black's king and huge lead in development. Stockfish only thinks this is +0.6 or so, but as you keep playing through the variations, you'll see the evaluation rise and rise, sometimes even with best play from black. Leela loves this position for white.
A more practical alternative for black is to try and trade the queens off instead of pawn grabbing. This is typically done with the maneuver Qa5+->Qa6 (or Qb6->Qa6) so that Qxa6 can be met with Nxa6, supporting a c5 break. Here's the beginning of a game between Nepo and Motylev, 2014 (https://lichess.org/0y7cwwGs) which black won:
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 e6 7. Bg5 Qb6 8. Nd2 Qa6 9. c4 Bb4 10. b3 c5 11. Nf3 Nc6 12. dxc5 Bxc5 13. O-O Nge7 14. a3 Ng6 15. b4 Ncxe5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Qc3 Bd6

You can see how pinning the c4 pawn to the d3 queen means that black's center is more secure: the c5 break has the added benefit of not allowing for a later cxd5 exd5, opening up black's central king. White still had some play in the final position, but collapsed after a premature f4, which ultimately opened up the white king rather than opening up the black king. Black's play revolves around the pressure on white's center, which can sometimes collapse (and sometimes should collapse in order to expose black's king) and lead to double-edged positions that black has winning chances in.
To be honest, I think black's best line here is:
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 Qa5+ 7. Nd2 (7...Qa6?! 8. e6!) e6 8. Nf3 Qa6

so that we get the same sort of play as in the previous game but ensure that white's bishop is stuck still on c1. Vidit won a brilliant game against Andriasian as black in this position in 2018 (https://lichess.org/QAd7qBrk).
Finally, to be complete, but at the risk of giving away some cutting edge opening theory, I think white can improve upon this opening by following a Leela recommendation:
[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 Qa5+ 7. b4!? (7...Qxb4+ 8. Nd2 e6 9. Rb1 Qe7 10. Ne2) Qa6 8. e6! Qxd3 9. cxd3 fxe6

There's a whole world of unexplored territory in this line, but play in it is unlike anything else I've ever seen, so I don't have any amazing recommendations for black except that taking the b pawn seems risky. Currently, this b4 pawn sacrifice seems to have been played only twice in 2018. Time will tell if it catches on in the future! I had a fascinating game from this position recently, where I won the opening battle but ultimately lost on time: https://lichess.org/gUqyAa1u/white.
Enjoy, and good luck in the Caro!


How can I make my child interested in playing chess? I am just an OK player and I wish for my eight-year old kid to learn chess and be interested in it too. Can you please give tips/ideas as to how can I make my child interested in it?

In my experience it is likely that kids get interested in whatever you are interested in.  So, play a couple of chess games with a friend or set up some chess problems and work on them yourself at a time where your kid can see what you are doing.  It is quite likely that your kid will start asking questions what you are doing and wants to play as well.

Whenever my sons sees me setting up the chess board he wants to play... unfortunately he is not even three years old, so besides learning the names of the pieces there is not much he can do yet. ;)


Bonus added at move zero Is the bonus time added before the game starts, that is before the first move?

I play in a competition that has a time control of 1 hour 40 minutes +30 seconds per move. If I set the chess clock to this time control, the game effectively starts with 1 h 40 min 30 s per Player. Is this the correct behaviour?

Is this the correct behaviour?

Yes it is.

Consider the FIDE Rating Regulations -

  1. Rate of Play
  1.1 For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60
  moves. Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 2200
  or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.

The standard time control used in the vast majority of FIDE rated competitions is game in 90 minutes with a 30 second increment starting from move 1.

Suppose the increment is added after the player presses the clock and he starts with 90 minutes. After 59 moves his clock will show -
90 minutes + 59x30 seconds - time taken to make 59 moves
= 119 minutes 30 seconds - time taken to make 59 moves

In other words he is going to have less than 120 minutes to make 60 moves because the 30 second increment doesn't get added until he has completed 60 moves. If he takes 119 minutes 31 seconds to make 60 moves then his flag will have fallen before he presses the clock and gets the increment.

Adding 30 seconds before the first move corrects this.


Good chess opening for a beginner I am a beginner and my chess opening is pretty weak. Can you suggest me an opening that is easy to learn and is suitable for a beginner like me?

As it stands now, your post will be marked as duplicate, so I will answer fast before it is closed.

  Can you suggest me an opening that is easy to learn and is suitable for a beginner like me?

This is very hard to do, because your opponent will always have chance to play the move that transposes into different opening. Studying seriously openings will limit your development because you don't know which style suits you. That should be your main goal -> to "discover" your style, to find out what suits you and what not.

To achieve this, you need to learn basic endgames first, tactics second and then typical middlegame positions.

At your level of skill, you just need to survive the opening relying on general opening principles. Your goal will be to leave the opening with equal position.

Just play any opening that you find interesting, and experiment. Try them all out, don't be afraid! Once you find out which opening suits you, ask a question about it here and we shall further help you.

This was the best thing I ever did when I was a beginner! I found a partner that was way stronger than me, but was willing to teach me by playing with me. I tried all sorts of openings against him until I found those that I had "natural gift" for. Maybe you have talent for closed openings or open games, but you will find that out only by trying out different openings.

So remember:

Learn basic opening principles!
Play everything, there is enough online documentation on any opening for a beginner level ( ask here for help if you get stuck )!
Work very hard on tactics!

For now, this is enough. Once you feel confident in your skills ( once you estimate that you have improved enough for intermediate level ) come back here and ask us for further advice.

Good luck, young grasshopper! :)


Do you say "good game" after a game in which your opponent played poorly? Suppose you win a game in a noncompetitive way, when you know your opponent cannot feel good about his play. Maybe he dropped his queen early, to a simple tactic that should have been evident for a player of his level, for example.

Do you say "Good game" when you shake hands? Or do you say nothing at all?

Why not just:

  Thanks for the game.

You wanted to play a game, and your opponent gave you a game. Played well or not, you could thank him for giving you the opportunity to play.


What are some good middle game plans or strategies? The objective of the opening is quite clear - develop your pieces quickly, castle and bring your king to safety, etc. Once this phase is over, and you are into the middle game, the question arises - now what?!
What are some good plans to pursue in the middle game? Generally, I go for an all out attack on the enemy king. If played well, it could result in some advantage - either the opponent gets checkmated or he is forced to give up material in order to avoid a checkmate. However, in some cases the opponent king is heavily fortified - for eg. there is a doubled f or c pawn on the side where his king has castled, or there is a fianchetto bishop on the same side as the castled king which gets in the way of a mating attack. In such situations, is it advisable to still go for a mating attack? Or are there some other plans which can be pursued? How to gain an advantage? What are some common plans/strategies?

Although your question is quite broad, the general ideas in the middlegame are the following-

  1) Improve the position of your pieces- knights on outposts,
  bishops on open diagonals, rooks on open files, etc.

  2) If a piece is badly placed and cannot be improved, see if you can
  exchange it for one of your opponent's better placed pieces.

  3) Create weaknesses in your opponent's pawn structure, by
  provoking certain pawn moves. Note that every pawn move is
  irreversible, thus you must watch out for opportunities where you can
  provoke pawn moves from your opponent that would weaken their
  position.

  4) If you yourself have weaknesses, see if you can eliminate them; if
  not, guard them well.

  5) Keep your pieces co-ordinated and see if you can disturb the
  co-ordination of your opponent's pieces.

  6) Keep your king safe and see if the opponent's king position can
  be compromised.

  7) Look for transpositions into favorable endgame positions (e.g.
  two bishops vs two knights or two bishops vs bishop and knight in open
  positions).

With respect to your particular approach, attack's on the opponent's king are not always justified. It may work at the beginner level, but a stronger opponent will be able to refute an unfounded attack. In order to attack, first of all, there must be something to attack- weaknesses. If your opponent has no weaknesses, then your attack will come to nothing and you risk ruining the co-ordination of your pieces.

The better approach therefore is to work for the accumulation of advantages. A single advantage (like a knight on a good outpost) is often not enough to win. You must try to accumulate as many advantages as you can before you can deal the lethal attacking blow. Of course, if the opponent makes a mistake or blunders, then the lethal blow can come quickly. If not, slow yet constant improvement of your position is the best way to go.


Chess960 vs. Chess480 castling moves? Which is better? In the chess variants Chess960 (aka Fischer Random Chess) and Chess480 the castling moves are radically different.

Do the castling rules in Chess960 favor established FIDE Chess players more than the castling rules in Chess480 and if so why?

What are other reasons to favor one castling system over the other?

I believe the premise of the question is rather unclear! If you're already saying that there are a set of FIDE rules for castling, then the comparison between other types of chess should be straightforward, wouldn't you say? Either they follow the rules or they don't, whereas you seem to be asking for a crude-subjective-qualitative comparison here (you use words like "which is better" or "favored"...), which is kinda impossible because castling in standard chess has well defined rules.

First off, unlike the well-known chess960 mode, chess480 still lacks a coherent definition as many different types of it exists apparently(one where queen has to be restricted to appear on the left of the king, other where the king has to be on dark squares etc.) so as long as there's not a coherent and consistent description of the game, it remains very difficult to do any comparison (unless e.g. you ask for a specific scenario).

But anyway, all that differs, is basically the positions of rook/king after castling, in chess480 in certain scenarios, if possible, unlike Chess960, the final position after castling will not be the same as the final position of a castling move in traditional chess. Quote and image from Wikipedia:

  the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards
  (or over) the rook, then that rook is transferred to the square the
  king has just crossed (if it is not already there). If the king and
  rook are adjacent in a corner and the king cannot move two spaces over
  the rook, then the king and rook exchange squares.

In chess480:

In chess960:

So as far as traditional castling rules are concerned, they are both equally undermining, as for one thing in either mode, the kings can be found on squares other than e-square in the initial setup and still be castled...

Maybe you could further clarify, as to what exactly you intend to achieve with such comparison. (and if you do, then I will edit my reply accordingly.)


How did IM Gotham discover cheating before the game? In a recent scandal, IM Gotham correctly pointed out a cheat even before the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAY_pC3yc0c&ab_channel=JustForFunHD
The video was in a low digital quality so I couldn't see the screen properly. Not sure where to find the original high definition video. How did Gotham find out the person was a cheater instantly?

You can't see it well because it's behind his camera view, but he clicks on the player, bringing up the profile page. And there is his rating chart, which has gone up by a 1000 points in 30 days, very smoothly, as he mentions a few seconds later.
As that would be immediately visible and it's also what he says, my guess is that that is why he immediately suspects cheating.
Then after that, constantly taking more or less the same amount of seconds for every single move, even in the opening, confirms it.


Is there an Android chess GUI library I am looking for an open source chess gui library for Android that I can use in an app so that I don't need to take care of the GUI engine, but can focus on the logic behind it.

I have searched for solutions but not found anything. Does something like this exist?

You can use mine. I have an Android application that takes care of the GUI elements.

https://github.com/jj30/ChessPGNHelper

The application itself is in the play store at

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=bldg5.jj.pgnbase

Please attribute me (Jan Jansz) as a developer where possible. (I need it; thanks.)


What's the average piece density? In a position, the piece density is equal to the total number of pieces on the board (Whites pieces + Black pieces) divided by the total number of squares (64).

At the beginning of every game, the piece density is equal to 32/64=0.5, and at any point of the game the piece density is always smaller or equal to 0.5

The piece density can only decrease during a game. It decreases by 1/64=0.015625 at each capture.

I would like to know what's the average piece density.

I'd need a decent precision on the result, so you can't just use a small sample of 5 games. You'll need to take a large sample of at least 500 games, the more the better.

It should be fairly easy. To make the program that will calculate this average piece density, use the facts that at the beginning of each game the piece density is equal to 0.5, then at each capture it decreases by 0.015625, and the program will be able to detect each capture easily since captures are indicated by a "x" symbol in the PGN. So the program won't have to represent every positions of every games, it will be able to quickly calculate the average piece density just by scanning the PGN.

But take only OTB games, played at a classical (long) time control of at least 2 hours per player, and where both players were at least 2000 Elo. No correspondence games, no engines games, no internet games, no rapid games, no blitz games.

First of all, I think this is a bad question (similar to StackOverflow "Give me the code" questions).

That being said, the subject itself seemed interesting, so I threw a quick and dirty (and inefficient - feel free to optimise) script together to do this. I ran it on PGN file of world championship games between 1895 and 1985 from this page (this should fit OPs requirements). The results:

The overall average value for the data points in the World Championships PGN is roughly 0.35 (0.349341653669).

EDIT:
Results on much bigger PGN sample (~275.000 games) - chess db grandmaster collection (although most likely includes games with non-classical time control).

I am making the script available, so that you can run it on PGN of your choice. It depends on the python pgn parsing package.


How can I control my nerves during chess tournaments? I always get nervous during a chess match and that really affects my performance. I can easily beat a 1400-1500 in a friendly match but when it comes to a tournament, I can't even win against 1300s. I also lose against people with whom I have won hundreds of times in friendly games.

Any tips or suggestions?

First of all, as @Jimmy360 stated, you should practice with tournament-like conditions. Apply the similar time controls, touch-move rule, threefold repetition, and all those 'boring' rules if you need to. This will surely make you nervous, however, it is a good practice, since tournaments will make you nervous anyway. When you get used to it, you will know how to relax, and furthermore, treat tournaments as friendlies!

Another suggestion I can give is that play in lots of tournaments. I know it isn't possible with limited time and money, however, chess.com and other chess websites have made things easier. Just play in lots of online tournaments, and you will feel that things will get easier, and you'll get used to playing under tournament atmosphere.

Finally, I suggest you to always think twice before making a move. This is what players of your level usually fail to do. Try inspecting your games; how often do you hang pieces, or fall to forks and pins? Well, the problem is, with the added stress due to it being a tournament, we tend to forget these 'little things' more easily. Therefore, every time you play in a tournament, try to sit back, relax, take a deep breath, double-check every move, and most importantly:

   Enjoy the game!


Randomness in engine play If I get two engines to play against each other with the same colours, will the same game result every time? If not, where does the randomness in engine play come from? (Neglecting the opening book, where if I'm not mistaken the book can tell the engine to pick between two moves at random since they're equally good.)

I'm assuming that there is randomness because in the Alphazero vs. Stockfish match, we didn't get the same game happening many times in a row. However I don't understand why. Presumably the only way to do this is to get the engine to play a subpar move some of the time, which sounds like seppuku.

Regarding the AlphaZero vs Stockfish match, this question has already been covered here by SmallChess.

AlphaZero aside (which employs a specialised Monte Carlo1 routine in its exploration of the lines of play), which is made to be non-deterministic by construction, for the usual heuristics based chess engines, such as Stockfish and others (though there are other engines that have MC-based routines, AFAIK Rybka used to have such feature), the source of randomness is generally just a consequence of technical aspects in the implementation, rather than intentional randomness being introduced algorithmically in the engine's decision making. Abstractly speaking, one reason for that is the fact that the engines aren't running in a purely sequential manner (executing one task after the other). Instead, to render the engines more efficient, they perform parallel searches in various branches of the tree of possible moves. They do so via what is called multi-threading (or -processing but that is a bit different). So multiple threads of the CPUs are concurrently executing operations to search the tree (and cache the evaluations of visited positions), so imagine each thread being assigned a subtree. The problem with this kind of implementation is that the overall execution of the threads becomes highly dependent on all sorts of conditions (waiting times, RAM swaps, ...), so in the end a principal variation may be chosen without having allowed all other threads to finish their search.

This indeed happens often because the engine is set to make a decision under a certain amount of time, so time management alters the behaviour. You can also revert this statement by saying: knowing the algorithm and implementing deterministic threading routines are not sufficient to reliably predict the state of the program after any time t. Of course if one always allows all threads to finish their search, and there haven't been concurrency issues during that execution (for instance a thread trying to access a certain cache that isn't accessible), then the behaviour will indeed be fully reproducible given everything else is the same2.

1: Together with the fact that through additional training (for instance self-play) its neural network keeps evolving (re-adjusted parameters), or if you will its evaluation function doesn't have a constant, fixed definition (unlike heuristics based engines).

2: Even then, as you said, at the opening level, with an opening book, there are sometimes intentional random decisions made by the engine as to which variation to choose. Similarly, outside of the opening phase, there can be moments where multiple variations have close to equal evaluations (within the resolution chosen for the Eval), then based on the design, it may end up choosing one randomly. Finally, at the level of engine settings you have to be careful as well, for instance the depth of search and ponder times chosen for each engine (and whether they can further calculate during each other's ponder times).


Is there a measure of how likely it is that a position will end in a draw? I was asked to rephrase this question. Hope at least someone gets what I'm trying to mean here now.

A position can be equal but asymmetrical. If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. That one be one kind of factor to consider for constructing such a statistical measure.

Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure? Would there be any interest in such a measure?

The players' personal inclination to draw as a matter of life long habit, or their need to win a point where a draw would still be a title loss, could be adjusted for in quantifiable and rational ways, since it is a statistic I'm asking for here, not a miracle prediction for one particular game yet to be played.

Is there a list of what combinations of openings have ended in a draw at top level? Would that be of any interest when trying to predict the outcome of any game?

Can all such things which appear to be of meaning for predicting  the outcome of games in general?

(I cant believe it is so very hard to explain with ever more words these obvious thoughts to people here who are supposed to be interested in Chess of all things).*

You have several questions which don't appear to be related. I'll answer you this one:

  Q: If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure?

Yes. There's a related concept known as positional complexity. Of course, the more complicated the position it is, the less likely it should end with a draw.

Using Heuristic-Search Based Engines for Estimating Human Skill at Chess has a definition for the complexity measure. Their definition is simple and straightforward. Computer Analysis of World Chess Champion is a similar paper.
Chess DB has a brief description
Who is the Master defines several more measures, they call them "conformance".
Another related: Intrinsic Ratings Compendium

If you require technical explanation, please edit your question and I'll update my answer.


Good tournaments in 2017 to go for a sport holiday I'm looking for some tournaments that have high tourist (sport) value and are good for spending holiday, played in some sea resort, small town in good place for riding bicycle or somewhere in nature park/mountains to have nice walks. I'm not interested at all in big cities no matter how many museums you can find there and how interesting history does it have. Of course the event should be in time good for desired activity and right in the area of interest, not 10km away. Location preferably close to central europe. Tournament should be strong enough for titled players, may even be GM/IM roundrobins.

I can recommend you the Faaker See Open in Austria,Carinthia.

http://www.faakerseeopen.at/faakersee_open.php#english

It is an lovely area close to a nice lake and mountains nearby.
I have played two times there myself and it is good organized, but if you go there don't book the bed and breakfast place called Pension Wrolich.(It might look cheap but it is not worth it)


Can White play e4 followed by f3? We know that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 is a disaster for Black (Damiano Opening).

But White has an extra move. Can he therefore play 1. e4 e5 2. f3 ?

If Black replies 2... Nf6, White has 3. Ne2 (followed eventually by Ng3). That seems to stave off the immediate problem of the Damiano Opening.

So does the extra move give White enough leeway to play like this?

2.f3 looks like a terrible move. It wastes a tempo by not developing a piece; it takes f3 square away from the knight, and it weakens a7-g1 diagonal, while achieving absolutely nothing. I think that after any normal move (2...d5, 2...Nc6, 2...Nf6, 2...Bc5) black has the edge.

While I don't see any reason to give up the advantage so early, I don't think white is lost (just slightly worse), so white can play it if they want to.

I also think that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 leads to a "disaster" is an overstatement. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5?? does lead to a disaster; however, black can play 3...Qe7.


Studying beyond the opening? I was watching the following video on the Ruy Lopez (Spanish Game) - Variations with 3...a6. The video is almost 1.5 hours and it pretty much goes through all variations with 3...a6.
As I was going through the video, I got lost and frustrated because it seemed to much to take in and I was trying to plug in all the possibilities into Chess Position Trainer.  So this got me thinking, is it necessary to learn all these variations that go beyond the opening and by beyond the opening I mean once you get past Bb5 in this particular case?

For example, in the video, they went over the deferred Steinitz defense:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O d6 which was enough for me, but then they continued with white's most popular replies on move 6 and continued with black and I didn't know where to stop.

is it necessary to learn all these variations that go beyond the
  opening?

I would say no it is not necessary to focus on the opening that much until you are playing chess at a very high level. If you are a beginner the best advice would be to dedicate most of your study time to middlegame tactics and strategy, as well as some basic endgames. Here is a quote of Capablanca on the matter

  I have very often met players who know the openings by heart; that is
  to say, they have learned from some book or other and they think they
  know them very well. And indeed they do know them very well by heart,
  but nothing more. They do not understand the objectives behind the
  openings and therefore do not know what advantage has to be taken of
  them, and it often thus happens that they lose. And they lose because
  they have studied the openings badly without learning them or because
  they have not studied them in depth. It is clear that this can happen
  to anyone, but it is more likely to happen to someone who studies only
  the openings than to someone who dedicates himself to study of the two
  other phases.

The quote is from a lecture you can read online

ps. You will probably also benefit by studying the games of the masters... for example, by using a book as Irving Chernev's Logical Chess... Good luck!


Did Leela Zero miss a win in this position? Did Leela Zero miss a win in this position from game 106 of the Computer Chess Championship, on move 83 with White to move?
[FEN "8/2p1r3/2P4k/1P1pB2p/K2NbP1R/P5r1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Here, Leela Zero played Bxc7? for their 83rd move. I went deep to analyze the position at 34/91 with Houdini 6.02 for one hour, and the game reached a position with White having a rook, bishop, knight and pawn against Black's two rooks. I analyzed it again starting from there, and either White will increase his positional advantage or Black will be forced into simplifying into a tablebase win for White. Is all this true? Rh2 was the winning move according to Houdini 6.02.

For what that's worth, Stockfish 11 gives

Rh2 as +2.6
Kb4 as +2.2
Bxc7 as +0.6
other moves as 0.0

on my machine at depth 45 (will be updating this answer while it digs deeper). Rh2 and Kb4 occasionally switch positions as #1 and #2, so it's still unclear which one of these is truly best. Bxc7 surely isn't, however, at least if you believe Stockfish.
One important note: The top evaluation score has hovered between +2.0 and +2.6 since depth 15. Apparently, Stockfish has not found a way to substantially improve White's position (let alone win) in the last 30 plies. It's still possible that the game will end in a fortress situation with perfect play, and then Leela would in fact not have missed a win (despite having played a suboptimal move).

Edit:
At depth 54, it's

Rh2 as +3.9
Kb4 as +2.2
Bxc7 as +0.1
other moves as 0.0

Still not fully conclusive, but we're starting to get somewhere.
In any case, Bxc7 was certainly not the most optimal move that Leela could have played.


Where can I see all my friends on lichess? I'm not sure if it's called friends or just users I am following. When I press on my profile there's a section which allows me to see the users that are following me but I'm looking for the one's I'm following in a list. I can also just search the username and it suggests them from the drop down search bar but I'm looking for a list of all of them. Maybe someone knows where it is or if there's a URL that can get me there?

When you go to followers there's a button for following.

I also found the URL:

  https://lichess.org/@/USERNAME/following


Why does Caruana kick Aronian's bishop? Why does Caruana push 11.h3 against Aronian?

[fen ""]
[startflipped "0"]
[startply "20"]
[title "F. Caruana v. L. Aronian, FIDE Candidates 2018"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.d3 d6 9.Bd2 Bg4 10.c3 d5 11.h3 (11.exd5 Nxd5 12.h3) Bh5 12.Qe2 Rb8 13.Bg5 dxe4 14.dxe4 h6 15.Bc1 Bg6 16.Nbd2 Nh5 17.Nf1 Bc5 18.g3 Kh7 19.Kg2 Qe7 20.Bc2 Rfd8 21.b4 Bb6 22.a4 Nf6 23.Nh4 Qe6 24.Bd3 Bh5 25.g4 Bxg4 26.hxg4 Nxg4 27.Nf5 Nxf2 28.Bc2 g6 29.N1e3 gxf5 30.exf5 Qf6 31.Qxf2 e4 32.Rh1 Rd6 33.Bxe4 Rg8+ 34.Kf1 Ne5 35.Qf4 c6 36.axb5 Rg5 37.bxa6 Qd8 38.f6+ Ng6 39.Rxh6+ 1-0

Caruana's 11.h3 does nothing I can see but to kick Aronian's bishop back to h5, seemingly a better square.

Yet Caruana wins the game, against Aronian, no less. So has Caruana's 11.h3 actually somehow helped?

LUFT?

Is Caruana's sole purpose to make Luft without loss of tempo?

But this seems doubtful. Why make Luft so soon? Aronian still has both bishops, after all; so, if the purpose is Luft, then how can Caruana already know that the h-pawn will have been the right pawn to push? (In the event, if Luft is what Caruana wants then he soon gets plenty of it. Aronian trades the bishop for all three of Caruana's kingside pawns!)

PAWN STORM?

Perhaps Caruana is dreaming of an eventual g4 and a pawn storm against Aronian's black king. But from this position? I see no sign of it. Do you?

I'm stumped.

MOTIVE BEHIND THE QUESTION

Though Caruana's game against Aronian does indeed interest me, my question has a broader purpose. Opponents sometimes play moves like Caruana's 11.h3 against me. I do not understand h3 (or h6) when they play it any more than when Caruana does.

I understand kicking a knight by h3. I also understand kicking a bishop by a3, insofar as the king is not near. But kicking a bishop by h3? If one does not mean to follow with g4, then why bother?

I would like to understand.

COMPUTER ANALYSIS

If you wish to know, Stockfish slightly prefers 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.h3, which is not wholly dissimilar to Caruana's play, so apparently Stockfish understands Caruana's thought. Unfortunately, I do not understand it. If you can illuminate the push of the rook pawn in a position of this kind, I would appreciate it.

You are right, h3 has no immediate purpose. But that's not the point. The idea behind playing h3 is to set up many resources that may be used in the future. I'll list these resources below:

A) Luft. Sometime long down the road, the king may need a luft to prevent a back rank mate. Yes, Caruana doesn't know if moving the h-pawn will be the ideal luft in every possible situation, but usually moving the h-pawn works best. You also mentioned that Caruana would soon have plenty of Luft because Aronian trades his bishop for the three kingside pawns. This is also true, but Caruana had no way of knowing this ahead of time.

B) Possibly playing g4. Notice how Black's knight on f6 is tied to the defence of the d5-pawn. One day, White may play g4-g5, booting the knight from its post and winning d5. This doesn't work in the current position (why else would Caruana play 12.Qe2 instead of 12.g4?), but again it's about the possible future. In some future position, Caruana may find the g4 idea useful. It's likely he will never use it, but it doesn't hurt to have the option ready should the need arise.

In summary of points A) and B), h3 is meant to set up resources that Caruana might use in the future. He may never use these resources, but it's good to have them ready just in case. Playing h3 doesn't hurt his position, so why not?

There's also two more reasons behind playing h3:

C) The bishop on h5 is arguably worse than on g4. On h5, the bishop can only go to g6, where it will be blocked in by White's e4-pawn (provided White can protect the pawn). On g4, the bishop would have been able to retreat along the c8-h3 diagonal.

D) As user1583209 pointed out, by playing h3 White has the option to suddenly break the pin with g4 at any moment. This may be a very useful resource, if White's knight needs to be freed up to do something immediately. Without inserting h3, Black would be able to capture on f3 if White played h3 later on.


Should you state your rating if you want to play in a simul? Gary Kasparov complains in Johannesburg simultaneous exhibition

Is Gary right to be angry? Should you state the rating while playing in a simul? Isn't simul supposed to be a fun place where everyone gets to play their favorite player? Are there such rules in simul?

First off, Kasparov is not a big fan of losing.  That's an important detail.  I wont weigh in too much on his personality, but if you look at the comments on that video, there are quite a few strong opinions about what kind of person he is.

I don't know what the rules were for that simul, but if they were the same as the Kasparov's current website:

  Players must be true amateurs who have 1999 ELO points or less, no exceptions. No player who has ever held a Rating of 2000 or over is permitted--it is contrary to the spirit of the simul and to the agreement. No coaching or computer assistance is permitted.

So if the organizers in Johannesburg were operating under these rules, then indeed they were out of line.

If you watch the whole thing, it looks like the under 2000 rule may not have been in place back then, but he did specifically ask the coordinators to tell him who the strongest player was.  It appears they did not take into account a coach helping these players during the simul, and so they pointed elsewhere.

In some sense, it does make sense.  At the GM level, you are always playing to your opponent.  You have to know something about them.  He was playing on assumptions about the capabilities of his opponent, and those assumptions turned out to be false.

On the other hand, you are right about this event being something that's supposed to be fun.  I know I generally agree with it, but not everyone does.  Kasparov does seem to care that a player can walk away claiming "I beat Kasparov" when Kasparov was not playing his best at the time.  Instead, he was playing a version of Kasparov designed to do "something else," whether that's saving time for other boards or trying to teach the amateurs something about chess.  We don't know what his purpose for being at the event was, but we do know he values his name and he values his record.


How can I find the gained points per game? In another post it was written that for games played during the 2013 World Championship match, Carlsen gained 3.7 points if he wins, Anand gained 6.3 points if he wins, and that in a draw Carlsen lost 1.3 points that Anand gained.
How were these numbers arrived at?

By "points" you probably mean rating "points". Rating is a measure of player's strength, not a prize for their performance. To me, talking about "gaining rating points" sounds a bit wrong. A player's rating increases if he wins and decreases if he loses. In the case of a draw, player's rating moves closer to his opponent's rating (or does not change if the rating difference is small).

Here's how the Elo system works:

The result of a game is 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. The expected score of a player A against player B is a function of their rating difference. For FIDE ratings, see the tables in Section 8 here. After a tournament or a match, the rating is then updated using the formula

(new rating) = (old rating) + K * (result - expected result),

where in the FIDE system K=30 for players with few games, K=10 for players whose rating has been above 2400, and K=15 for other players.

If player A's expected score is E, then player B's expected score is 1-E. Thus,
when two players play against each other e.g. in a match and their K-factor is equal, one can easily see player A's rating increases by the same amount player B's rating decreases.

For more information, see e.g. the Wikipedia article.


What are good defenses of black King with Bishop on f8 or g7? As black, I like to return my dark square Bishop to the King after castling short. I want to develop my skills in defending that position. In what openings does it occur?

And how should one in general search for such a nameless(?) concept or strategy? Is there for example a database where one can search for Bf8 in the ten first moves?

There are a lot of openings where Black fianchettos his king's bishop, and it ends up on g7. Versus 1. d4 you have the King's Indian Defense and the Grünfeld Defense; if White opens 1. e4 you can respond with the Pirc Defense. The Modern Defense is usable against both.

Without playing g6, Black has to move his rook on f8 (after castling short) and retreat the bishop to f8. That's far less common, though there are some (side)lines in the Sicilian and the Ruy Lopez where this happens.


Is this 2B vs. N endgame won for the bishops? Tim Krabbe gives this position on his list of serious promotions to rook and bishop:

[FEN "8/8/5b2/8/K7/4N3/kp6/8 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Boniface"]
[Black "Pugh"]
[Site "Bristol"]
[Date "1995"]

1. Nd1 b1=B

And states that: "Although the position was then technically won for Black, he did not manage to win, and a draw was agreed at move 92."

Can black win the resulting 2 bishops vs knight ending, and if so can it be done within 50 moves to avoid a draw? I had Stockfish 5 grind at it for almost two hours and a depth of 83 but it couldn't find a win.

Try Syzygy tablebase: https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/5b2/8/K7/8/k7/1b1N4_w_-_-_0_1

Please ignore DTZ if you don't know what it is, look at DTM. It's checkmate in 139 piles with perfect play.

No, the position is drawn under the FIDE 50-move rule.


Why the initial rating of FIDE is calculated that strangely? Let suppose an unrated player plays a FIDE rated swiss tournament where its opponent's ratings are e.g. 1300,2000,2100,2200,2300 and wins all of them, then his initial rating will be 2100 according to FIDE rating calculator and FIDE documentation confirms this:
If he scores more than 50%, then Ru = Ra + 20 for each half point scored over 50%

Here Ru is the (new) rating of the unrated player and Ra is the average rating of the rated opponents.
Clearly, this player performed much better than the calculated rating (any performance calculator admits that). And I believe many before me have seen such an issue and such a performance (or maybe slightly weaker than that) from an unrated player is not impossible since many just don't play rated games. I'm wondering what is the rationale behind this? Does it mean that FIDE wants players to play enough many games before they win any title? Or is there any other reason to not use performance for calculating the rating? Were there already some discussions about the initial rating calculation?

I'm wondering what is the rationale behind this?

The rationale is very simple. 5 games is far too few to get a realistic and accurate assessment of a player's strength. That is why a new player's K factor remains at 40 until either they have completed 30 rated games. Additionally it remains at 40 for all players under the age of 18 with ratings under 2300.
Here is the relevant section from the FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017:

8.56 K is the development coefficient.
K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with at least 30 games.
K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.
K = 40 for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
If the number of games (n) for a player on any list for a rating period multiplied by K (as defined above) exceeds 700, then K shall be the largest whole number such that K x n does not exceed 700.

A K factor of 40 allows for very rapid changes in rating. Hence the last clause above which seeks to limit the rating change in any one month to prevent see-sawing rating.


What are the key ideas for white in the Keres Attack (Sicilian Scheveningen)? The Keres Attack (Sicilian Scheveningen) has the following starting position

[FEN ""]
[White "Keres Attack"]
[Black "Sicilian Scheveningen"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g4

What are the key ideas for white in this variation? Where should white place the light and heavy pieces? Should the King always castle queenside? What setup should white aim for?

OK, this one was tough to crack!

I almost gave up, but I believe I have found enough resources to help you grasp the concept of play.

  What are the key ideas for white in this variation?

I think that you will find the answer you seek in this article. The second part is found here and contains relevant moves only-no additional explanations are added.

Still, it tells you enough to grasp the basics.

  Should the King always castle queenside?

Yes, otherwise what is the point of g4-it will only weaken the king right ?

  Where should white place the light and heavy pieces?

According to the first part of the above article, bishop goes to g5, the other one's placement depends from the concrete lines, the way I see it. Rooks go to d1 and g1/h3-the latter depending on the circumstances.

  What setup should white aim for?

The second part of the above article has a good theoretical coverage in my opinion, but ultimately the decision is yours since I am not an 1.e4 player and my theory knowledge is too rusty.

As member Fischer suggested, you can use this link to see some master games with commentary and try to learn something from them. Here is the link with some instructive games, in my opinion, that might help you-note the reference to this game in the comments.

NOTE: Not all the games are about Keres attack but please observe that this is a blog, not a theoretical book.

Another reason for including these links: Being FIDE master yourself, and those guys being IMs, you should have easier time understanding their moves and you should improve faster from those games.

This article mentions several key games for illustrating themes and ideas in Keres attack. To see them you need to register, but with some cleverness we can bypass this:

We know that the games mentioned were played in year 2007 or before, and know the names of the players and the ECO code of the opening. With these information it was not hard for me to find referenced games:

Sokolov-Nisipeanu ( notice that this blog mentions e5 as serious novelty for Black as well-see the commentary bellow the diagram! )

Searching through the same database I found only one game between Macieja and Kasimdzhanov where they played Keres attack so here is the link.

And here is the last game.

These illustrate key ideas for black and ways the White copes with them-positioning of the rooks and minor pieces. For the original commentary of those  you shall have to get by yourself.

A good thing would be to compare the moves with the current theory, and to use strong engine to analyze the critical middle-game positions in order to reveal the mistakes players made. This should give you better insight about minor piece/rook positioning.

EDIT:

There are no "typical plans" or "typical piece setup" in the Keres attack-only raw calculation and creativity.

You must be able to adapt to the every change in the position-which is logical-since these are open/semi-open games and that is the quality they require from a player.

Only closed/semi-closed systems can give you "typical plans/piece setup" which is logical when you think about it, since the closed nature of the position allows you to maneuver.

In open games things change rapidly, so to ask "typical plans" is pointless, especially in such a dynamic and sharp line like this. I would focus my attention on tactical sharpness.

The way I see it, you can use g4 to force Black into making a concession on the king side and to grab more space. Then you should use your better piece coordination and space advantage to increase your initiative. Playing through the games I see this idea for White over and over.

This is the way I would approach this problem.

END OF EDIT

Unfortunately this is all I can offer at the moment, hopefully it will be enough.

Good luck and best regards!


How to use dice to determine starting position in Fischer Random? Using a set of Platonic dice (tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron), what way of choosing the initial position in a game of Fischer Random Chess (Chess 960) uses the fewest dice throws?

I am looking for a way that

does not simply yield a number between 1 and 960 which you then look up on an ordered list of starting positions
allows pieces to be placed in sequence - for example, first the rooks, then the bishops, then the king, or in some other order
yields each of the 960 positions with equal probability

The rules state that for each player bishops must be on squares of opposite colour and the king must be between the rooks.

You do not have to use every die. If only, say, the octahedron needs to be used, that is fine!

Several methods to do so are described on Wikipedia. For example:

Roll all the dice in one throw and place White's pieces as follows:

Place a bishop on one of the eight squares (counting from the left, 'a' through 'h' ) as indicated by the octahedron (d8).

Place the other bishop on one of the four squares of opposite color as indicated by the tetrahedron (d4).

Place the queen on one of the remaining six squares as indicated by the cube (d6).

Take the value of the icosahedron (d20), divide by four  (round up), and let 'x' = the quotient, and 'y' = the remainder + 1. Place a knight on the 'x'-th empty square. Then place the other knight on the 'y'-th remaining empty square. In other words, see the d20 as a d5 for the first knight: 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16 and 17-20. Then for the second knight, look within the group to get a d4. For example, a 20 is in the fifth group and the fourth spot in that group, so place the knights on the fifth square and the fourth square. An 11 is in the third group and the third spot.

You can also use just a d10 since there are only ten unique placements of the knights once the bishops and queen has been placed. Hold one knight on the leftmost square and count one, two, three, four with the other knight on the empty square, then when it loops, move the leftmost knight one square to the right, five, six, seven, then it loops again, eight, nine, and finally with ten both knights are as far right as they go. For example, with a six the knight would be placed on the second of the five empty squares, then the second knight would be place on the second of the three squares that are empty to the right of the knight. Using a d10 in this way after two different colored d4:s and a d6 is a minimal one-roll way since 4×4×6×10 is exactly 960. (And, by subtracting one from each die and multipying with 1, 4, 16 and 96 respectively, then adding those numbers together, you find the number in the Chess960 numbering scheme.) The d8, d4, d6, d20 still give equal chance for all 960 positions, but with every position being represented in four different ways.
Or alternatively (using an additional die and different calculations): Place the first knight according to the value of the d20 die, by counting the five empty squares and looping back to the left whenever reaching the rightmost empty square. Then with four empty squares remaining, do the same for the other knight using the dodecahedron (d12) die. With this method, every position is represented in 48 different ways.

Place the king between the rooks on the remaining three squares.

It is stated (but not proven) that this method (and the others) "generat[e] random starting positions with equal probability".


Scid PGN analysis using Stockfish Scid outputs this analysis of a PGN file using the Stockfish engine:

What does the D mean? And where (e.g. a web page) is this actually explained?

This is a special mark meaning diagram. When you export the game into a PDF/LaTeX file positions after moves marked with D are rendered in the document.

The only documentation I've found is https://sourceforge.net/p/scid/wiki/HowToExportGames/. Scid vs PC documentation maybe is clearer http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/doc/Export.htm. But documentation is actually poor, I discovered this feature just testing the Export to LaTeX feature.